Iced up Cirrus crashes

Richard Collins wrote about this type of things 10 years ago. He looked
at why us Mooney owners pay more in insurance than Arrow pilots and why
Mooneys have more wx accidents. His opinion was that the Mooney was
made to be a traveling machine, just like the Cirrus. When you have a
fast traveling machine you go places. When you go places you encounter
more weather. 172's don't encouter as many wx related accidents because
if your mission is to cross the Sierras 10 times per year, you don't
buy a 172.
Perhaps the Cirrus appeals to less experienced pilots as well.
Personally, I don't see the chute as a selling point. Most accidents
happen close to the ground where the chute doesn't help and most wx
accidents happen after the plane has over stressed and come apart,
again something the chute doesn't really address (obviously since you
can't even use the chute when you're in an uncontrolled high speed
decent typical of TS or ice encounters).However, that's just my
opinion. I'm sure newly minted pilots see it as more of a benefit and
perhaps there, they attrack more inexperienced pilots.

-Robert CFI and Mooney driver

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
Richard Collins wrote about this type of things 10 years ago. He looked
at why us Mooney owners pay more in insurance than Arrow pilots and why
Mooneys have more wx accidents. His opinion was that the Mooney was
made to be a traveling machine, just like the Cirrus. When you have a
fast traveling machine you go places. When you go places you encounter
more weather. 172's don't encouter as many wx related accidents because
if your mission is to cross the Sierras 10 times per year, you don't
buy a 172.
Perhaps the Cirrus appeals to less experienced pilots as well.

I wonder if new(er) pilots see it as a fixed gear single and automatically
equate it to a 172 or a 182 at most. The analogy is only remotely linked.

Just wondering.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Richard Collins wrote about this type of things 10 years ago. He
looked
at why us Mooney owners pay more in insurance than Arrow pilots and
why
Mooneys have more wx accidents.

This is all well and good, but the reality is that the Mooney is a
significantly different airplane. It's 10-15 kts faster than an
equivalent Arrow on the same engine and fuel burn, and it actually has
a higher useful load. In fact, even the Comanche 180 is faster than an
Arrow and has a higher useful load and a bigger cabin - on 20 hp less.
That's because, as I've mentioned before, the Arrow isn't really a
complex airplane - it's a Cherokee with a couple of extra levers. It
handles like a Cherokee - stable and docile. The Mooney is more
demanding to fly, and will overload a pilot faster.

In other words - it's not just the mission, it's the airplane too.

Michael

I think the plane is the mission. The reason you get into more Wx in a
Mooney is because its faster with a higher load. It becomes the
airplane of choice for people who want to fly long distances. If it had
shorter legs like an Arrow, it wouldn't cross as many wx systems.

But getting into weather is not in and of itself enough to cause an
accident. You also need to make bad decisions and/or mishandle the
airplane. The higher the workload, the more likely you are to do that,
all else being equal.

The workload of flying a Mooney is higher than the workload of flying
an Arrow. It's not as forgiving. Thus I would expect that the same
pilots flying the same airplane in the same conditions would
nonetheless have more accidents in a Mooney.

Michael

I don't follow the workload issue. Yes, the Mooney may require a bit
more skill to land but in cruise I've not noticed it flying much
different than an Arrow (just faster). I've had both, I love my Mooney
best. The Mooney is the ideal plane for tall guys like me. My partner
is of average size and finds it difficult to find the rabbit on the ILS
and see over the glareshield as well as trying to reach the rudders.
Short guys beware.

-Robert

I'm not convinced there is anything wrong with the aircraft per se.

Having flown one, I am absolutely convinced there is nothing wrong with
it - assuming you have the right pilot in the seat. Actually, I rather
like the aircraft. It's roomy and comfortable, the visibility is
excellent, the panel (meaning the new glass panel) spectacular in both
functionality and redundancy, and the side-yoke is a damn good idea. I
find it slightly less demanding to fly in IMC than a V-tail Bonanza,
but the difference comes entirely from improved
ergonomics/instrumentation. The airframe itself, despite being fixed
gear, is just as slippery and pitch-sensitive as a Bonanza with the
gear up, and maybe more so. On top of that, you can't slow down by
dropping the gear.

