It's Official: Cirrus Accident Rate Plummets And Flying Magazine Reveals Why

[VWGhiaBob]

Check out this new article from Flying Magazine analyzing what Cirrus did to go from a horrible accident rate (2X the fatality rate of other GA aircraft) to an "industry leading rate (1/2 the rest of GA).

The author dispels the notion that "real pilots don't use parachutes" with hard data showing that parachutes reduce fatality rates, pure and simple.

That, and standardized training also plays a role. No rental FBO or insurance company will let you fly a Cirrus without transition training. Having taken it myself...oral / written / flight...I can verify the quality.

For those 172 and 182 owners out there, if you give up a bit of useful load and cargo space, you too can install a parachute. (Google BRS Parachute)

Check it out: http://www.flyingmag.com/cirrus-rethinks-approach-to-transition-training#page-10

 

[TexDeuce]

The parachute is an awesome backup to have. Certainly not a magic bullet and you can die in a number of ways with one, but it can really help. Every time I post about a parachute people come out of the woodwork to downplay or denigrate it. I say look at the scoreboard. I imagine there are a lot of deceased pilots that wished they had a parachute when things went south.

Plenty of guys who think they are God's gift to aviation try engine out landings and end up dead. Flying at night and having an engine out is especially dangerous. No shame in pulling the chute, the math doesn't lie and says under correct parameters your chances of living are extremely high with a chute pull. Engine out or losing control in IMC? Yeah the stats aren't near as good. Cirrus has done it right with the pull early, pull often approach.

 

[Lachlan]

I'm pretty sure that a ridiculous price tag helps keep the numbers down, too.

 

[edo2000]

I agree that a BRS is an awesome backup to have. I have never been one to denigrate the system and always assumed the negative comments were just more evidence that some posters on POA just really like disagreeing and denigrating . I especially think it would be an awesome backup if an aircraft is used a high percentage of the time in IMC, night, or mountain operations.

On the other hand, in most airplanes that I fly and have flown, the system was not available ; I would not like to be responsible for a $15K system repack every 10 yrs; your chances of living are also quite high with a properly executed off-airport landing; as has been previously discussed, attention to detail to preflight items, e.g., fuel planning, engine maintenance and engine runup ops, etc. will significantly further reduce risk of in-flight power loss.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

If they said it....I guess that proves that.

 

[EminiTrader]

If they said it....I guess that proves that.

You disagree with the numbers they stated?

 

[DavidWhite]

lol'd @ the picture "A Cirrus makes an approach in challenging conditions"

Yep, giant paved runway, maybe 10 knots across on the sock. sooooooooo scary.

 

[DavidWhite]

Looks like Cirrus has figured out that proper training is the key to safety. It sounds like they're doing a 135 level of training with recurrent "check rides" every 6 months. If all of GA did this it would be considerably safer. Someone who flies 10 hours a year and does their BFR every 2 is not nearly proficient enough to safely handle all situations IMO.

 

[BigBadLou]

(Google BRS Parachute)

Sheeeeeet, Google makes parachutes now?

Imagine pulling the red handle (that says PULL) and the Siri-like voice in the cockpit says "Did you mean 'poll'? Showing results for latest Hillary vs Donald polls instead."
You keep yanking on the red handle but just can't keep yourself from staring at the poll statistics on the LCD as you are spinning out of control ...

 

[CC268]

Sheeeeeet, Google makes parachutes now?

Imagine pulling the red handle (that says PULL) and the Siri-like voice in the cockpit says "Did you mean 'poll'? Showing results for latest Hillary vs Donald polls instead."
You keep yanking on the red handle but just can't keep yourself from staring at the poll statistics on the LCD as you are spinning out of control ...

Lol

 

[EminiTrader]

I do an IPC now every 90 days with a CSIP. It's worth doing to stay current and fluid I think.

 

[tawood]

lol'd @ the picture "A Cirrus makes an approach in challenging conditions"

Yep, giant paved runway, maybe 10 knots across on the sock. sooooooooo scary.

I noticed that too...and VFR to boot!

 

[James331]

Plenty of guys who think they are God's gift to aviation try engine out landings and end up dead. Flying at night and having an engine out is especially dangerous. No shame in pulling the chute, the math doesn't lie and says under correct parameters your chances of living are extremely high with a chute pull. Engine out or losing control in IMC? Yeah the stats aren't near as good. Cirrus has done it right with the pull early, pull often approach.

Keep in mind that a BRS is not always as safe as a engine out landing.

If you got a big field or road or hard beach or similar, you're probably better off landing the plane yourself, always been a big believer in the better condition the box ends up in, chances are the better condition the contents will be in.

I dont think I'm "gods gift to aviation" but I am a trained pilot and I know how to land a plane, after having two full engine failures, one landing on a airport at night, another landing off airport, I have yet to damage and persons or property, or even scratch the planes paint.

