Why is the Cirrus so dangerous?

zaitcev said:
I am afraid that my upcoming tailwheel class is going to open with a large chunk of remedial stick and rudder.
Click to expand...

A stick upside the head from the back seat and some guy shouting "More rudder! Move your feet!" on the headset! :) :) :)
 
Actually, the back-seater always goes first -- it's designed that way, no matter who pulls the handle. The issue is preventing interseat and seat/canopy collisions.
Click to expand...

In a F-14, the backseater had to go first as the rocket motor from the front seater would burn the RIO up...a very bad outcome if you're the guy in back! :eek:
 
Last edited:
I'm reminded of the new/low-time motorcyclists who run out and buy GSXR-1000 cc motorcycles. 400lbs wet + 191 HP doesn't work out well for some folks.
 
Dasmeat said:
In a F-14, the backseater had to go first as the rocket motor from the front seater would burn the RIO up...a very bad outcome if you're the guy in back! :eek:
Click to expand...

Same in the T-6, backseater goes out first when the selector is in BOTH. Same reasons, collision avoidance and frag reduction from the bubble canopy fracturing.

On the BUFF on the other hand, it was every man for himself, No selector no nothing. Several documented cases of the Edub getting killed by the copilot hatch as it streamlined and collided with the edub as he was catapulting. And lets not mention the anatomically disastrous elements of downward ejecting seats for the navs downstairs....or the IPs on board not sitting on an ejection seat. Manual bailout when everybody else on the clown car has a booster seat. Party foul. :D
 
It was long speculated that in the crash of MiG-15UTI that claimed the Yuri Gagarin, it could've played a part that Col. Seregin was in the instructor seat. He had to eject first, but possibly was unwilling to leave Maj. Gagarin alone - who could've declined even if ordered. There was no voice recorder on board, so we don't know.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yup, and that's a lot of the problem. Cirrus teaches autopilot "on" at 300-500 feet, and it stays on until short final -- no real stick and rudder practice obtained on routine flights, which I think is a real bad idea for inexperienced pilots or those who don't fly often.
Click to expand...

Where in the heck does this kind of post come from? Cirrus teaches this? huh?

I have an SR22 and trained for both my PPL and IR in it. I put about 70 hours in it learning to fly it with a CIRRUS certified instructor (and then another 50 for my IR), and...uh...what you wrote was NEVER taught.

Amazingly, we spent a lot of time...actually learning to fly it...with like, my hands, and feet and stuff.

Look...I am totally concerned with these accidents, and I completely stipulate that the safety record of the Cirrus is not good. But, it's not the plane and it's not how "Cirrus" trains pilots.

I don't really know what it is...Wish I did. I don't think we have anywhere near enough real data to know.

I just don't accept that these planes are harder to fly. They're not...period. Nor are they "easier" when the automation works etc. I mean, a 182's autopilot works exactly the same way as the Cirrus...and when I fly in IMC, I do put the autopilot on...I mean, why not? I assume 182 drivers do as well?

If I had to guess...I just think it's the mission. Going reasonably fast and going long distances that cover larger weather systems and changes just has more risk than the typical 182 mission.
 
I think the conversation might be more productive if the thread were re-titled to "Why are Cirri flown so dangerously?"
 
SteveinNC said:
Where in the heck does this kind of post come from? Cirrus teaches this? huh?

I have an SR22 and trained for both my PPL and IR in it. I put about 70 hours in it learning to fly it with a CIRRUS certified instructor (and then another 50 for my IR), and...uh...what you wrote was NEVER taught.
Click to expand...
I'm doing the the CSI training now, and that's what they teach as "standard." Perhaps your instructor was smarter than the program.
 
More money than brains. They market them as 'It's the plane with the parachute.' People buy their way in to more aircraft then they are able to fly and fly them into conditions or situations they are not ready for. I guess it is better to have a parachute than not.. but long story short is if they spent the extra $9,000 on flight training intead of a BRS system they would have a fighting chance of survival.

<---<^>--->
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm doing the the CSI training now, and that's what they teach as "standard." Perhaps your instructor was smarter than the program.
Click to expand...

Again...I don't understand this.

Let's assume 2 types of buyers

1. A non pilot using this to get their PPL. You're telling me that this is the way that buyer would be taught. So...you must be using a different PTS than me, as that person wouldn't pass with the one I've seen. Pretty sure you have to hand fly the plane to get your PPL

2. A current PPL holder. So..you're saying that the CSIP training says that this is the way to teach a "Transition" course? That the syllabus is simply take off, climb and put autopilot on. Further...you're not able to teach any stick and rudder for the transition? Again...does this really make any sense to you or anyone else? As an instructor who has the responsiblility to teach someone transition...you will only teach this procedure. TO, climb 300 ft, AP, pattern altitude, AP off, land??

