Cirrus down, Chapel Hill NC

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

In order to get a somewhat valid comparison.

What's invalid about comparing all Cessnas?

As the airplane gets older, the odds that it is not flying gets higher.

The numbers of both built are in the same ballpark and the ages are comparable
so the same percentage of both are likely still flying.

What evidence is there that older aircraft are not being flown?

Simple observation at any GA airport.

Because no one knows how many of them are still flying.

Nobody knows how many of the new aircraft are flying, either.

By comparing comperable age aircraft, the likelyhood is that the non-flying
fractions are both smaller and more likely equal.

If you had ever visited any real airports you would know there are lots of
airplanes that exist on the records but don't fly, or even exist anymore.

Why would Cessnas produced before Cirrus was around be especially prone to
non-flying status?

Because they are old, because the owners are likely old and have stopped
flying.

By comparing aircraft produced during the same period those differences
go away and you get a true comparison.

How about comparing Cirrus with Diamond?

Why?

Are you finally realizing your statements are not backed up by fact and
now you want to change the subject?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jul 15, 1:31*pm, wrote:

Are you finally realizing your statements are not backed up by fact and
now you want to change the subject?

They never are backed up with statements as shown consistently in this
thread and when called to task, he answers a question with a question
as a diversion to the root of the problem and that he hasn't a clue
what he talks about in the real world of aviation.

writes:

As the airplane gets older, the odds that it is not flying gets higher.

Are you sure? Where did you acquire this information?

Simple observation at any GA airport.

How do you determine the flying history and age of an aircraft by simple
observation?

By comparing comperable age aircraft, the likelyhood is that the non-flying
fractions are both smaller and more likely equal.

How do you know that?

Because they are old, because the owners are likely old and have stopped
flying.

How do you know this?

Why?

Because comparing Cirrus with Diamond would make it harder to manipulate the
numbers to conceal any higher accident rate with Cirrus.

On Jul 15, 12:28*am, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
a writes:

It may be selective memory on my part, but it seems these airplanes
have been over represented among GA accidents lately.

They are indeed over-represented.

No. *Their accident rate is less than that of Cessna 172s manufactured
over the same time period.

In 2009, there were 23 Cirrus accidents, vs. 3699 aircraft registered as
of January 2010. *There were 3003 Cessna 172s on the registry that had
been manufactured since production restarted in the '90s. *The NTSB
accident listing for 2009 shows 23 Cessna 172S models and four 172R models.

Cirrus: *23/3699 = *0.62%

New-Production 172s: *27/3003 = 0.89%

Ron Wanttaja

That you compared aircraft and accident rates manufactured in the same
interval -- S model 172s -- very nicely compares apples with apples
in my view. Nice data, nice logic.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

In order to get a somewhat valid comparison.

What's invalid about comparing all Cessnas?

The numbers of both built are in the same ballpark and the ages are
comparable
so the same percentage of both are likely still flying.

What evidence is there that older aircraft are not being flown?

Because no one knows how many of them are still flying.

Nobody knows how many of the new aircraft are flying, either.

If you had ever visited any real airports you would know there are lots
of
airplanes that exist on the records but don't fly, or even exist anymore.

Why would Cessnas produced before Cirrus was around be especially prone to
non-flying status?

How about comparing Cirrus with Diamond? Both companies are about the same
age. Which has more accidents?

Shirley, you jest!

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

As the airplane gets older, the odds that it is not flying gets higher.

Are you sure? Where did you acquire this information?

Simple observation at any GA airport.

How do you determine the flying history and age of an aircraft by simple
observation?

By comparing comperable age aircraft, the likelyhood is that the
non-flying
fractions are both smaller and more likely equal.

How do you know that?

Because they are old, because the owners are likely old and have stopped
flying.

How do you know this?

Why?

Because comparing Cirrus with Diamond would make it harder to manipulate
the
numbers to conceal any higher accident rate with Cirrus.

Those of us who use, or have used, the equipment find it pretty essy and
surprisingly accurate. It works pretty well for boats, cars and trucks, and
even lawnmowers as well.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

As the airplane gets older, the odds that it is not flying gets higher.