Instilling the idea in folks to stop flying the plane by default is not safe, you pull that handle you're pax. In some instances the BRS is great, no options outside from water or tall trees, hard IMC with a major failure, bird goes through the windshields and takes out PIC leaving non pilot wife, yeah pull, but when you're over long and wide stretch of road with nothing near it, pulling is a bad idea.

The MAJOR saftey aspect to cirrus is, as others said, the training.

Best bet, take that money you would have spent on the BRS retrofit and put it in your tanks, FLY often and stretch your comfort zone, find a experienced backcountry CFI and do some backcountry work, you don't need a STOL machine for this ether, you'd be surprised at the places you can take even a Bo or Mooney, land at some places which aren't "airports".

Personally I wouldn't sacrifice payload or space for a BRS, if you really feel you need a canopy, go buy a softie modded with a ramair and get trained on how to use it.

lol'd @ the picture "A Cirrus makes an approach in challenging conditions"

Yep, giant paved runway, maybe 10 knots across on the sock. sooooooooo scary.

If that's challenging you need to see a CFI lol

 

[RudyP]

I'm pretty sure that a ridiculous price tag helps keep the numbers down, too.

Yeah, if only Cirrus was able to sell as many airplanes as its competitors... 2015 units sold:
Cirrus: 301
Diamond: 144
Mooney: 11
Piper: 138
Cessna piston: 227

 

[RudyP]

lol'd @ the picture "A Cirrus makes an approach in challenging conditions"

Yep, giant paved runway, maybe 10 knots across on the sock. sooooooooo scary.

I have to agree with you there... That was a pretty ridiculous caption!

 

[weilke]

Company propaganda paid for through full page ads.

 

[Grum.Man]

My insurance agent and I got into side bar conversations the other day. He was saying how high the premiums are for a Cirrus because of their accident rate. He said a lot of his regular agencies will not even cover them anymore.

 

[pete480]

lol'd @ the picture "A Cirrus makes an approach in challenging conditions"

Yep, giant paved runway, maybe 10 knots across on the sock. sooooooooo scary.

Maybe the sun was in his eyes on final

 

[vontresc]

Here I thought, we had just eliminated all of the bad pilots via natural selection...

 

[Velocity173]

Maybe the sun was in his eyes on final

Maybe the photo is him already on final and he's crabbing. Looks challenging to me.

 

[steingar]

I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that type specific training ran down the accident rate. That's been the strategy to run down the accident rate in Experimental aircraft as well. Hope it works. The parachute of course won't cut down n the rate of accidents, might even increase it a bit. A pilot might soldier through a difficulty that he or she might solve with a parachute pull in an equipped aircraft. The BRS should cut down on the fatality rate, though.

 

[TexDeuce]

@James 331. Fair post and I don't disagree with most of it. There are certainly times I would choose a road or field over the chute. But if I felt the odds weren't very high in my favor, I will take my chances with the parachute. The math says I will almost certainly live by making that choice. Planes can be replaced, people can't. Nothing wrong with not having a chute. Cost and weight are huge issues no doubt. But it is a very nice backup to have in certain situations.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

If that's challenging you need to see a CFI lol

This is a huge challenge. There is a plane on base taking aerial photos!!
This looks like a near miss.

 

[RudyP]

My insurance agent and I got into side bar conversations the other day. He was saying how high the premiums are for a Cirrus because of their accident rate. He said a lot of his regular agencies will not even cover them anymore.

That's not at all what I hear from my broker - in fact one new insurer just came to market recently. I find the market very competitive and my premium is downright cheap compared to the hull value and coverage I have.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

This is a huge challenge. There is a plane on base taking aerial photos!!
This looks like a near miss.

yup.....that's what we call in the bidness......a photo chute.

 

[Sundancer]

Check out this new article from Flying Magazine analyzing what Cirrus did to go from a horrible accident rate (2X the fatality rate of other GA aircraft) to an "industry leading rate (1/2 the rest of GA).

The author dispels the notion that "real pilots don't use parachutes" with hard data showing that parachutes reduce fatality rates, pure and simple.

That, and standardized training also plays a role. No rental FBO or insurance company will let you fly a Cirrus without transition training. Having taken it myself...oral / written / flight...I can verify the quality.

For those 172 and 182 owners out there, if you give up a bit of useful load and cargo space, you too can install a parachute. (Google BRS Parachute)

Check it out: http://www.flyingmag.com/cirrus-rethinks-approach-to-transition-training#page-10

Check out this new article from Flying Magazine analyzing what Cirrus did to go from a horrible accident rate (2X the fatality rate of other GA aircraft) to an "industry leading rate (1/2 the rest of GA).

