Cirrus down, Chapel Hill NC

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

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

I'm not familiar with that aircraft.

Nor any other.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jim Logajan writes:

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

Which datasets are you using?

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

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

Which datasets are you using?

For what?

Jim Logajan writes:

For what?

For the determination of how many aircraft are not being actively used, and
for the determination of any correlation between complexity and accident
rates.

On Jul 15, 9:33*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:
For what?

For the determination of how many aircraft are not being actively used, and
for the determination of any correlation between complexity and accident
rates.

What data sets are YOU using to base your uninformed opinion?????
Links please

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

For what?

For the determination of how many aircraft are not being actively
used, and for the determination of any correlation between complexity
and accident rates.

What post of mine made claims about such things?
Are you perhaps confusing my posts with someone elses?

Mxsmanic wrote:

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

2009 Statistics:

Cirrus SR-20/22: 23 accidents /3699 Registered aircraft = 0.62%

Diamond DA-40: 6 accidents / 700 Registered aircraft: 0.85%.

The DA-40's accident rate is just about the same as the new-production 172s.


Ron Wanttaja

In article ,
says...


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.


I do not agree that this advertisement _deliberately misleads_ anyone about
the capabilities of the aircraft, and I wonder if you really understand the
FIKI packages on Cirrus and Mooney to make the statements you do. I do agree
that the video portion of the ad glorifies flight with reduced margins, and
this is probably irresponsible advertising.

There is considerable discussion as to whether Cirrus is over-represented in
accident and fatality statistics, some of it quite well formulated, unlike
your comparisons with wildly different airplane populations (C172/Diamond)
which are quite meaningless. It will take more analysis to determine if, and
the extent to which Cirrus’ wide popularity has put too many inexperienced
pilots at the commands of too fast and too demanding an aircraft, with
resultant degradation of accident statistics. Today, such a statement is at
best an oversimplification, and your assertion that this is due to an
advertising campaign luring inexperienced pilots to their graves is hasty
and irresponsible.

It is surprising to me that someone with your demonstrated intelligence is so
consistently drawn to simplistic and fatuous arguments. Have you really no
interest or ability to discuss anything seriously?

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.

I've been looking at fatality rates in regards to homebuilt aircraft.
There's a strong correlation between the cruise speed of an aircraft
with its fatality rate. This is obvious...twice the speed at impact
means the occupants are subjected to four times the energy. The Cirrus
is faster than the 172, hence passengers will be subjected to more
energy in a crash.

Planes don't all CRASH at cruise speed, of course. But generally
speaking, faster airplanes have faster approach speeds and hence there's
more energy to be absorbed at impact.

For instance, compare the fatality ratio for the Lancair IV vs. the
Zenith CH 701. The Lancair's rate is about seven times higher.

The other factor is that Cessna 172s are commonly used as trainers, and
training accidents are usually more in the "fender bender" line. For
example, there were 155 Cessna 172 accidents in 2007. In over half the
cases (81), the NTSB report says the purpose of the flight was
instruction. Of those, only four resulted in fatalities.

Ron Wanttaja

On Jul 16, 12:53*am, VOR-DME wrote:
In article ,
says...



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.

I do not agree that this advertisement _deliberately misleads_ anyone about
the capabilities of the aircraft, and I wonder if you really understand the
FIKI packages on Cirrus and Mooney to make the statements you do. *I do agree
that the video portion of the ad glorifies flight with reduced margins, and
this is probably irresponsible advertising.

There is considerable discussion as to whether Cirrus is over-represented in
accident and fatality statistics, some of it quite well formulated, unlike
your comparisons with wildly different airplane populations (C172/Diamond)
which are quite meaningless. It will take more analysis to determine if, and *
the extent to which Cirrus’ wide popularity has put too many inexperienced
pilots at the commands of too fast and too demanding an aircraft, with
resultant degradation of accident statistics. Today, such a statement is at
best an oversimplification, and your assertion that this is due to an
advertising campaign luring inexperienced pilots to their graves *is hasty
and irresponsible.

It is surprising to me that someone with your demonstrated intelligence is so
consistently drawn to simplistic and fatuous arguments. Have you really no
interest or ability to discuss anything seriously?

Has anyone heard of a Cirrus going down because it flew into icing
conditions?

Icing conditions are most often found in IMC -- does any pilot among
us rated for IFR take his SEL into known icing conditions?
We have here someone with no known real world training in the art
offering his insights: humor him if you like, but there is no
evidence, at least none that I remember, that when confronted with
factual information that is in opposition to his views that he changed
his views.