DA-40 Safety Record

[FlyingTiger]

I was reading over the weekend about the DA-40, as I didn't know a lot about the aircraft and I see they are statistically considered the safest GA aircraft. Its overall and fatal accident rates are one eighth that of the general aviation fleet.

Beyond the numbers, what really stood out to me was this:

The aircraft (DA-40) can be trimmed full nose up, engine set to idle and it will descend at 600–1200 feet per minute at 48 kn (89 km/h) hands-off, a lower rate of descent than the competitive Cirrus SR22 can achieve with its airframe ballistic parachute deployed.

 

[bnt83]

I was reading over the weekend about the DA-40, as I didn't know a lot about the aircraft and I see they are statistically considered the safest GA aircraft. Its overall and fatal accident rates are one eighth that of the general aviation fleet.

Beyond the numbers, what really stood out to me was this:

The aircraft (DA-40) can be trimmed full nose up, engine set to idle and it will descend at 600–1200 feet per minute at 48 kn (89 km/h) hands-off, a lower rate of descent than the competitive Cirrus SR22 can achieve with its airframe ballistic parachute deployed.

Sounds like an incomplete analysis. For example, how many DA40s are in private hands vs operated by flight schools? Isn't flight training about the lowest fatality rate of any GA activity?

 

[Clark1961]

Beyond the numbers, what really stood out to me was this:

The aircraft (DA-40) can be trimmed full nose up, engine set to idle and it will descend at 600–1200 feet per minute at 48 kn (89 km/h) hands-off, a lower rate of descent than the competitive

A 172 has performance similar to the DA-40 in that mode, maybe a little slower descent rate and lower forward speed. Of course that mode likely isn't available in icing or after a mid-air.

 

[James331]

I was reading over the weekend about the DA-40, as I didn't know a lot about the aircraft and I see they are statistically considered the safest GA aircraft. Its overall and fatal accident rates are one eighth that of the general aviation fleet.

Beyond the numbers, what really stood out to me was this:

The aircraft (DA-40) can be trimmed full nose up, engine set to idle and it will descend at 600–1200 feet per minute at 48 kn (89 km/h) hands-off, a lower rate of descent than the competitive Cirrus SR22 can achieve with its airframe ballistic parachute deployed.

Oh god,

Nine times out of nine and a half, it's the pilot thst causes the crash not plane.

Get good instruction. Get a glider add on. Get some back country experience. Realize you're going to get yourself killed, not the plane. Biggest factor get some hours under your belt.

I'll tell you one thing, I'm much safer in a C185 on tundras or PA18 than a DA 40, if something happens I can put one of those down nearly anywhere.

 

[labbadabba]

The aircraft (DA-40) can be trimmed full nose up, engine set to idle and it will descend at 600–1200 feet per minute at 48 kn (89 km/h) hands-off, a lower rate of descent than the competitive Cirrus SR22 can achieve with its airframe ballistic parachute deployed.

I've read a similar if not the same assessment elsewhere, the argument is that the DA-40 seats are designed for frontal impact and not a vertical impact like the Cirrus seats. So even though the descent rates are similar the potential for injury in this example is still higher in a DA-40.

The big safety factor when comparing a DA-40 to a Cirrus is that Diamond aircraft have self sealing fuel cells which nearly eliminates post-impact fires.

 

[OkieAviator]

The aircraft (DA-40) can be trimmed full nose up, engine set to idle and it will descend at 600–1200 feet per minute at 48 kn (89 km/h) hands-off, a lower rate of descent than the competitive Cirrus SR22 can achieve with its airframe ballistic parachute deployed.

My STOL kit, 180 conversion 172 will do that as well, not sure I even get over 1000 fpm and I'm about 40 knots. Good times.

 

[FlyingTiger]

Oh god,

Nine times out of nine and a half, it's the pilot thst causes the crash not plane.

Get good instruction. Get a glider add on. Get some back country experience. Realize you're going to get yourself killed, not the plane. Biggest factor get some hours under your belt.

I'll tell you one thing, I'm much safer in a C185 on tundras or PA18 than a DA 40, if something happens I can put one of those down nearly anywhere.

Not sure what's up with all the drama in your post? The harder the plane is to fly, the more likely the pilot will make an error and crash. Pretty simple concept really. The DA-40 is hard to stall, thus making it harder for a pilot to make a mistake that leads to an accident.

btw, I don't own one, got no dog in the hunt here, just thought it was interesting. Certainly the comment about being primarily trainers is a valid point, as was yours, but it's just not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

 

[labbadabba]

Not sure what's up with all the drama in your post?