The author dispels the notion that "real pilots don't use parachutes" with hard data showing that parachutes reduce fatality rates, pure and simple.

That, and standardized training also plays a role. No rental FBO or insurance company will let you fly a Cirrus without transition training. Having taken it myself...oral / written / flight...I can verify the quality.

For those 172 and 182 owners out there, if you give up a bit of useful load and cargo space, you too can install a parachute. (Google BRS Parachute)

Check it out: http://www.flyingmag.com/cirrus-rethinks-approach-to-transition-training#page-10

He dispelled it???? I thought he offered a subjective opinion? One certainly worthy of consideration, for sure; but being published doesn't make it gospel.

If I recall, he also made a fairly silly remark, something along the lines "if you aren't 100% sure you can land safely, pull the chute". Dude, If you're ever 100% sure, you're a divinity, not a pilot.

Not flying reduces fatality rates even more dramatically, more so so than intense training designed to overcome handling characteristics that may not be optimal for the skill level of the average buyer. And call me cyincal, but the extreme emphasis on pulling, early and often, might serve Cirrus' product liability needs as much as consideration for the pilot in the airplane.

I am not a 'chute hater at all; if it appeals to you, or any other pilot, I'm not mocking that point of view, and I respect it, genuinely - it's cool. I think I'd consider adding one to a home-built, for sure. Go for the safety level that makes you comfortable.

But safety isn't a goal of flying (or anything else, really), and, just in my opinion, the Cirrus emphasis is, well extremism. They sold an airplane prone to pranging, given it's nature, and the target audience that bought and flew it. This is a light plane, not the space shuttle; it shouldn't require this level of commitment to fly the thing confidently. And I don't think it does, except for the uber-safety concious among the pilot population.

Those folks are entitled to manage their lives, time, and money as they please; just, maybe, they should recognize that to others, it looks a little "retentive".

 

[Art VanDelay]

I'm pretty sure that a ridiculous price tag helps keep the numbers down, too.

No more "ridiculous" than a new Bonanza or Piper.

 

[Art VanDelay]

Keep in mind that a BRS is not always as safe as a engine out landing.

If you got a big field or road or hard beach or similar, you're probably better off landing the plane yourself, always been a big believer in the better condition the box ends up in, chances are the better condition the contents will be in.

I dont think I'm "gods gift to aviation" but I am a trained pilot and I know how to land a plane, after having two full engine failures, one landing on a airport at night, another landing off airport, I have yet to damage and persons or property, or even scratch the planes paint.

Instilling the idea in folks to stop flying the plane by default is not safe, you pull that handle you're pax. In some instances the BRS is great, no options outside from water or tall trees, hard IMC with a major failure, bird goes through the windshields and takes out PIC leaving non pilot wife, yeah pull, but when you're over long and wide stretch of road with nothing near it, pulling is a bad idea.

The MAJOR saftey aspect to cirrus is, as others said, the training.

Best bet, take that money you would have spent on the BRS retrofit and put it in your tanks, FLY often and stretch your comfort zone, find a experienced backcountry CFI and do some backcountry work, you don't need a STOL machine for this ether, you'd be surprised at the places you can take even a Bo or Mooney, land at some places which aren't "airports".

Personally I wouldn't sacrifice payload or space for a BRS, if you really feel you need a canopy, go buy a softie modded with a ramair and get trained on how to use it.

If that's challenging you need to see a CFI lol

Ahhhhhh yeah Jimbo, you do kinda come off as Gods gift to aviation. Are you EVEN a CFI yet ?

 

[Lindberg]

I found it interesting that the author pulled the chute in the simulator after running out of TKS fluid. Is there no gauge that tells you how much is left? And then in the airplane, he says they continued in icing conditions that were exceeding the capabilities of the de-icing system, even at full flow. I'm not instrument rated and have zero experience with icing or de-icing, but stories like that don't seem to be the way to dispel the notion that the red handle sometimes substitutes for good ADM.

This is a huge challenge. There is a plane on base taking aerial photos!!
This looks like a near miss.

And it's a Right Hand pattern!!!!!!

 

[vontresc]

But safety isn't a goal of flying (or anything else, really), and, just in my opinion, the Cirrus emphasis is, well extremism. They sold an airplane prone to pranging, given it's nature, and the target audience that bought and flew it. This is a light plane, not the space shuttle; it shouldn't require this level of commitment to fly the thing confidently. And I don't think it does, except for the uber-safety concious among the pilot population.

Have you talked to Palmpilot or Makg1 yet????

 

[Sundancer]

Nah, just throwing in my knee-jerk reaction. I did find the article's tone to be a little off-putting, when I read it. Maybe the constant buzz about"safety" has become fatiguing; too much from guys getting wrapped around the axle about what is substantive trivia; "Every pilot should..." Every pilot should never...", "Always do this" or "Never do that".

