Another Cirrus Parachute "Save" 12/29

[VWGhiaBob]

I'm not sure how one could conclude that in the absence of quality, reliable, consistent data regarding hours flown by type and for the fleet in total.

That's because you haven't seen the data, dude. There's a ton of it, all posted at www.cirruspilots.com, in-depth analysis by the best in the business, with detailed notes on every single Cirrus crash, lessons learned, comparison with the rest of GA using NTSB and other data. Sorry, but the site is subscription only...proceeds used to fund the site and safety training.

Cirrus started out in the early years with a terrible fatality record, until Cirrus figured out that the plane required more training than your average 172 or PA28. Since this training began, the fatality rate has fallen a very low level (.6 per 100,000 hours if memory serves). While this is still too high, it beats other comparable planes.

In short, there's data up the wazoo.

 

[Sam D]

That's because you haven't seen the data, dude. There's a ton of it, all posted at www.cirruspilots.com, in-depth analysis by the best in the business, with detailed notes on every single Cirrus crash, lessons learned, comparison with the rest of GA using NTSB and other data. Sorry, but the site is subscription only...proceeds used to fund the site and safety training.

Cirrus started out in the early years with a terrible fatality record, until Cirrus figured out that the plane required more training than your average 172 or PA28. Since this training began, the fatality rate has fallen a very low level (6. per 100,000 hours if memory serves). While this is still too high, it beats other comparable planes.

In short, there's data up the wazoo.

So I went looking and came across this article. By their own admission:

*Caution on comparing fatal accident rates
Care must be taken when comparing fatal accident rates with other aircraft models or manufacturers. Because the Reliability Engineering staff at Cirrus Aircraft maintain a database of flight hours by serial number for their world-wide fleet, we have access to the estimated fleet hours for Cirrus SR2X aircraft. COPA then uses those hours with the world-wide number of accidents to compute a rate. We know of no other manufacturer that shares their fleet flying hours. And as stated above, we use both the 12-month and 36-month intervals to address the effects of a small fleet of about 1/30 of the 150,000 single-engine fixed-wing piston aircraft in the FAA database.

To be clear, I'm absolutely not trying to start one of those "it's the Internet, I'm right you're wrong" threads. I've been thinking about this for a while and wonder how significant the error rate might be in the differing methodologies.

Sam (who had the pleasure of chatting with Rick Beach at breakfast on Saturday)

 

[StinkBug]

If I was an airplane, I'd care more about the accident rate, but since I'm a human being, I care a lot more about my survival than my plane's.

I'm right there with you, however my statement was in response to someone talking about the number of Cirrus falling out of the sky seeming high. If we're looking at the airplane then we need to look at all incidents, not just the ones where people died. Otherwise we're not getting a fair comparison.

 

[James331]

Is ADS-B going to provide us with much better "hours flown" stats?

Until they try to force "user fees" then you'll see, or rather not see, lots of "inop" transponders.

 

[unsafervguy]

That's because you haven't seen the data, dude. There's a ton of it, all posted at www.cirruspilots.com, in-depth analysis by the best in the business, with detailed notes on every single Cirrus crash, lessons learned, comparison with the rest of GA using NTSB and other data. Sorry, but the site is subscription only...proceeds used to fund the site and safety training.

Cirrus started out in the early years with a terrible fatality record, until Cirrus figured out that the plane required more training than your average 172 or PA28. Since this training began, the fatality rate has fallen a very low level (6. per 100,000 hours if memory serves). While this is still too high, it beats other comparable planes.

In short, there's data up the wazoo.

the problem being is that data crunching for the most part starts with what you are trying to prove, not what the data says. most people are fanatical about the aircraft they own is some way. this leads them to look at the data in a way tilted towards there end.

comparing bo's with cirrus's has problems in that the numbers of aircraft built, the age of the aircraft, number of hours on airframes and engines are all over the place. also, there are a lot of bo's that sit in hangers and seldom fly, cirrus's tend to fly more and and seem to fly in weather a lot more (in general). this can lead to serious errors when crunching data.

the bottom line is that generally the numbers are close to the same all across the board for aircraft types.

does the caps add to safety, who really knows. it is a great tool to have in the bag, but is it worth the cost? that is up to the person buying it. is the use of it stressed to much? good question. there have been pulls I have questioned, and crashes where it should have been pulled and it wasn't.

is the cirrus a great airplane, some way yes, someways no. same for every aircraft out there.

