Cirrus down, Chapel Hill NC

Jim Logajan writes:

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

A quick look at the NTSB database reveals 85 fatalities for Cessna 172s since
January 1, 2008, and 48 fatalities for Cirrus SR-22s since that same date.

There are 26,163 Cessna 172s registered currently, and 3,746 Cirrus SR-22s.

The fatality rate during this period on a per-aircraft basis is therefore
0.00324 for Cessna 172s and 0.01281 for Cirrus SR-22s. The rate for the SR-22s
is thus nearly four times higher than that for Cessna 172s.

Now, if you are convinced that 23,000 Cessna 172s are idle and only 3000 or so
are flying, and/or that all Ciruss SR-22s are flying, you're going to have to
show data to support this--otherwise it is pure and misleading speculation.
Just glancing at aircraft at the local airport won't do.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

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

Explain bizjets.

Why?

The discussion was piston aircraft, or are you just being your asshole,
grasp at straws, try to turn the discussion from your original statement,
self?

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?

Yep, just about everything you've said on the subject is pointless, pulled
out of your ass, babble.


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?

Yet another apples and oranges comparison?

Why don't you compare the cost to insure a Honda Civic to a Mercedes E550?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

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

A quick look at the NTSB database reveals 85 fatalities for Cessna 172s since
January 1, 2008, and 48 fatalities for Cirrus SR-22s since that same date.

There are 26,163 Cessna 172s registered currently, and 3,746 Cirrus SR-22s.

The fatality rate during this period on a per-aircraft basis is therefore
0.00324 for Cessna 172s and 0.01281 for Cirrus SR-22s. The rate for the SR-22s
is thus nearly four times higher than that for Cessna 172s.

How does that compare to the rate for a Chevrolet Corvair?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Explain bizjets.

Why?

Because you said that the faster and more complex an aircraft is, the higher
the accident rate. But the rate for bizjets and larger transport aircraft is
very low, which invalidates your statement.

The discussion was piston aircraft, or are you just being your asshole,
grasp at straws, try to turn the discussion from your original statement,
self?

No, I'm exposing the flaws in your arguments. Clearly, the complexity or
speed of an aircraft does not lead to more accidents in itself. Nor does a
combination of complexity, speed, and a piston engine.

Why don't you compare the cost to insure a Honda Civic to a Mercedes E550?

Surely you are not comparing a Civic to a C172 and a Mercedes to a SR22?

If you want to see an example of how Cirrus deliberately misleads its
customers, check out this page:

http://www.cirrusaircraft.com/perspective/fiki.aspx

It is clearly written to create the false and dangerous impression that
certification for flight into known icing conditions allows a pilot to fly
indefinitely in icing conditions of any kind with impunity, when the reality
is almost diametrically opposed to that impression. Naive, low-time pilots
reading this ad may be led astray in ways that will lead to their early
demise.

writes:

How does that compare to the rate for a Chevrolet Corvair?

I'm not familiar with that aircraft.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Jim Logajan writes:

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

A quick look at the NTSB database reveals 85 fatalities for Cessna 172s
since
January 1, 2008, and 48 fatalities for Cirrus SR-22s since that same date.

There are 26,163 Cessna 172s registered currently, and 3,746 Cirrus
SR-22s.

The fatality rate during this period on a per-aircraft basis is therefore
0.00324 for Cessna 172s and 0.01281 for Cirrus SR-22s. The rate for the
SR-22s
is thus nearly four times higher than that for Cessna 172s.

Now, if you are convinced that 23,000 Cessna 172s are idle and only 3000
or so
are flying, and/or that all Ciruss SR-22s are flying, you're going to have
to
show data to support this--otherwise it is pure and misleading
speculation.
Just glancing at aircraft at the local airport won't do.

Using your figures, fatal accidents are lower for the Cirrus SR22 than for
automobiles.

As to accidents involving "substantial damage" to automobiles, for which I
have never seen a seperate statistic, the point probably is that there is no
point!

Peter Dohm writes:

Using your figures, fatal accidents are lower for the Cirrus SR22 than for
automobiles.

Of that I have no doubt.

On Jul 13, 7:47*am, a wrote:
It may be selective memory on my part, but it seems these airplanes
have been over represented among GA accidents lately.

The story of this crash can be found here (and elsewhere)

http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_s...e-Plane-crashe...

A little more about this crash.

It appears the airplane landed, bounced along the runway, and 600 feet
from touchdown went off the runway, hit a tree, and the impact
deployed the rescue parachute.

At first blush, an accident on landing. The NTSB report will be
instructive, it's not often I've read of GA airplanes at that stage of
landing being in a fatality.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/07/...ay-veered.html

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

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

A quick look at the NTSB database reveals 85 fatalities for Cessna
172s since January 1, 2008, and 48 fatalities for Cirrus SR-22s since
that same date.

I was asking Ron for the number of accidents in his count that yielded
fatalities, not the number of fatalities for your subset.

There are 26,163 Cessna 172s registered currently, and 3,746 Cirrus
SR-22s.

As has been already pointed out to you, the registration count for
Cessna 172s does not provide any idea how many are actually in use for
any measurement period. Here is what the FAA says about their
registration records with respect to this issue:

"Of the more than 343,000 aircraft registered, an estimated 104,000, or
about one-third, are possibly no longer eligible for registration."
From:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu... ndSection=-5

Now, if you are convinced that 23,000 Cessna 172s are idle and only
3000 or so are flying, and/or that all Ciruss SR-22s are flying,

Unfortunately you continue to use data sets that have already been
pointed out as unreliable basis for normalization.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Explain bizjets.

Why?

Because you said that the faster and more complex an aircraft is, the higher
the accident rate. But the rate for bizjets and larger transport aircraft is
very low, which invalidates your statement.

The discussion was GA spam cans whether you want to admit that or not.

The discussion was piston aircraft, or are you just being your asshole,
grasp at straws, try to turn the discussion from your original statement,
self?

No, I'm exposing the flaws in your arguments. Clearly, the complexity or
speed of an aircraft does not lead to more accidents in itself. Nor does a
combination of complexity, speed, and a piston engine.

Yes, it does, and it has been shown time and time again.

The C210 accident rate was greater than the C182 accident rate which was
greater than the C172 accident rate.

The same occured for all makers and when comparing comperabale aircraft,
such as a C172 to a Warrior, the rates were comperable.

Why don't you compare the cost to insure a Honda Civic to a Mercedes E550?

Surely you are not comparing a Civic to a C172 and a Mercedes to a SR22?

It makes as much sense as comparing a C172 to a SR22.

The comperable Cessna aircraft was the now out of production C210.

snip babble


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.