Alexb2000
En-Route
I am aware of a few Cirrus accidents with post crash fire.
Would you mind pointing me to the 206 instances you mentioned?
Just looking at the 206H T206H produced since 1999 I couldn't find a single instance.
Cirrus Bahamas CAP landing Oil Pressure?
- Thread starter marcoseddi
- Start date
I am aware of a few Cirrus accidents with post crash fire.
Would you mind pointing me to the 206 instances you mentioned?
Just looking at the 206H T206H produced since 1999 I couldn't find a single instance.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
That is the problem...anyone can gleen whatever data they want and spread it on the internet claiming it as some definitive study.
His statement may or may not be true, he has provided no more data to back it up than those who have posted negative things about Cirrus. I will fully admit that I have no data to back up any claims on this, but I can say (and most would agree) that there have been alot more flaming Cirrus stories in the news than exploding 206s.
The problem with the Cirrus debate is that for every Cirrus hater, there are others who are so liquored up on the airplane that they can't or won't see potential issues.
I neither love nor hate the Cirrus. If I get the opportunity to fly one I will gladly do so.....but I am going to proceed cautiously and make sure I understand every possible way the airplane could kill me.
Alexb2000
En-Route
Well said.
One thing I believe every pilot should do is research the accidents on their aircraft or one they are considering. If they were produced in any number then the challenges will become apparent. For example in my research looking at the 206 accidents, there are a large number of landing/porpoising accidents. This is consistent with my experience and a point I emphasize when someone asks me about the aircraft. Landing on an undampened truck spring will easily produce bouncing and porpoising. It's not the same (more forgiving) gear as a 182 although it looks similar.
We could all benefit from this type of honest analysis if we didn't have to sooth our egos with constant reaffirmation that we own the "perfect" aircraft.
I am not a Cirrus hater, I can be seen regularly as a Cirrus proponent for what they have done right. I am not a Kool Aid drinker and recognize what is wrong. The only thing I think is wrong with the Cirrus is the low energy runway environment events which resulted in fuel tank rupture and fire. They should bite the bullet and go to fuel cell level retention.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
What they should do is stop letting people who can't fly worth a pile of dog poop pilot a Cirrus. There's just no excuse for having those kinds of accidents in a plane that easy to fly well.
:grump:
There's also no reason a fuel tank should rupture and burn on a simple runway environment incursion. It is a technical fault that parlays wit the marketing fault to produce a situation that shouldn't exist. If you want to grow aviation, you're gonna add people who can't fly worth a crap.
Try Cessna 206 accidents on N206SM 9/20/2004, N9548D 5/28/2004, and N206RA 7/25/2000 for a start.
The key to finding deaths from fire is to use the key words thermal injuries in the NTSB search.
People do stupid things in all kinds of planes. Cirrus has tried by making extensive training part of the purchase process. However, with so many used planes on the market I expect that has less impact.
I think a bigger issue with the SR22 is kinetic energy when landing paired with a springy undercarriage. The latest Cirrus aircraft have much better nose gear damping to reduce porpoising. Ever take a heavy car on ice? As long as things go well it is easy to think "I don't see a problem with this." Then, when you start to go sideways, you realize how wrong you were. An SR22 is a long way from a 172 in landing kinetic energy. Its landing gear is a long way from a Bonanza in ability to damp landing impact.
Last edited:
I think the design could be better, but is it nay worse than most other planes? That is really the question. I have seen dramatic video of Cirrus aircraft burning but, in most cases, everyone had been killed by impact. I know of one case where that was not true. Interestingly, that case isn't in the NTSB database yet. However, I have also seen dramatic video of other planes burning and no one seems to be crying about how poorly they are designed. Now as a mathematician (among other things) I know how to skew statistics to say things. Still, I thought it interesting to search the NTSB database with the key words thermal injuries for different makes. Guessing that NTSB reports are phrased the same for various makes, I thought I would see what the data showed. Here it is with only 2000 or later considered:
Cirrus 0
Beech 13
Cessna 14
Mooney 2
Piper 18
Diamond 1
Maule 0
Of course there are a lot more Piper, Cessna etc. flying. This isn't to claim things are just fine. It is to say that I think singling out Cirrus is unfair based on the data.