I've often said that an Arrow is not really a complex airplane - it's
just a Cherokee with a couple of extra levers. The same principle
applies to the Cirrus - it's not really a simple airplane, it's a
Bonanza with a couple of levers missing. Further, adding the parachute
makes the decisionmaking AND the flying of the emergency procedure more
complex AND more demanding than in a Bonanza - it's part of the way to
being a light twin. Here we have an accident where the pilot didn't
keep his airspeed under control - and so of course the parachute did
him no good. Conceptually, that's no different than a twin accident
where the pilot fails to control airspeed in the single engine
configuration.

their marketing is still touting the product as providing quantum
improvements in safety, which it manifestly does not.

Actually, I suspect it does provide some improvement. I suspect that
if the same pilots with the same level of training were flying around
in traditional heavy singles and light twins, the carnage would be
worse. But the Cirrus business plan has always been to dramatically
increase the number of pilots who fly for transportation, not simply
take market share away from Beech or Mooney. I didn't think it was
viable then, and I don't think it's viable now.

Is Cirrus is selling a disproportionate number of airplanes to
inexperienced pilots?

That's certainly the impression I'm getting - the pilots either have
low total time or low time in a similar class of airplane (and by
similar class of airplane, I mean Bonanza, Viking, late model Mooney,
etc.). I'm not seeing any accidents in the Cirrus being caused by
pilots with hundreds of hours in a Bonanza or a Viking.

It's not that a low time pilot CAN'T safely fly one. With the right
instruction and the right attitude, it's very doable. However, the
typical buyer of a Cirrus (near as I can tell) is a self-made man in
late middle age. He is very likely to be a business owner (as this one
was). Such people generally didn't get to where they are today by
listening to all the people telling them what they couldn't do. Such
people are also not going to hang around the airport absorbing
knowledge. They're not going to meet the kind of instructor who can
really teach them to get utility from that airplane without becoming
statistics, and they're not going to rearrange their schedules and put
up with his quirks to fly with him. And so we're goign to keep seeing
accidents like this.

Michael

Would you say they (Cirrus) have become the new "doctor/lawyer killer"?

Later,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument

This sounds like a troll post, but I will respond...

No, I wouldn't. I am a reasonably low time, 215 hour-ish (f/w)
instrument rated PP, and I find the SR20 to be a pretty easy airplane to
fly, given my limited experience with sub-200hp airplanes. Having just
done an hour in a high performance Mooney 231 yesterday (with no
previous logged high-perf time), I can opine that a "simplistic"
airplane such as the SR20 is a LOT easier to manage than the 231, which
is at least roughly comparable performance-wise to the V-Bonanza that
got the reputation you mention.

IMO (as others have said) the Cirrus is getting more negative press than
it deserves due to its "different-ness" as compared to more traditional
light airplanes. It was certificated under different rules than the 2oth
century Cessnas/Pipers/etc. and it will take some time for folks to come
around to this new way of thinking about what's safe.

The bottom line is - if I was going to buy an airplane, I'd look much
more enthusiastically at mid-timed Cirri than equivalent late-model
Cessnas (Pipers are not even on my scope due to the single door).

However, my pennies are being saved for something with a rotor 8^) .

Dave Blevins

On 11 Feb 2005 19:02:49 -0800, "Steve.T" wrote:

Would you say they (Cirrus) have become the new "doctor/lawyer killer"?

Later,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument

In article ,
wrote:

However, my pennies are being saved for something with a rotor 8^) .

I have logged half an hour of 'copter time, and frankly they scare the
pants off me. (It was a sight to see, let me tell you.) My
understanding is that:

1. If you take your hand off the stick, you die.

2. If you within some (fairly large) envelope of unsafe combinations of
altitude and airspeed and your engine fails, you die.

3. If the engine fails and you don't notice within some small number of
seconds, you die, even if you were in the "safe" range of altitude and
airspeed to begin with.

Is that correct? A copter pilot friend of mine told me this years ago,
but it occurred to me that he may have been exaggerating to make himself
look studly. So I thought I'd do a little reality check here. Any
'copter pilots here that can set me straight?

rg