I just think this is silly. My CSIP is a good friend...who has over 1000 instructing hours in Cirrus aircraft and used to work for Cirrus...he has no idea what you're talking about.

Do they teach autopilot usage? of course...and I would think that's an important part of transition. But, you make it sound as if that's all that's taught.
 
Last edited:
p1l0t said:
People buy their way in to more aircraft then they are able to fly and fly them into conditions or situations they are not ready for
Click to expand...

As it was reported somewhere else in this thread. The reality is ... that a LOT of the accidents are VERY high time pilots...so I'm pretty sure this is not a reasonable conclusion.
 
Ron Levy said:
...with the implied promise that it will get them anywhere they want to go, any time they want to go.

"I don't care if it rains or freezes,
'Long as I got my plastic Cirrus
Plastered to the butt end of my seat..."
Click to expand...

Can't blame the airplane because people do stupid stuff. To quote Forrest Gump: "stupid is as stupid does". The Cirrus is an awesome airplane and I have NEVER heard a Cirrus employee promote it as an all weather fighter. Just sayin...........
 
brcase said:
That is the biggest problem with the Cirrus in my opinion. It is a nice new airplane with no more capability than a 1960's Cessna 210. However the Glass cockpit and Ballistic chute can fool pilots into thinking it is more capable and safer when it isn't.

Brian
Click to expand...

I'm curious Brian, just what trickery the airplane performs that "fools" a pilot into overstepping his abilities? By the way, my money is betting that if you were flying your 1960's Cessna 210 over hostile terrain at night and had an engine failure.......you'd be wishing for the Ballistic chute all the way to the crash site. :nono:
 
Pa28-140 said:
I'm curious Brian, just what trickery the airplane performs that "fools" a pilot into overstepping his abilities? By the way, my money is betting that if you were flying your 1960's Cessna 210 over hostile terrain at night and had an engine failure.......you'd be wishing for the Ballistic chute all the way to the crash site. :nono:
Click to expand...

That is so true. One of the reasons I fly a Cirrus. For my money, I'd like to have another engine, a turbine, or a chute if I'm over water, mountains, etc (heck...over anything other than an airport, frankly...but that's another discussion)

Having said all that and agreeing with Alf...I'm totally open to the possibility that the chute (I don't think the glass cockpit as that's hardly unique to Cirrus at this point) gets people to modify their minimums or affects their judgement etc. I don't think we have any way of knowing/proving that one way or the other...but it certainly seems like a reasonable theory to address the accident rate.

I wish I knew...but I won't dismiss that theory completely. I'm quite certain there's nothing wrong with the plane itself, so there must be another outside influence.
 
SteveinNC said:
1. A non pilot using this to get their PPL. You're telling me that this is the way that buyer would be taught. So...you must be using a different PTS than me, as that person wouldn't pass with the one I've seen. Pretty sure you have to hand fly the plane to get your PPL
Click to expand...
Obviously, for an ab initio trainee, it's not going to the same as for a rated pilot transitioning into the plane.

2. A current PPL holder. So..you're saying that the CSIP training says that this is the way to teach a "Transition" course? That the syllabus is simply take off, climb and put autopilot on. Further...you're not able to teach any stick and rudder for the transition? Again...does this really make any sense to you or anyone else? As an instructor who has the responsiblility to teach someone transition...you will only teach this procedure. TO, climb 300 ft, AP, pattern altitude, AP off, land??
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was how I think it should be, or would do it myself, but it is how the Cirrus pilots to whom I've given refresher training flew the plane and told me they were taught to fly it, and how the CSIP recommends flying the plane. I definitely have concerns about nonprofessional pilots who don't fly a lot using the autopilot almost exclusively, as that leads to deterioration of basic stick-and-rudder skills. I had one Cirrus pilot who hadn't hand-flown an approach since his IR practical test, and it took half a day of work to get to the point where he could hand-fly an ILS, and had his autopilot failed in the weather the previous day, he might well have ended up using the chute.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
I definitely have concerns about nonprofessional pilots who don't fly a lot using the autopilot almost exclusively, as that leads to deterioration of basic stick-and-rudder skills.
Click to expand...

Well...I certainly can't and won't argue with that!