It's PoA...

 

[Datadriver]

2010 insurance quotes:

1975 PA28R hull value $80k $2000 premium
2006 DA40 hull value $175K $1100 premium

More than 2x the cost, yet about 50% less.

 

[poadeleted20]

Sounds like an incomplete analysis. For example, how many DA40s are in private hands vs operated by flight schools? Isn't flight training about the lowest fatality rate of any GA activity?

No. The lowest accident and fatality rates of any GA activity are multiengine corporate jets. Single engine flight training isn't even close. Go check the Nall Report from AOPA for details.

And the fact that you can trim the plane full nose up with the engine at idle and obtain a 600-1200 ft/min descent rate doesn't make a plane safer than any other particular plane. If you want a really good comparison of the safety records of aircraft in that class, see the "Safest Fixed-Gear Cruisers" article Ken Ibold did in the September 2001 issue of Aviation Safety Magazine.

 

[poadeleted20]

2010 insurance quotes:

1975 PA28R hull value $80k $2000 premium
2006 DA40 hull value $175K $1100 premium

More than 2x the cost, yet about 50% less.

You see the "R" in PA28R? That means "retractable", and too many pilots forget the "U" in "GUMPS" every year. IOW, it's apples vs. oranges. Try comparing a PA28-180/181 with a DA40 and see what happens to that difference.

 

[peppy]

I've looked through a lot of accident data on different aircraft types and the DA40 does stand out for being a very safe plane. With most planes an accident more or less here or there will change a comparison a lot. With the DA40 it looks to be truly safer than most. If you plot stall speed squared vs. percentage of accidents that are fatal you get a nice straight line fit with the DA40 being an outlier and in that analysis that is a good thing.

The analysis of descent speed, however, has a major flaw. It isn't just vertical speed that is the issue. In fact, in many crashes, the vertical speed is low. It is the total velocity that is the issue. If comparing to a Cirrus under canopy calculate the total velocity vector. That means add at least 50 knots since stall is 49 and I am assuming at least slightly above stall. If at best glide then add 73 knots. That doesn't even bring into play the shock absorbing design of the gear and the honeycombed crush section in the seats. The record of planes coming down under canopy shows the system works.

I was reading over the weekend about the DA-40, as I didn't know a lot about the aircraft and I see they are statistically considered the safest GA aircraft. Its overall and fatal accident rates are one eighth that of the general aviation fleet.

Beyond the numbers, what really stood out to me was this:

The aircraft (DA-40) can be trimmed full nose up, engine set to idle and it will descend at 600–1200 feet per minute at 48 kn (89 km/h) hands-off, a lower rate of descent than the competitive Cirrus SR22 can achieve with its airframe ballistic parachute deployed.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

I always roll my eyes when every time I see this quote. There's one small but essential difference: The Cirrus has zero forward speed when it hits the ground (well technically it's moving at current ground wind speed).

It's not the vertical speed that kills. It's the forward speed. Heck, flare if you have an engine out in the Diamond, the vertical speed is near zero.

But there's still that pesky fact that you are moving forward at or above stall speed and can hit something, roll over, or worse in water.

The Cirrus parachute...yes...drops the plane at that sink rate. But the zero (or near zero) forward speed means you get a cushioned jolt and then stand up and walk away.

Check out the recent Cirrus statistics...now as safe or safer than DA-40...and improving fast.

Full disclosure: I'm a Cirrus owner...but also fly the DA-40 and many other aircraft. I decided on Cirrus because of its amazing safety record.

I was reading over the weekend about the DA-40, as I didn't know a lot about the aircraft and I see they are statistically considered the safest GA aircraft. Its overall and fatal accident rates are one eighth that of the general aviation fleet.

Beyond the numbers, what really stood out to me was this:

The aircraft (DA-40) can be trimmed full nose up, engine set to idle and it will descend at 600–1200 feet per minute at 48 kn (89 km/h) hands-off, a lower rate of descent than the competitive Cirrus SR22 can achieve with its airframe ballistic parachute deployed.

 

[Fearless Tower]

It's not the vertical speed that kills. It's the forward speed. Heck, flare if you have an engine out in the Diamond, the vertical speed is near zero.

Nice try, but you simply cannot make accurate blanket statements like that. Both forward and vertical speed can kill you based on multiple factors.

