Why is the Cirrus so dangerous?

[DavidWhite]

Looking at the NTSB database, there have been 7 fatal accidents in both Cirrus models since January first, while there are 10 in the skyhawk. There were only 18 incidents since January, but 8 of them resuluted in fatalities giving you a near 50% chance of surviving a crash, while there were 106 crashes involving skyhawks. Giving you more than 90%.

There have been about 4,000 Cirrus built, and about 45,000 skyhawks (many of which probably arent flying)

So, why are they so dangerous? Do they attract bad pilots? Are they just lousy planes? (With poorly designed fuel tanks) Whats the scoop?

 

[Jim Logajan]

COPA's safety director told me 80% of Cirrus accidents involve the 20% of Cirrus owners who don't participate in COPA's annual refresher training programs. The question that hasn't been answered is whether that's because the programs are that good, or because that 20% are the ones who choose not to participate for the same reasons they make bad decisions in flight -- general blockheadedness (aka invulnerability, macho, and anti-authority attitudes), i.e, even if they did the training they wouldn't change the dumb ways they operate their airplanes (see Law of Readiness in your Aviation Instructor's Handbook). I suspect the latter has a lot to do with it given the way and to whom Cirrus markets their product -- pretty much all just dumb pilot tricks.

The following would argue against the old "marketed to newbies" as causal - simple overconfidence and/or complacency on the part of higher-time pilots seems a likely common factor, to the extent any common factor exists:

From: http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/Safetylessonslearned.aspx"Surprisingly, high-time pilots are involved in more than half of the Cirrus fatal accidents. Critics of Cirrus Design often complain about the marketing to newbie pilots, so they expect a rash of accidents involving low-time pilots. Not so.

Pilots with more than 400 hours total time were involved in 22 of 41 fatal accidents with 11 to be determined. That level of experience usually comes from several years of flying. Yet, that experience did not keep them out of trouble.

Interestingly, only one pilot in a Cirrus fatal accident had less than 150 hours total time, and that was Cory Lidle, who had an instructor in the right seat during the accident.

Unfortunately, we do not know the proportion of Cirrus pilots with high or low experience. Therefore, we cannot determine if pilots with low experience have a greater rate of accidents. However, with the addition of Cirrus airplanes to flight training schools for primary flight instruction, we know that the pool of new pilots is growing.

Furthermore, pilots with instrument, commercial and instructor certificates were involved in three-quarters of all Cirrus fatal accidents."

 

[Jim Logajan]

Whats the scoop?

Take a look at the article I linked to in post #33. If there is any single factor that stands out (and nothing ever stands out that much) it appears to me to be that the Cirrus is being utilized more in marginal weather than aircraft like the Skyhawk.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I'd rather have a Bonanza or Mooney than a Cirrus any day of the week. It makes no sense to me, spending >$300k on a 4 place single that does 155kts.

Same applies to the TTx, $750k for a piston single with a 900lb useful load? It baffles me people pay these prices for these airplanes.

According to the numbers from Wikipedia:
In 2006 a new Beechcraft Bonanza (~176 kts, 1133 lbs useful) sold for ~$700k.
In 2008 a new Mooney Acclaim (~237 kts, 1004 lbs useful) sold for ~$580k.
In 2009 a new Cirrus SR22 (~185 kts, 1174 lbs useful) sold for ~$530k.

Perhaps your preference for Bonanza and Mooney airplanes refers to airplanes built decades ago - well before Cirrus existed. When compared to aircraft of similar vintage and mission profile, it seems to me Cirrus models have been roughly comparable to their peers value-wise.

 

[Jim Logajan]

The trouble with the chute and spins is that I you don't pull it durng the incipient stage (like first 900ft or something) then you end up outside of the parachute envelope.

News to me - you sure about this? Just how fast do you think a Cirrus would be moving in a spin? Keep in mind that if wings are stalled (as they are in a spin,) that means the angle of attack is large, so the wings are producing a lot of drag. Overspeed can happen in spin recovery, or a spiral, so maybe one of those conditions is what you are thinking of?

 

[Jim Logajan]

Yes, it is in the POH that the chute must be pulled within ~900ft or something.

<---<^>--->

Perhaps you are thinking of this quote from the SR20 POH/Information Manual:
"The minimum demonstrated altitude loss for a CAPS deployment from a one-turn spin is 920 feet. Activation at higher altitudes provides enhanced safety margins for parachute recoveries. Do not waste time and altitude trying to recover from a spiral/spin before activating CAPS."
The only limitation they list regarding maximum speed is 135 KIAS. But in another document here it indicates at least one known successful deployment at up to 168 KIAS. There was at least one deployment from 528 feet AGL after 3 spins in which 3 of the 4 people on board survived.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I thought this was interesting:

http://virginiabeach.injuryboard.co...s-vs-cessna-small-planes.aspx?googleid=262436

http://stevewilsonblog.com/2009/04/16/dead-pilots-dont-lie.aspx

The fatality rate computed in the Steve Wilson blog is way outside the range computed by several other people who are not affiliated with either Cirrus or Cessna.