I think we're saying the same thing here. I just thought your post really made the implication that Cirrus, the company, was saying this is the only way to fly these planes and that's all we're going to teach. That's obviously untrue.

It's up to the pilot to take care of the concern you raised. It's an issue I'm dealing with and thinking about quite a bit right now. As a new IR pilot, it's just more comfortable to fly with the AP while I'm in the system. I'm capable and current to hand fly, but that's a perishable skill. My own solution to this is twofold. First, when VFR I'm going to make every effort to just always hand fly. Second...I'm scheduling a ride with my csip every 90 days to do hood work that will be all hand flying.

I think, for me...that will do it.

My whole point, is that this issue is the same for any plane with a good and capable autopilot. If I had a 180..I'd be worried about the same thing and come up with the same plan to mitigate this risk.
 
I did not buy a cirrus because of their safety record. I do not lay the blame on rich bad pilots either. I think it is a mixture of things.
 
The airplane is not dangerous, save for it's terrbile "RunwayLOC" fire rate. It's the operator. The operators are partially selected by the way Cirrus markets the airplane- "Flying 2.0" is an embarassment. This is a piston single, for cripes sake.
 
bbchien said:
The airplane is not dangerous, save for it's terrbile "RunwayLOC" fire rate. It's the operator. The operators are partially selected by the way Cirrus markets the airplane- "Flying 2.0" is an embarassment. This is a piston single, for cripes sake.
Click to expand...

I do agree with this Doc...but, it is odd that most of the issues are from high time pilots...so , that kind of speaks to some other issue.

But...yeah..gotta agree flying 2.0 is silly. You told me, I'm sure you don't remember, and it may have been on another forum...that as long as I was willing to put in , maybe 100 hours, before my ppl...than a Cirrus was a fine choice for first aircraft.

I think my total hours was about 120 or so and some 350 landings! :-) Well worth it though...but flying 2.0...err...no
 
SteveinNC said:
I think we're saying the same thing here. I just thought your post really made the implication that Cirrus, the company, was saying this is the only way to fly these planes and that's all we're going to teach. That's obviously untrue.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is untrue, and it wasn't what I was trying to say. However, the Cirrus program does teach it as the recommended/preferred way to fly, and my experience suggests that many nonprofessional Cirrus pilots choose to make it the only way they fly, and that leads to potentially lethal deterioration of their stick-and-rudder skills. I think that's an issue which could be better addressed in Cirrus refresher training, which sometimes seems to focus more on systems and automation and less on actually flying the plane by hand.

It's up to the pilot to take care of the concern you raised.
Click to expand...
It sure is, and that's why I raise it.

It's an issue I'm dealing with and thinking about quite a bit right now. As a new IR pilot, it's just more comfortable to fly with the AP while I'm in the system. I'm capable and current to hand fly, but that's a perishable skill. My own solution to this is twofold. First, when VFR I'm going to make every effort to just always hand fly. Second...I'm scheduling a ride with my csip every 90 days to do hood work that will be all hand flying.
Click to expand...
Wise decisions.

I think, for me...that will do it.
Click to expand...
It should. Would that all Cirrus pilots did the same.
 
Ron Levy said:
You'd be amazed how many farm boys from Nebraska the Navy attracts. Guess they want a change of scenery.

Having been Marine-trained and then served in both the Navy and the Air Force, ain't no doubt in my military mind about that. Who's got a link to that image of a USAF aircraft carrier -- the one with the golf course on the flight deck.
Click to expand...

This one? :D
 

Attachments

  • Air Force Ship.jpg
    Air Force Ship.jpg
    53.4 KB · Views: 51
SteveinNC said:
I'm totally open to the possibility that the chute... gets people to modify their minimums or affects their judgement etc... a reasonable theory to address the accident rate.
Click to expand...

I think behavior people call this "risk compensation."

I just checked by googling that phrase together with Cirrus and I quickly found that people have been proposing exactly that -- Cirrus accidents are higher because of risk compensation --an unconscious risk taking that happens because the sense of safety provided by the CAPS.
 
NoHeat said:
I think behavior people call this "risk compensation."

I just checked by googling that phrase together with Cirrus and I quickly found that people have been proposing exactly that -- Cirrus accidents are higher because of risk compensation --an unconscious risk taking that happens because the sense of safety provided by the CAPS.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is "proving" that this is a factor. Before anyone can solve the issue (if there really is one from a statistical standpoint)...the root cause(s) need to be positively identified.