 

[poadeleted20]

Nice try, but you simply cannot make accurate blanket statements like that. Both forward and vertical speed can kill you based on multiple factors.

...which is why that one characteristic of the DA-40 is so unimportant in ascertaining its safety. The fact is that any plane in that class can be very, very safe, or very, very dangerous, because they all have one part which the manufacturer does not control -- the nut that holds the flight controls. The accident stats show clearly and overwhelmingly that pilot skill and judgment outweigh all other factors in aviation safety. So, from a safety standpoint, it really doesn't matter what you buy, only what you do with it.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

Nice try, but you simply cannot make accurate blanket statements like that. Both forward and vertical speed can kill you based on multiple factors.

You're right. Out of context, my statement is too broad.

Let me clarify with facts: Forward and vertical speeds have never killed anyone in a Cirrus who used the parachute properly (<133 knots, >500 feet AGL).

And for the latest stats (from NTSB and Foreign crash data), Cirrus is compiling the best safety record in the industry, in spite of "doctor pilots" and in spite of the fact that many Cirrus pilots fly in challenging IFR conditions:
Current accident rates in a Cirrus

0.42 fatal accidents

Per 100,000 hours of flying time in past 12 months (4 accidents* in 950,000 hours)
0.84 fatal accidents

Per 100,000 hours of flying time in past 36 months (23 accidents* in 2.7 million hours)

 

[James331]

Not sure what's up with all the drama in your post? The harder the plane is to fly, the more likely the pilot will make an error and crash. Pretty simple concept really. The DA-40 is hard to stall, thus making it harder for a pilot to make a mistake that leads to an accident.

btw, I don't own one, got no dog in the hunt here, just thought it was interesting. Certainly the comment about being primarily trainers is a valid point, as was yours, but it's just not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

There is no "drama", I do not give enough of a chit to qualify, "drama" is something little school girls get over little school boys.

Fact is you're the first and last line of defense when it comes to your "saftey" in a plane.

It's not the crash tests, or how "easy" a plane is to fly, or BRS, or any of that crap, its what you can do with the airframe, thus why I said I am safer in a 185 or PA18, I could put one of those down nearly anywhere.

 

[Perezhr]

Ah, the old BRS argument again. Well....I fly a Mooney and feel pretty darn safe in it.....BUT.....in those dark nights over rough terrain (or anywhere) having BRS sure would be nice. You can say what you like but the reason the Cirrus is now enjoying a pretty good safety record is because their owners are now using the BRS instead of trying to be a 'real' pilot and trying to save the day. It's a safety feature meant to be used when in trouble and they now really are using it!

 

[MachFly]

Check out the recent Cirrus statistics...now as safe or safer than DA-40...and improving fast.

Full disclosure: I'm a Cirrus owner...but also fly the DA-40 and many other aircraft. I decided on Cirrus because of its amazing safety record.

I generally like Cirrus', they are good planes and even though there may be somethings wrong I don't really care. The thing is that I wouldn't call them particularly safe either, sure you have the chute, but that's more of a necessity than a luxury because it has a relatively high stall speed, they have a history of burning, and (at least the early models) didn't do very well in off field landings.
The reason they have good safety statistics is because these days to fly a Cirrus you essentially have to get type rated in it. Back when Cirrus pilots had as much training as everyone else the statistics looked very different.

Does anyone know how many times the chute in the Cirrus was used when it was actually needed? Not when some guy lost his AHRS in IMC or an engine failed within gliding distance of a runway, but when the aircraft was not flyable and chute was the only survivable option.

 

[MachFly]

Some numbers.....

Here I took a few charts from Diamond's site:
http://www.diamondaircraft.com/why/safety.php

 

[MachFly]

The aircraft (DA-40) can be trimmed full nose up, engine set to idle and it will descend at 600–1200 feet per minute at 48 kn (89 km/h) hands-off, a lower rate of descent than the competitive Cirrus SR22 can achieve with its airframe ballistic parachute deployed.

As amazing as this may sound, I think it's irrelevant. The reason for that is that you are not going to find a single pilot who in case of an engine failure is just going to trip the nose up and relax. However you will find plenty of pilots who will happily pull the chute.

Here is why the airplane is so brilliant. First it has yet to catch fire in a crash, one of the reasons for this is fuel is properly stored in fuel cells and it's not just a wet wing. Instead of the normal one, it has two wing spars which are rated for 14Gs. Seats are a part of the frame that everything is build on, so in a crash they are not going anywhere and you're staying too. And finally don't forget the amazing glide ratio.