There are a lot more Cirrus aircraft doing actual flying than 206 aircraft. I will admit to not having the data in front of me but there was an NTSB symposium in Washington where they broke out data in a more granular fashion. They had a class called personal flying where they eliminated training flights and flights where it was a for hire pilot. Cirrus represented 10% of hours flown in the US. Right now if you check Flightaware there are 28 SR22's in the system and only 4 C206's in the system. That's why you don't hear about as many 206 crashes.
I hope the other data I posted in my earlier post adequately backs up what I said.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Did it occur to you that there are likely alot more 206s flying VFR compared to Cirrus? Flightaware won't capture that.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
That is the problem - they are not phrased the same. Different NTSB investigators will write up the reports differently. Some have more data than others.
The data you just listed is obviously not accurate- You mentioned one, but I know of at least two Cirrus accidents where the occupant(s) burned alive: The infamous midair burning while descending under the BRS and the Scottsdale, AZ crash.
Yes. Certainly Flightaware won't capture Piper Cub flights. However, for trip planes I think it gives a good idea. Do you really think the 206 is flown, as a percentage of all 206 flights, less than an SR22 by a factor of 5? It's not like the numbers in the system are close. The 206 is not a trainer like the 172. In fact, it seems to me to be even more trip oriented than the 182.
My frustration is that it is easy to throw stones at any data but people on forums start with "I see a lot of reports on the forums of a Cirrus...", present zero real data themselves, and then work like crazy against any data that is contrary to their belief. Ok, lets talk the 206. Do you have any data to support your implied contention that there are a lot more flight hours each year by 206 planes compared to the SR22? Based on crashes since 2002 that involve death by fire that means you have to have 4X the 206 flight hours compared to the SR22 to make the data equal. Yet the quick look showed roughly one fifth the IFR flight hours using Flightaware as a crude measure. I can throw lots of stones at my data. The point is that people proclaim that Cirrus aircraft are flaming death traps and I have read posts on many forums about how they should be grounded and forced to redesign the plane. Yet, not one person backs it up with real data. Friends who go to sell planes lose potential customers because of what the customers read on forums.
I fly an SR22 and I have a lot of things I would like improved. I do think the fuel system could be improved but there are many other planes that I feel the same way about. The wet wing is a long way from number one on my list. Also, if you look how pilots die in Cirrus aircraft, the fuel system isn't the issue. It's sort of like mid air collisions. Everyone fears then and yet their are roughly 7 fatal mid airs each year and roughly half of those involved formation flying. It is much better to focus on VFR into IMC as an example. In the SR22 I would like reduced possibility of POI. I would like a little bit better feeling and feedback on the controls. I would like a better trim system to make hand flying in IMC easier.
Since you don't like my data then hit the NTSB side and pull out your own. Look at Flightaware for types you think fly as high a percentage of time in the system as Cirrus aircraft do.
Some more data relative to the 206. The FAA database shows 2,855 Cessna 206 aircraft and 3,241 SR22 aircraft. Admittedly the number of SR22 aircraft flying a decade ago were low so I suspect the exposure of the 206 to be higher over the 2000-2012 time period. However, do you see any way to bend this data into the SR22 being a flaming death trap?
Wow, the crap keep coming. Do you really think the NTSB guys sit around and say "Hey, let's word the Cirrus reports differently so that the data looks skewed in favor of Cirrus"? I used the same search for all makes. Hopefully that normalizes for the way investigators word things. While wording tends to change over time (see reports from the 60's vs. today) it tends to remain consistent from type to type for each time period. You are great at attacking data and yet you have not present one piece on your own. Incidents not in the database? Well, are you saying they are leaving out only Cirrus accidents? As for the midair are you sure they weren't killed by the impact? There is no perfect set of data. All I can do is search in a way that hopes the data issues are the same across makes.
My problem is people are presenting the flaming death trap position as if it were proven fact. I have yet to see any data backing it up.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
You completely missed my point. It has nothing to with Cirrus, or any other manufacturer for that matter. It has to do with the fact that different NTSB investigators will use different language to describe the same thing. You are not getting an accurate picture by searching that way and unfortunately, the NTSB database leaves a lot to be desired when trying to narrow stuff like this down. Again, that has nothing to do with Cirrus.
I am saying you are not getting an accurate picture either way. To think you are is to not understand the limitations of the database.