Are you sure? Where did you acquire this information?

Life and the fact that the FAA acknowledges the fact that there are a lot
of registered but not flying, or even existing, aircraft.

Simple observation at any GA airport.

How do you determine the flying history and age of an aircraft by simple
observation?

If you had ever been to a GA airport, you wouldn't ask such a stupid
question.

By comparing comperable age aircraft, the likelyhood is that the non-flying
fractions are both smaller and more likely equal.

How do you know that?

It is obvious.

Because they are old, because the owners are likely old and have stopped
flying.

How do you know this?

Simple observation at any GA airport.

Why?

Because comparing Cirrus with Diamond would make it harder to manipulate the
numbers to conceal any higher accident rate with Cirrus.

Babbling nonsense.

Both of your "comparisons" are bogus from the start.

It has been well documented that the faster and more complex an aircraft is,
the higher the accident rate.

Comparing Cirrus to a C172 or anything Diamond makes is nonsense as the
Cirrus is a fast, complex airplane.




--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

a wrote:
On Jul 15, 12:28Â*am, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
a writes:

It may be selective memory on my part, but it seems these airplanes
have been over represented among GA accidents lately.

They are indeed over-represented.

No. Â*Their accident rate is less than that of Cessna 172s manufactured
over the same time period.

In 2009, there were 23 Cirrus accidents, vs. 3699 aircraft registered as
of January 2010. Â*There were 3003 Cessna 172s on the registry that had
been manufactured since production restarted in the '90s. Â*The NTSB
accident listing for 2009 shows 23 Cessna 172S models and four 172R models.

Cirrus: Â*23/3699 = Â*0.62%

New-Production 172s: Â*27/3003 = 0.89%

Ron Wanttaja

That you compared aircraft and accident rates manufactured in the same
interval -- S model 172s -- very nicely compares apples with apples
in my view. Nice data, nice logic.

Yeah and with rates that low you can not establish any "blame" on the
manufacturer, you are down into the realm of random, stupid pet tricks.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
a writes:

It may be selective memory on my part, but it seems these airplanes
have been over represented among GA accidents lately.

They are indeed over-represented.

No. Their accident rate is less than that of Cessna 172s manufactured
over the same time period.

In 2009, there were 23 Cirrus accidents, vs. 3699 aircraft registered
as of January 2010. There were 3003 Cessna 172s on the registry that
had been manufactured since production restarted in the '90s. The
NTSB accident listing for 2009 shows 23 Cessna 172S models and four
172R models.

Cirrus: 23/3699 = 0.62%

New-Production 172s: 27/3003 = 0.89%

Having between 0.5% and 1% of an aircraft fleet (or subset) involved in
accidents per year always seemed a high attrition rate to me. But I can't
say I ever bothered to check before what the equivalent number was with
respect to automobiles. A quick check of approximate number of autos in the
U.S.[1] and accidents per year in the U.S.[2] seems to yield:

Autos: 6,000,000/250,000,000 = 2.4%

On the other hand, the auto accidents probably include many fender benders
which would probably be more equivalent to "Incidents" rather than
"Accidents" as those terms are defined by the FAA (or NTSB?), so the two
ratios aren't directly comparable. For fatal automobile accidents[3] the
numbers appear to be (roughly):

Fatal Auto Accidents: 40,000/250,000,000 = 0.016%

And idea how many of those Cirrus and Cessna 172 accidents involved
fatalities?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passeng..._United_States
[2] http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html
[3] http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/f...tatistics.html

writes:

It has been well documented that the faster and more complex an aircraft is,
the higher the accident rate.

Explain bizjets.

Comparing Cirrus to a C172 or anything Diamond makes is nonsense as the
Cirrus is a fast, complex airplane.

I suppose that's a matter of viewpoint, but if it's true, then most of this
thread is moot, isn't it?

Let's look at it a different way: How much does it cost to insure a Cessna
172, and how much does it cost to insure a Cirrus SR-22?