Again, the only question is why do there seem to be so many engine problems lately with the cirrus fleet. the stats are about 20% of GA crashes are do to mechanical failure, there seems to be a large number lately. the question is, "is that due to a engine problem, maintenance problems, or operational problems?

bob

 

[StinkBug]

Again, the only question is why do there seem to be so many engine problems lately with the cirrus fleet. the stats are about 20% of GA crashes are do to mechanical failure, there seems to be a large number lately. the question is, "is that due to a engine problem, maintenance problems, or operational problems?

bob

Or is the problem only perceived and not real, because Cirrus get so much extra scrutiny?

 

[unsafervguy]

Or is the problem only perceived and not real, because Cirrus get so much extra scrutiny?

there were 18 entries for the cirrus on the ntsb site for 2015. 7 of those were power loss. which is 26%, that is higher than the 20% that I have heard the ntsb state for mechanical cause for the GA fleet. given the the cirrus is a lot newer than most of the planes in the GA fleet, with the exception of infant mortality you would expect the rate to be lower do to lower time on parts. its not a lot higher but again I would expect it to be a little lower. granted, some of those may later be found to be operational issues that cased power loss that may bring the numbers in line with the national average. I have no idea if there is a larger number of engine failures in this fleet, but I do find the numbers an interesting study. you may be 100% right.

bob

 

[rocketflyer84]

Aviation safety stats, like many stats, are a finicky beast. One can easily make the stats say what they want them to say. There are too many factors at play, some of which there is little or no data for.

Anecdotally there are certainly cases of where the chute saved the day. Bigger picture though the jury is really out on if net net the cost spent on a chute returns better outcomes than that cost spend elsewhere.

The Cirrus lobby looks at a crash with the chute and everyone says look, everyone should have a chute. Others look at the same accident and say the pilot ran a tank dry and didn't follow basic procedures of switching to his other full tank therefore a lack of competency and training was the issue and where investment should have been made. Both have valid points.

I applaud the Cirrus users for getting things together over the last few years and starting to turn around what were seen by many as very high accident rates early on. This does, however, somewhat fall into the "other camp's" argument that in the end it's better pilot training rather than gizmos that have a bigger impact on safety and thus while the chute is great it's not where the focus should be.

Both training and gizmos are likely best, but that's not always realistic. I'm still mostly in the camp of saying money towards better training provides better return than money towards gizmos and I think all would agree there is a subset of pilots that have a dangerous setup of more money than skill with their interest too much on a plane's features and not enough on their own skill sets.

All else equal I'd rather have the chute than not since it gives more options, but I usually call BS whenever someone tries to take some subset of stats to "proove" the chutes value overall given the low data quality. That usually tells me there's more agenda behind the findings that hard science.

 

[olasek]

that is higher than the 20% that I have heard the ntsb state for mechanical cause for the GA fleet. given the the cirrus is a lot newer than most of the planes in the GA fleet, with the exception of infant mortality you would expect the rate to be lower do to lower time on parts.

I would think that the age of parts have but tiny influence on 'loss of engine power' incident rate. On the other hand 20% versus 26% is almost identical within such small sample rate. Unless you can show such difference over a dozen or so years - it is practically indistinguishable in the language of statistics. I would also remove all known 'user errors' before making any such comparison.

 

[rocketflyer84]

I would think that the age of parts have but tiny influence on 'loss of engine power' incident rate. On the other hand 20% versus 26% is almost identical within such small sample rate. Unless you can show such difference over a dozen or so years - it is practically indistinguishable in the language of statistics. I would also remove all known 'user errors' before making any such comparison.

Indeed, engines are finicky animals. In some ways a brand new engine off the production line is riskier than an old one (provided it's been well maintained).

 

[Challenged]

My cousin actually replaced the entire engine in his SR22 shortly after purchase. He didn't give me the details, but I recall him insisting the entire engine be replaced due to one or more issues after purchasing it new. That's not really data, but thought I'd share the anecdote.

 

[N801BH]

My cousin actually replaced the entire engine in his SR22 shortly after purchase. He didn't give me the details, but I recall him insisting the entire engine be replaced due to one or more issues after purchasing it new. That's not really data, but thought I'd share the anecdote.

Did Cirrus actually pay for the new motor??

 

[StinkBug]

there were 18 entries for the cirrus on the ntsb site for 2015. 7 of those were power loss. which is 26%, that is higher than the 20% that I have heard the ntsb state for mechanical cause for the GA fleet. given the the cirrus is a lot newer than most of the planes in the GA fleet, with the exception of infant mortality you would expect the rate to be lower do to lower time on parts. its not a lot higher but again I would expect it to be a little lower. granted, some of those may later be found to be operational issues that cased power loss that may bring the numbers in line with the national average. I have no idea if there is a larger number of engine failures in this fleet, but I do find the numbers an interesting study. you may be 100% right.

bob

Just wanna note 2 things. First in a sample of only 18 being off by one is nearly a 6% change. Second, your math doesn't add up. 7 out of 18 does not equal 26%, it's 39%. Did you mean to type 28 total? cause that would make 25%

 

[wayne]

The engine in the SR22 I'm flying has 2400+ hours on it and going well. Last oil analysis was great.