I'm sort of looking to separate the trivial from the essential, sort of the opposite of the FAA? Like cleaning your house for weekend guests - lint under the bed isn't important; the bloody chain-saw in the sink might be.

I have no doubt that the Cirrus training program and the chute reduces fatalities. I just don't don't find it worth the investment, in time and money. But not so hard headed that I begrudge those who want the experience and equipment

 

[James331]

Ahhhhhh yeah Jimbo, you do kinda come off as Gods gift to aviation. Are you EVEN a CFI yet ?

Lol, actually a gold seal CFI and ATP, of course that and a buck won't even get you on the bus. You don't exactly wear humble very well yourself.

Of course this was about BRS systems, what's your take on that topic art?

 

[Lachlan]

No more "ridiculous" than a new Bonanza or Piper.

Jeez, Costanza, you ever been accused of having a sense of humor?

 

[EminiTrader]

My insurance agent and I got into side bar conversations the other day. He was saying how high the premiums are for a Cirrus because of their accident rate. He said a lot of his regular agencies will not even cover them anymore.

Just curious - who's your agent? My 2010 SR22 insurance is 2200 a year with 1 MIL smooth. I've only been flying 3 years with about 750 hours - I had no problems insuring a Cirrus and this is the first I've heard of agencies not accepting Cirrus.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

My insurance agent and I got into side bar conversations the other day. He was saying how high the premiums are for a Cirrus because of their accident rate. He said a lot of his regular agencies will not even cover them anymore.

Your insurance guy is only partially correct and a bit outdated. There are 3 reasons:
1. Early poor safety record (now fixed and rates are dropping faster than market)
2. High hull value
3. Expensive repairs (composite is not as repairable as metal)

Remember, the Cirrus accident rate is now among the best in GA.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

Keep in mind that a BRS is not always as safe as a engine out landing.

If you got a big field or road or hard beach or similar, you're probably better off landing the plane yourself, always been a big believer in the better condition the box ends up in, chances are the better condition the contents will be in.

I dont think I'm "gods gift to aviation" but I am a trained pilot and I know how to land a plane, after having two full engine failures, one landing on a airport at night, another landing off airport, I have yet to damage and persons or property, or even scratch the planes paint.

Instilling the idea in folks to stop flying the plane by default is not safe, you pull that handle you're pax. In some instances the BRS is great, no options outside from water or tall trees, hard IMC with a major failure, bird goes through the windshields and takes out PIC leaving non pilot wife, yeah pull, but when you're over long and wide stretch of road with nothing near it, pulling is a bad idea.

The MAJOR saftey aspect to cirrus is, as others said, the training.

Best bet, take that money you would have spent on the BRS retrofit and put it in your tanks, FLY often and stretch your comfort zone, find a experienced backcountry CFI and do some backcountry work, you don't need a STOL machine for this ether, you'd be surprised at the places you can take even a Bo or Mooney, land at some places which aren't "airports".

Personally I wouldn't sacrifice payload or space for a BRS, if you really feel you need a canopy, go buy a softie modded with a ramair and get trained on how to use it.

Good point about landing on a road in the middle of nowhere, no traffic. I guess though I have a 'chute, I'd consider it. Downside...what if I'm not seeing the power lines or a car with innocent people? The 'chute only works down to 500AGL. After that, you have to land without it. Just be sure!

If that's challenging you need to see a CFI lol

 

[VWGhiaBob]

If that's challenging you need to see a CFI lol

I did an approach to Big Bear (7000' MSL) several months ago that looked exactly like this. On my flare, I realized I was looking at a sheet of ice, not asphalt. Try steering a Cirrus on ice with a crosswind. Good luck. I applied full power and diverted.

 

[PPC1052]

Yeah, if only Cirrus was able to sell as many airplanes as its competitors... 2015 units sold:
Cirrus: 301
Diamond: 144
Mooney: 11
Piper: 138
Cessna piston: 227

See, that proves his point. All of those aircraft are ridiculously overpriced.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Remember, the Cirrus accident rate is now among the best in GA.

....and their sales data supports that.

 

[SkyDog58]

From the article:

A decade ago, the Cirrus fatal-accident rate, at about 2.6 fatal crashes per 100,000 flight hours, was nearly twice the industry average. Today the figure, less than one fatal accident per 100,000 flight hours, is just half the industry average.

So my question is this: Is their actual accident rate down or just their fatal accident rate? To me the fact that there are less fatal accidents due to increased use of CAPS does not equate to a lower overall accident rate. After all, you pop the chute the damage that you cause to the airframe puts it into the accident category, does it not?

Or has their new training decreased the overall accident rate as well?

Please understand that I am not questioning any pilot's use of CAPS but am only questioning the use of the phrase "Cirrus Accident Rates Plummets" in the thread title.