Just an example of Diamond's construction. 7 or 8 years ago a DA42 hit a top of an alp and broke it's props, fell about 70ft and hit another mountain almost head on, the crew was able to walk away.

 

[FlyingTiger]

Nice post, gives a more complete picture as to why the DA-40 rates so low in accident rate. I think the comment comparing the decent rate to a chuted Cirrus stood out to me because it really speaks to how docile the plane is more then anything. The fuel cell and seat design really sound like great features of this aircraft.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

Interesting numbers. They show...

1. Amazing DA40 safety record.
2. Old Cirrus stats, before more training was required (liked the post that called it a Type Rating). Now, the Cirrus record is similar to the DA40, even though Cirrus is typically used for more challenging IFR missionis.
3. The accident rate for both is still too high.

Repeat after me: Cirrus is not easy to fly compared to standard trainers like the 172. Cirrus is a bad trainer (according to most flight instructors I have asked).

Take and pass factory-approved Cirrus training. Pass their written and oral tests and now you're in one of the safest platforms around!

Factoid: The parachute costs $1,500 / year to maintain (10 year mandatory replacement at $15,000).

Some numbers.....

 

[OkieAviator]

What are '1000 aircraft - years'? Do they mean they took all GA accidents, broke those out by manufacturer and then narrowed down to those with and without fatalities?

If that's the case it's a pretty skewed look and was probably done by their marketing department. To have a true image you would have to take all GA hours flown for a particular model and then factor in accidents and deaths.

Not arguing if they're safer or not safer than say a 172, but it's a biased representation of a statistic.. which anyone who deals with statistics knows you can tweak them around to paint any particular picture you want.

 

[MachFly]

Repeat after me: Cirrus is not easy to fly compared to standard trainers like the 172.

Agreed.
It becomes "hard" when all your previous training was in a 172 and you're expecting something that's just as easy. With proper approach and trialing I don't think it's anything special.

Cirrus is a bad trainer (according to most flight instructors I have asked).

I don't think that I agree regarding it being a bad trainer (I'm not a fan of training with a G1000 but that's besides the point). It's very different from all other trainers, but I don't see anything bad about it.

 

[weilke]

The low fatality rate of the DA40 is at least in part the result of the population of pilots who seek it out. A 'Volvo are safe cars' type of self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[peppy]

2. Old Cirrus stats, before more training was required (liked the post that called it a Type Rating). Now, the Cirrus record is similar to the DA40, even though Cirrus is typically used for more challenging IFR missionis.
3. The accident rate for both is still too high.
.

Item 2 is flat wrong. There is no more REQUIRED training for an SR22 than a 172. It doesn't require a type rating nor has their been special action such as there was with the MU2. There has been an effort by COPA to increase awareness of CAPS as an option. COPA does have its CPPP program which is modeled after the Beech BPPP. Finally, since day one Cirrus has included training as part of the purchase price.

The NTSB has an interesting breakout where they remove GA flights by professional crews and training flights. When you do that the accident rate for the remaining pleasure group goes way up. Cirrus is actually much below average.

 

[peppy]

they have a history of burning

Internet myth. I pulled fatalities by fire (search for "thermal injuries") for many aircraft and the Sr22 is no worse than many others such as most Cessnas. In fact the 206 had a particularly bad string of fatalities one year. The DA40 stands out for its lack of fire related fatalities. There was one death by fire in a DA20. It supports the idea that the DA40 is exceptionally well designed when it comes to the fuel system but destroys the myth that the SR22 has more death by fire events than other aircraft.

Does anyone know how many times the chute in the Cirrus was used when it was actually needed? Not when some guy lost his AHRS in IMC or an engine failed within gliding distance of a runway, but when the aircraft was not flyable and chute was the only survivable option.

This is impossible to tell but I ran some recent numbers where, based on Flightaware counts, I scaled the fatality rates between the A36 and SR22. If you count CAPS pulls as fatalities then the SR22 is worse but otherwise the SR22 was better. I think the numbers show that some CPAS pulls would have been fatal but not all. My assumption is that the A36 is at least as safe as an SR22 without CAPS and that both are flown with similar mission profiles i.e. that Flightaware counts are a good measure of relative flight time and risk exposure between the two types.