 

[Aaronk25]

Is the restart after tank run dry procedure complicated in a cirrus? Also why the 10gallon fuel imbalance limitation? Is this because of the chute?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

Is the restart after tank run dry procedure complicated in a cirrus? Also why the 10gallon fuel imbalance limitation? Is this because of the chute?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The run dry restart procedure is as follows:
"When the imbalance between the two tanks is > 9 gallons, switch tanks. You will be reminded throughout your flight constantly."

I have no idea but assume most low wings have an imbalance max?

Our tb9 had references to switching every x minutes or gallons. I can't remember.

Thing is it is sort of obvious if you are not using the A/P, you can start to feel the imbalance. IMO you really have to not be paying attention to some chatty things in the plane to let it go this far.

 

[Kritchlow]

If it's that critical, one would think it's an automatic function along with some sort of master warning light (diffenent than a passive message on the screen).

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

If it's that critical, one would think it's an automatic function along with some sort of master warning light (diffenent than a passive message on the screen).

I am going to be snarky here.
If you miss this long enough for a 38 Gal offset...
You may consider switching to high wing or maybe a car.

This equates to not even looking at the fuel gauges for over 2.5 hours
Let alone noticing the reminders popping up.

 

[Kritchlow]

I am going to be snarky here.
If you miss this long enough for a 38 Gal offset...
You may consider switching to high wing or maybe a car.

This equates to not even looking at the fuel gauges for over 2.5 hours
Let alone noticing the reminders popping up.

Yes, but point is, if it's so important that you need to have a passive alert for 2.5 hours, it seems more beneficial to have a "true alert" system at some point prior to a critical situation. Some sort of horn and red light similar to a gear up scenario.

 

[unsafervguy]

Just wanna note 2 things. First in a sample of only 18 being off by one is nearly a 6% change. Second, your math doesn't add up. 7 out of 18 does not equal 26%, it's 39%. Did you mean to type 28 total? cause that would make 25%

i must have been using that common core math math error me bad, you are right it is 39% which puts it at almost double the GA fleet. you are also right in that with such a small sample, all of GA numbers are a small sample really, the results can change large amount. it just makes for interesting discussions.

bob

 

[jordane93]

Yes, but point is, if it's so important that you need to have a passive alert for 2.5 hours, it seems more beneficial to have a "true alert" system at some point prior to a critical situation. Some sort of horn and red light similar to a gear up scenario.

You do get a red warning annunciatior after a while on the PFD but AFAIK, you won't get an audible warning.

 

[Kritchlow]

You do get a red warning annunciatior after a while on the PFD but AFAIK, you won't get an audible warning.

Okay... That makes more sense, as long as it truly stands out. I'm not sure if the Cirrus gas a master warning type system or if it's just a message somewhere in the panel.

 

[Kritchlow]

Actually a master caution would make even more sense, at least prior to a master warning.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

You do get a red warning annunciatior after a while on the PFD but AFAIK, you won't get an audible warning.

Yes, in addition to the Garmin 430, once either tank is below 10 Gallons, you get a warning light on the panel. It is not just a light in our plane but actually says something like "Low Fuel" (steam gauge model so no PFD)

 

[Kritchlow]

Yes, in addition to the Garmin 430, once either tank is below 10 Gallons, you get a warning light on the panel. It is not just a light in our plane but actually says something like "Low Fuel" (steam gauge model so no PFD)

Perfect....

ETA.. I took that as a *verbal* low fuel. I'm probably misunderstanding.

 

[Kritchlow]

Sorry, you probably think I'm crazy, but many of my last airplanes verbalize certain things via audio. "Left engine fire" is one as an example. We called it the bitchin Betty.

 

[Everskyward]

Sorry, you probably think I'm crazy, but many of my last airplanes verbalize certain things via audio. "Left engine fire" is one as an example. We called it the bitchin Betty.

But I'm thinking that the business jets you flew didn't have a verbal (or any) fuel imbalance warning. The 680 doesn't, unless you start to crossfeed the wrong way and it's out of balance by more than >60 lbs. Then it's just the master caution DING.

 

[Kritchlow]

But I'm thinking that the business jets you flew didn't have a verbal (or any) fuel imbalance warning. The 680 doesn't, unless you start to crossfeed the wrong way and it's out of balance by more than >60 lbs. Then it's just the master caution DING.

Indeed!!!! I guess you know the 680!!!