I have that same problem as well and if you have been around here long enough, you'll know that I have in the past called people out for making those conclusions with no other info than reputation. But just the same, I take issue with people who claim that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the airplane and try to use bad data to back that claim up. I think the jury is still out.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
spiderweb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 9,488
- Display Name
Display name:
Ben
I have a problem with people who assume all Cirrus drivers are sub-par pilots.
There is a problem with the marketing strategy which essentially pooh-poohs any concerns, but that fact doesn't bear up the notion stated in my first sentence.
There is a problem with the marketing strategy which essentially pooh-poohs any concerns, but that fact doesn't bear up the notion stated in my first sentence.
Alexb2000
En-Route
Paul-
Thanks for the N numbers. It sure would have been nice to link them so that anyone interested doesn't have to work so hard to see what you are talking about.
3 post impact fires the newest of which is 12.5 years ago. All were high energy crashes. Anything carrying fuel in a high energy crash is going to burn (unless they ran out of fuel in the first place), I don't think that makes your point.
Then you said that there are a lot more Cirri flying than 206's even though all the crashes you suggested were VFR so none would have been tracked. No one can prove that one way or the other, so OK.
Bottom line you have a SR22.
You think it's the best aircraft in the world, because you wouldn't buy anything else.
You have done your own "research" and determined it is also the safest aircraft in the world.
You're just like most other aircraft owners with regard to your opinions.
Nothing left to discuss, unless you want to share what car you drive?
First, at least it is data and it is the best we have. Every day people draw meaningful conclusions by sampling data. Technically they have looked at incomplete data. If you only sample one in ten people in a survey then you technically have incomplete data but the sample still has validity. The wording issue is randomly dispersed among types so while it might cause you to miss an accident the percentage should be the same for each aircraft type. Furthermore, since around (rough guess here) 1990 or so they have been pretty consistent with the term thermal injuries.
If I sound ticked its because I am. I have pointed this out before on other forums. When asked about data I have done the digging. In one case the reply was that I was wrong and the poster was certain he could go through the NTSB data and show it but he didn't want to because it would involve too much work. In fact that poster challenged me on how valid the term thermal injuries was. I had just finished reviewing the database and reading hundreds of reports to figure out the proper search term. He was willing to throw stones but not put one bit of energy into the better analysis he swore he knew how to do.
We would all love a perfect data set. We don't have it. However, I think we should look at where the best data we have points. You will continue to hear about a lot of Cirrus crashes. The SR22 has been the best selling plane since 2002. There are a lot of them flying and they are trip planes being flown long distances and IFR. If they all stayed locked in hangars then there wouldn't be any accidents and everyone could talk about how it must be a safe plane because they never heard about them crashing. That would be just as incorrect of a conclusion.
The Cirrus does well because it does its job well and is marketed well. Its job is to get affluent people from place to place with the greatest perceived if not actual safety and comfort. It achieves this by having 200' capabilities fully coupled and has a parachute as well as an 'oh crap' button on the latest generation.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I can't stand that. I have NEVER said the SR22 which I fly is the safest aircraft and in fact I do NOT believe it s. if you actually read what I have posted you will see that I thnke there are more PIO accidents but that the cause is a fast, heavy plane with springy gear.
Sorry I didn't link like you would have liked. I figure I'm doing a hell of a lot more digging through the data as it is. People throw out baseless claims, present no real data, then when data is shown to suggest that they might be wrong they crap back that they wish I would have made it easier.
My point wasn't to knock the 206. I happen to like it. My point wasn't to claim it was worse. The error interval is too large to say that. My point was to say the data doesn't back up Cirrus being a lot worse than average.
I agree about high energy post crash fires. The video used by many to slam Cirrus is a high impact event.
Ok, you think all 206 aircraft are flown VFR so the Flightaware data is meaningless. I disagree even though I see your point. I suspect but cannot prove that the 206 is purchased as a trip plane and has a percentage of its flights that are IMC that is no more than a factor of two removed from the SR22. If we were talking a Maule or Husky then I would agree with you.
As far as safe planes I like the Diamond DA40. However, I don't like the seating. I find the SR22 more comfortable and faster. I do think the SR22 is as safe as a Bonanza or a C310.
At the NTSB conference in Washington this year, when personal flying was broken out, the Cirrus rate was better than average. I haven't had time to dig up the number. I do remember that it was estimated that Cirrus aircraft fly one in ten personal flight hours in the US.