Paul's crazy metric (higher is worse):

2014
A36 22
SR22 13
SR22+CAPS 44 <-- CAPS treated as fatals

2013 (super year for Cirrus)
A36 51
SR22 4
SR22+CAPS 26

2012
A36 44
SR22 35
Sr22+CAPS 52

 

[MachFly]

Item 2 is flat wrong. There is no more REQUIRED training for an SR22 than a 172. It doesn't require a type rating nor has their been special action such as there was with the MU2. There has been an effort by COPA to increase awareness of CAPS as an option. COPA does have its CPPP program which is modeled after the Beech BPPP. Finally, since day one Cirrus has included training as part of the purchase price.

The NTSB has an interesting breakout where they remove GA flights by professional crews and training flights. When you do that the accident rate for the remaining pleasure group goes way up. Cirrus is actually much below average.

No one is going to insure you without you doing that Cirrus training course (or whatever it's officially called).

 

[MachFly]

Internet myth. I pulled fatalities by fire (search for "thermal injuries") for many aircraft and the Sr22 is no worse than many others such as most Cessnas. In fact the 206 had a particularly bad string of fatalities one year. The DA40 stands out for its lack of fire related fatalities. There was one death by fire in a DA20. It supports the idea that the DA40 is exceptionally well designed when it comes to the fuel system but destroys the myth that the SR22 has more death by fire events than other aircraft.

You can't argue that Cirrus' do not have a history of burning, clearly a lot of them burned, so there is a history...

What is your source for SR22s not being any worse at burning than everything else?

What was the death by fire in the DA20?

This is impossible to tell but I ran some recent numbers where, based on Flightaware counts, I scaled the fatality rates between the A36 and SR22. If you count CAPS pulls as fatalities then the SR22 is worse but otherwise the SR22 was better. I think the numbers show that some CPAS pulls would have been fatal but not all. My assumption is that the A36 is at least as safe as an SR22 without CAPS and that both are flown with similar mission profiles i.e. that Flightaware counts are a good measure of relative flight time and risk exposure between the two types.

Paul's crazy metric (higher is worse):

2014
A36 22
SR22 13
SR22+CAPS 44 <-- CAPS treated as fatals

2013 (super year for Cirrus)
A36 51
SR22 4
SR22+CAPS 26

2012
A36 44
SR22 35
Sr22+CAPS 52

I don't see how it's impossible to tell. All we need is a list of structural failures (along with midairs) and engine failures over inhospitable terrain (such as rocks, not water). Once we have that we know how many survived with the help of the chute.

I just did a search on midairs. Diamond had 3 midairs, in all cases all of the crew survived. Cirrus had 4 midairs, crew survived only in one case (and the chute was deployed).

 

[peppy]

I don't see how it's impossible to tell. All we need is a list of structural failures (along with midairs) and engine failures over inhospitable terrain (such as rocks, not water). Once we have that we know how many survived with the help of the chute.

So your assumption is that otherwise it would be a safe landing. Data doesn't support that. A pilot of an SR22 was known to be dismissive of the chute. He had an engine failure at a reasonable altitude and told ATC he was doing an emergency landing. On the landing roll he hit a small dirt bump and the plane crashed. He and his wife were killed. His daughter in the back survived. A Mooney pilot made an emergency landing on a pond. His friend survived but he drowned before getting out of the plane. I don't see it as that clear cut. I think you are overly optimistic about the success rate just like people who assume an engine out over less than flat terrain means certain death are overly pessimistic.

 

[FastEddieB]

Cirrus is a bad trainer (according to most flight instructors I have asked).

A Cirrus would not be my first choice as a primary trainer, but...

1) I did prepare a Private Pilot applicant in his own SR22. He did fine. The plane was fine.

2) Doesn't the Air Force use SR20's as primary trainers?

Can't be that bad!

 

[MachFly]

So your assumption is that otherwise it would be a safe landing. Data doesn't support that. A pilot of an SR22 was known to be dismissive of the chute. He had an engine failure at a reasonable altitude and told ATC he was doing an emergency landing. On the landing roll he hit a small dirt bump and the plane crashed. He and his wife were killed. His daughter in the back survived. A Mooney pilot made an emergency landing on a pond. His friend survived but he drowned before getting out of the plane. I don't see it as that clear cut. I think you are overly optimistic about the success rate just like people who assume an engine out over less than flat terrain means certain death are overly pessimistic.