From a training perspective, if this were the problem, an attitude adjustment would need to be programmed into new Cirrus pilots. Pretty simple really...the chute should have ZERO impact on any go/no go decision. The flight needs to be safe enough to be made in any equivalently equipped plane minus the chute...period.
 
I also believe there needs to be better training on when to pull or not to pull. The have been accidents where the chute was pulled when the pilot(s) could have safely landed the plane, and also times when the pilot(s) should have pulled or pulled it too late to be effective.

<---<^>--->
 
p1l0t said:
I also believe there needs to be better training on when to pull or not to pull. The have been accidents where the chute was pulled when the pilot(s) could have safely landed the plane, and also times when the pilot(s) should have pulled or pulled it too late to be effective.

<---<^>--->
Click to expand...

I totally agree with the latter...There have been a LOT of fatal accidents that I believe could've been avoided by a chute pull.

As for the former...I really hesitate to second guess anyone that's pulled, and I'm not aware of any chute pulls that were, no brainer type no pulls...do you have a particular incident in mind?
 
I pulled up the last 10 days of preliminary accidents and incident reports from the FAA site. There were 11 fatal accidents and only one was a Cirrus. Other manufacturers and classes of aircraft were pretty well represented.

1 - Beechcraft BE-23
1 - Cessna 177
1 - Cessna 207
1 - Cessna 337
1 - Cirrus SR-20
1 - Diamond DA-20
1 - Mooney M-20
1 - Piper PA-28 Cherokee
2 - Piper PA-31 Navajo
1 - Rockwell 690A
1 - Robinson R-44
1 - Savannah VGW LSA
 
That Cessna 337 was a guy on the PBs brother
 
I'm new here so let me begin by introducing myself. Hi.

It's been interesting reading this thread and I would agree with many of the comments that have been made especially those pointing out that it is really the pilot not the airplane that, IMHO, is responsible for the poor Cirrus accident numbers.

I've given about 700 hours of instruction in SRxx aircraft - almost all of it in the 22. It is not a difficult plane to fly. But like any airplane requires proper training and currency to ensure the necessary skills don't get rusty. But good initial and recurrent training won't make up for poor decision making.

I'll admit that i'm puzzled by the post asserting that the Cirrus Aircraft standardization training program calls for the use of the autopilot shortly after takeoff until shortly before landing. That was not in the syllabus when I took CSIP training at the Cirrus factory in 2007. Neither can I find any reference to training or flying that way in any of the syllabi I have.
 
Last edited:
DavidWhite said:
That Cessna 337 was a guy on the PBs brother
Click to expand...
:(

My point is that whenever a Cirrus crashes people are quick to pounce but people manage to kill themselves and others in all kinds of aircraft.
 
p1l0t said:
I also believe there needs to be better training on when to pull or not to pull. The have been accidents where the chute was pulled when the pilot(s) could have safely landed the plane, and also times when the pilot(s) should have pulled or pulled it too late to be effective.
Click to expand...
A long time ago (back when I was riding ejection seats in the military), the USAF did a study on ejection decisions. They found that crews were more likely to eject, and to make the ejection decision sooner, if the ejection was driven by a mechanical failure than due to crew error. The "with your shield or on it" mentality sometimes overcomes good sense when it comes to saving yourself after the airplane is, for all intents and purposes, already lost. Pilots who own the plane they fly may be more willing to risk dying with their airplane if there's still a chance of saving it than to certainly lose their favorite toy in order to guarantee survival.

Y'know, all that Jason Quincy Taggart "Never give up, never surrender!" stuff.
 
Last edited:
CFI-CSIP said:
I'll admit that i'm puzzled by the post asserting that the Cirrus Aircraft standardization training program calls for the use of the autopilot shortly after takeoff until shortly before landing. That was not in the syllabus when I took CSIP training at the Cirrus factory in 2007. Neither can I find any reference to training or flying that way in any of the syllabi I have.
Click to expand...
My Instructor Edition FOM recommends autopilot engagement at 400 AGL if desired, and the Cirrus rep training me told me "500 feet, flaps, CAPS, and autopilot" was the "standard" procedure. In addition, factory-trained Cirrus pilots with whom I've flown do that every time. Can't speak beyond that. If that's not what the folks behind the CSIP want, they aren't getting the job done the way they want it.
 
dmccormack said:
Folks, there's not a production airplane type flying that hasn't killed someone.

:no:
Click to expand...

Sorry Dan, but the 777 hasn't killed anybody yet....the C-17 was blood free as well until that idiot in AK killed himself and his whole crew hot-dogging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top