I drive a 1996 Infiniti I30 since I am trying hard financially to keep flying because I love it. No, I don't think it is the safest car around or even the best in other ways. My girlfriend's Ford Fusion is a lot safer. Your point?
Sorry I didn't link like you would have liked. I figure I'm doing a hell of a lot more digging through the data as it is. People throw out baseless claims, present no real data, then when data is shown to suggest that they might be wrong they crap back that they wish I would have made it easier.
My point wasn't to knock the 206. I happen to like it. My point wasn't to claim it was worse. The error interval is too large to say that. My point was to say the data doesn't back up Cirrus being a lot worse than average.
I agree about high energy post crash fires. The video used by many to slam Cirrus is a high impact event.
Ok, you think all 206 aircraft are flown VFR so the Flightaware data is meaningless. I disagree even though I see your point. I suspect but cannot prove that the 206 is purchased as a trip plane and has a percentage of its flights that are IMC that is no more than a factor of two removed from the SR22. If we were talking a Maule or Husky then I would agree with you.
As far as safe planes I like the Diamond DA40. However, I don't like the seating. I find the SR22 more comfortable and faster. I do think the SR22 is as safe as a Bonanza or a C310.
At the NTSB conference in Washington this year, when personal flying was broken out, the Cirrus rate was better than average. I haven't had time to dig up the number. I do remember that it was estimated that Cirrus aircraft fly one in ten personal flight hours in the US.
I drive a 1996 Infiniti I30 since I am trying hard financially to keep flying because I love it. No, I don't think it is the safest car around or even the best in other ways. My girlfriend's Ford Fusion is a lot safer. Your point?
Last edited:
Basically I agree.
Even Alan Klapmeirer has said that it is frustrating that so much attention to safety hasn't had a bigger impact. I figure it proves that at 200 mph, it is still easy to kill yourself and that the issue is the pilot much more than the plane.
I am amazed Cirrus gets so few kudos despite trying so hard. They brought the glass cockpit to GA. CAPS is an incredibly aggressive safety attempt. The G2 modified the engine compartment to help slide the engine under the plane. They weren't the leader but they were an early airbag adopter. The straight and level button. Now ESP will nudge the controls when you get close to trouble. There is now a system to initiate an automated descent if the pilot becomes unresponsive at high altitude. Cirrus introduced type training as a part of the purchase. They introduced a standardized instructor program. They were also the first major manufacturer to place the POH, AD and SB info online as pdf's.
Last edited:
He didn't go with FADEC engines. He underestimated the importance of the red handle. There is also the laziness inherent in humanity. The problem with TAA is it takes a lot of effort to learn to use the technology correctly.
Cirrus has looked at FADEC before just like they were very serious about a diesel. However, reality wasn't as nice as theory.
Dale wanted the chute to be optional. Alan insisted it be standard.
My take on TAA is slightly different. I think the surface level is easy but how to clear an error, make a quick change, and react when things don't go as planned can be a lot harder. Someone once asked me what was dangerous about a Cirrus. I said it is fast, comfortable and the surface ease of the systems can lull a pilot into doing more than he should.
spiderweb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 9,488
- Display Name
Display name:
Ben
And the SR20 does well for us not-so-affluent musicians/college professors!
spiderweb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 9,488
- Display Name
Display name:
Ben
Your cello is likely worth more than my plane.
Sadly, probably not. I commissioned it from one of America's great luthiers, and I think it holds its own against the best. But the most expensive cellos made by living luthiers would go for about $50k.
Once the luthier has passed away, things change rapidly. Then values are determined by those factors which typically affect all antiques--condition, provenance, rarity, etc.
Rostropovich's Stradivarius recently was auctioned off at $20 -million-. Amazing. I have played a Strad, and while they are great instruments, they are only probably 10% better than mine....
spiderweb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 9,488
- Display Name
Display name:
Ben
Your cello is likely worth more than my plane.
BTW, your 310 looks absolutely beautiful!
cirrusmx
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2011
- Messages
- 794
- Location
- Boston, Massachussetts
- Display Name
Display name:
campoalavista
spiderweb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 9,488
- Display Name
Display name:
Ben
a lot of cirri for a stradivarious. hmmmmm
Very true.
The main reason they are so expensive is because they are made by one of the top five makers in history, they are rare, and they generally have the best provenance.