That said, the master caution (on that situation) is all that is needed.
If I remember correctly, only the red master warnings were verbalized..??

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

Sorry, you probably think I'm crazy, but many of my last airplanes verbalize certain things via audio. "Left engine fire" is one as an example. We called it the bitchin Betty.

Ah gotcha, this is a step up plane for me not a step down plane.
Anything more than a semi-accurate needle and I am high tech

 

[Kritchlow]

​

Ah gotcha, this is a step up plane for me not a step down plane.
Anything more than a semi-accurate needle and I am high tech

Lol!!! I think the Cirrus is the sharpest plane out there. If I could afford (read CHOOSE to afford) a personal airplane, it would indeed be a Cirrus.

Fact is, I haven't flown for pure fun in 25 years. Sheesh, that sounds depressing....

 

[Everskyward]

Indeed!!!! I guess you know the 680!!!

That said, the master caution (on that situation) is all that is needed.
If I remember correctly, only the red master warnings were verbalized..??

Some red warnings are verbalized but not all.

 

[Kritchlow]

Some red warnings are verbalized but not all.

I'll go with that.... (It's been a while)

 

[Everskyward]

I'll go with that.... (It's been a while)

Most are verbalized, only a few are not, so you are remembering correctly.

 

[StinkBug]

I have no idea but assume most low wings have an imbalance max?

My Mooney does not have one. In fact the procedure in the AFM for timing your fuel range is to fly one hour on the first tank, switch and time the second tank til you run dry. You then have that long minus one hour of fuel. Using my normal burn numbers that'd put me at an 18 gallon imbalance.

As far as the annunciators go I kinda feel like any warning should be good enough. I mean seriously if you can go 2 hours plus without thinking about or checking fuel you shouldn't be flying. Saying that a flashing warning on the screen isn't enough is crazy to me. Should the plane really have to do everything for you? Isn't this what gets Cirrus pilots criticized already? How do all you low wing pilots without fancy PFDs and audible alerts make it anywhere without running out? Heavens me!

 

[VWGhiaBob]

All...points well taken re stats.

Things we do know...

* Cirrus has had a huge reduction in fatality rate since implementing rigorous training.
* Though we take stats with a grain of salt, we should use facts where we can; getting this right is tricky, but saying seems like a lot of Cirrus' dropping from sky is not credible
* Cirrus does not make engines; the engine in the SR22 is the Continental 550, an engine used in other aircraft.
* Someone who doesn't check duel balance in over 2 hours either needs to start over with training or give up flying. This is not a subtle error anyone can make. It means you lack the skills to be a pilot. What else is this person not doing?

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

What else is this person not doing?

Being awake.

 

[RudyP]

You do get a red warning annunciatior after a while on the PFD but AFAIK, you won't get an audible warning.

Umm,.. that depends on the avionics. Avidyne planes (2000-2007) will only give you a visual alert when both tanks are <14gal. Perspective planes (2007+) will give multiple CAS alerts all the way to eventually getting red visual and audible warnings. There is also a different gauge system in the latest planes (2013+ I believe) that has digital fuel senders to the Garmin Perspective. I'm not as familiar with those specific alerts since mine has the analog gauges.

But at the end of the day, the pilot needs to pay attention to their fuel situation, consumption, levels and perform the occasional tank switch. It really isn't very difficult though...

 

[petrolero]

there were 18 entries for the cirrus on the ntsb site for 2015. 7 of those were power loss. which is 26%, that is higher than the 20% that I have heard the ntsb state for mechanical cause for the GA fleet. given the the cirrus is a lot newer than most of the planes in the GA fleet, with the exception of infant mortality you would expect the rate to be lower do to lower time on parts. its not a lot higher but again I would expect it to be a little lower. granted, some of those may later be found to be operational issues that cased power loss that may bring the numbers in line with the national average. I have no idea if there is a larger number of engine failures in this fleet, but I do find the numbers an interesting study. you may be 100% right.

bob

I would think that the age of parts have but tiny influence on 'loss of engine power' incident rate. On the other hand 20% versus 26% is almost identical within such small sample rate. Unless you can show such difference over a dozen or so years - it is practically indistinguishable in the language of statistics. I would also remove all known 'user errors' before making any such comparison.

Power loss and mechanical failure are not the same thing. "Power loss" is very commonly caused by fuel exhaustion, which is asymptotically-approaching-always pilot error.

I'd examine how many ended up with some form of "mechanical failure" as a probable cause rather than just "power loss". Anyway, Cirrus uses the one of the same two engine manufacturers as the rest of the certified fleet. Why would one expect more frequent mechanical failure from a Continental motor in one airframe vs another? I dare say that the effect the airframe design has on the engine is not a major factor in determining whether that engine will eventually fail.