I'm not saying don't use the chute, if you have it use it, it's there for a reason. If you were to give me a single piston with or without the chute, I'd pick with the chute as it gives me much more options. What I'm saying is, is Cirrus really that much safer because of the chute? I know everyone loves to give the chute credit for saving some guy's life every time it's pulled, but that's simply not true. For example, just because some guy lost his AHRS in IMC and pulled the chute, the chute shouldn't get credit for saving his life, even if without the chute he would have died. In this case the chute compensated for his lack of training and skill. What I was originally asking was how many times did the chute actually save someone's life when there were clearly no other options? I know for a fact that there were a few times, but I think it's only a few in a 15 year period.

 

[petrolero]

I always roll my eyes when every time I see this quote. There's one small but essential difference: The Cirrus has zero forward speed when it hits the ground (well technically it's moving at current ground wind speed).

Bingo.

I was scrolling down to see if anyone would comment on the highly incomplete and misleading vertical speed comment in the OP.

Thanks for busting that - it's not a myth exactly - half-truth.

 

[peppy]

If (yes, big if) you accept that the A36 and SR22 have comparable profiles then what my analysis shows is that CAPS makes the SR22 safer but not all CAPS pulls would have been fatal had CAPS not been there. I don't think anyone believes that all CAPS pulls would have been fatal otherwise. However, I don't buy the argument that CAPS makes pilot more reckless and therefore overwhelms any safety benefit. My analysis says it has made the plane safer. What I do think is that old macho barriers to CAPS use are being broken down in the Cirrus community and the result is a better safety record. Adding to that is that median time in type is increasing past the "killing zone". New pilots are now a lower percentage of fleet size due to the much larger overall fleet size than a few years ago.

For example, just because some guy lost his AHRS in IMC and pulled the chute, the chute shouldn't get credit for saving his life, even if without the chute he would have died. In this case the chute compensated for his lack of training and skill.

Hmmm, so you assume all pilots have perfect piloting skills. I think something that saves someone's life when he would otherwise have died should be marked as a save. I would suspect any passengers would agree with me.

I do believe there are times when the pilot in question, real world skill set and all, would have lived if CAPS hadn't been pulled. In those cases it wasn't really a save or perhaps it was a save but one of a different type since he could have been saved by other actions.

 

[poadeleted20]

BTW, see this report. That pilot would have died no matter what s/he was flying, and the fact that it was a DA-40 didn't make any difference. So, back to what I said -- it's all about the nut that holds the stick/yoke, not the type of aircraft to which that stick/yoke is attached. All I've learned from reading SR20/22 and DA-40 accident reports is that the Cirrus tends to attract a lot of pilots with really bad ADM skills, but I don't think you can blame that on the airplane. IOW, I agree with weilke's post above -- to misquote a former President, "It's the pilot, stupid" (or maybe better "It's the stupid pilot").

 

[MachFly]

If (yes, big if) you accept that the A36 and SR22 have comparable profiles then what my analysis shows is that CAPS makes the SR22 safer but not all CAPS pulls would have been fatal had CAPS not been there. I don't think anyone believes that all CAPS pulls would have been fatal otherwise. However, I don't buy the argument that CAPS makes pilot more reckless and therefore overwhelms any safety benefit. My analysis says it has made the plane safer. What I do think is that old macho barriers to CAPS use are being broken down in the Cirrus community and the result is a better safety record. Adding to that is that median time in type is increasing past the "killing zone". New pilots are now a lower percentage of fleet size due to the much larger overall fleet size than a few years ago.

Agreed.

Hmmm, so you assume all pilots have perfect piloting skills. I think something that saves someone's life when he would otherwise have died should be marked as a save. I would suspect any passengers would agree with me.

I do believe there are times when the pilot in question, real world skill set and all, would have lived if CAPS hadn't been pulled. In those cases it wasn't really a save or perhaps it was a save but one of a different type since he could have been saved by other actions.

No I don't think all pilots have perfect piloting skills, as a matter of fact I think the opposite. Sure you could say that something that saves the life of someone who wasn't any good at flying is a good tool to have. But most of those lives needed saving because of stupidity, in which case all those occurrences should be compared as such.

 

[NavAir]

2) Doesn't the Air Force use SR20's as primary trainers?

Can't be that bad!

Yes, but they also used the Slingsby Firefly...

Steve

 

[Tarheelpilot]

No one is going to insure you without you doing that Cirrus training course (or whatever it's officially called).

+1

experienced this first hand.

 

[Datadriver]

And for the latest stats (from NTSB and Foreign crash data), Cirrus is compiling the best safety record in the industry,

If true, this is not reflected in insurance quotes.