Why is the Cirrus so dangerous?

Both the SR20 in IL and the prelim on the SR22 that hit the swamp in FL suggest that the answer to the question that started the the thread is: because of the pilots that fly them.
 
Ron Levy said:
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.
Click to expand...

My reading of the FOM makes it clear that the autopilot should not be engaged below 400 AGL on departure. Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier post. I took you to mean that you were being told that the autopilot MUST be engaged at 400 AGL and above. Hand flying is an integral part of transition training. After all flight instructors are notorious for failing automation systems. :wink2: to focus on such important skills as basic attitude instrument flying.

The 500 feet " flaps, CAPS Map" is a standard callout for me but not autopilot. The flaps CAPS map bit is a reminder to retract flaps (or verify flaps retracted), that CAPS is now viable, and that the MFD can now be switched from engine page to moving map.
 
The Cirrus brand is marketed to successful people, and often, sucessful people got successful by taking more risks than most. It might be possible that their higher risk tolerance transfers into the cockpit.
 
DavidWhite said:
Looking at the NTSB database, there have been 7 fatal accidents in both Cirrus models since January first, while there are 10 in the skyhawk.
Click to expand...

Those numbers are unlikely to be statistically significant. That's the fancy way of saying that the difference between the 7 accidents and the 10 accidents could be caused by random chance.

I haven't read the whole thread but I know there are people mentioning the possible reasons: higher performance, inexperienced pilots, etc.

You might also want to think about the accident rate, not per fleet size or per hour, but per mile. It is possible that the Cirrus is safer per mile, but I don't know. The data to do such an analysis simply does not exist.
 
Everskyward said:
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
Click to expand...

Compare to this example – from a 2005 IIHS report on automotive driver death rates by make and model (1999 – 2002 model year vehicles during calandar years 2000 – 2003)

Ford Crown Victoria – 756,458 registered vehicle years – Driver deaths per million registered vehicle years 53

Mercury Grand Marquis – 1,141,009 registered vehicle years - Driver deaths per million registered vehicle years 83

((83-53)/53)*100 = 57% increase in death rate. For (essentially) the same car.

Now, try to draw a conclusion about the safety of an aircraft design based on the results of a couple dozen accidents in aircraft? :rofl:


FWIW – best was Mercedes E class with 10 driver deaths per… Worst was Chevrolet Blazer 2dr with 308
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Now, try to draw a conclusion about the safety of an aircraft design based on the results of a couple dozen accidents in aircraft? :rofl:
Click to expand...
I wasn't trying to draw any conclusions other than the fact that we have all kinds of aircraft crashing but when a Cirrus crashes it inevitably shows up on this board. See! Look how dangerous they (or their pilots) are!
 
Everskyward said:
I wasn't trying to draw any conclusions other than the fact that we have all kinds of aircraft crashing but when a Cirrus crashes it inevitably shows up on this board. See! Look how dangerous they (or their pilots) are!
Click to expand...

Some people appear to be trying do draw conclusions...

I probably should have picked on someone else's post.
 
CFI-CSIP said:
My reading of the FOM makes it clear that the autopilot should not be engaged below 400 AGL on departure. Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier post. I took you to mean that you were being told that the autopilot MUST be engaged at 400 AGL and above. Hand flying is an integral part of transition training. After all flight instructors are notorious for failing automation systems. :wink2: to focus on such important skills as basic attitude instrument flying.

The 500 feet " flaps, CAPS Map" is a standard callout for me but not autopilot. The flaps CAPS map bit is a reminder to retract flaps (or verify flaps retracted), that CAPS is now viable, and that the MFD can now be switched from engine page to moving map.
Click to expand...

The auto-pilot MUST be engaged immediately after departure because of the lack of training, lol!

<---<^>--->
 
That's a stretch IMO. Success includes measured risk-taking, not the stupidity displayed by a high percentage of pilots who die in airplane crashes.



JohnAJohnson said:
The Cirrus brand is marketed to successful people, and often, sucessful people got successful by taking more risks than most. It might be possible that their higher risk tolerance transfers into the cockpit.
Click to expand...
 
I've never been all that fond of Cirrus, however, since they are so far from my economic status, it doesn't matter anyway.

I don't like the little computer joystick set off to the side. I can't get excited about overpriced plastic airplanes that completely disintegrate on impact, into pieces mostly no larger than a dollar bill.

I'm not so sure about that parachute, I think it gives a false sense of security to people who shouldn't be driving them anyway.

I do like the way it looks though. It has nice lines, it's fast. I've never used a glass cockpit, so I guess I can't make judgment on that. To me the question on all glass is why is it so great? I'm not IR so I just don't see the need for it. My six pack, VORs and my Aera 510 seems to be all I need.

I think if we in aviation had clubs like those in yachting have yacht clubs, Cirrus would be selling even more of them. They do seem to have become a status symbol for the almost there pilot.

John
 
CFI-CSIP said:
My reading of the FOM makes it clear that the autopilot should not be engaged below 400 AGL on departure. Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier post. I took you to mean that you were being told that the autopilot MUST be engaged at 400 AGL and above.
Click to expand...
"Should," not "must." But Cirrus pilots with whom I've flown seem to take it as a very strong "should," and are horrified at the idea of handflying the plane other than during takeoff and landing. Perhaps there needs to be some emphasis change in the training programs.
 
wabower said:
That's a stretch IMO. Success includes measured risk-taking, not the stupidity displayed by a high percentage of pilots who die in airplane crashes.
Click to expand...

I agree it's a stretch and if there is anything to it, I'm sure it wouldn't be a major driver. But Edison failed 100 times for every success, and businesses routinely fire people that never make mistakes. This culture works great when backstopped by bankruptcy laws but in the air, not so much.
 
Some friends of mine, both low time pilots, just bought a 2010 SR22. They moved up from a Cherokee 160, I sure hope they don't become one of those statistics.
 
Dean said:
Some friends of mine, both low time pilots, just bought a 2010 SR22. They moved up from a Cherokee 160, I sure hope they don't become one of those statistics.
Click to expand...

You may be able to keep them from doing so by being some sort of a mentor to them. Give them your cell number 'if you ever wonder about a go/no-go decision, give me a call, anytime'. Go fly with them.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

Steve, I agree 100% with your comments. I don't own a Cirrus (wish I did) but I have about 350 hours flying both turbo and non-turbo SR22s. I did my transition training at the factory, routinely fly with a CSIP, and closely follow the COPA forums. I have never heard anyone purport some of the stuff I have heard here. My experience (as a Cherokee owner and member of that board) is that the people with the strongest opinions about the Cirrus are those who have never even flown in one. I consider the bashing just another form of penis envy :wink2: Having flown the SR22 for nearly seven years, I can speak from experience that it is one of the finest single engine airplanes I have ever flown. If I had money, I'd be in the front of the purchase line. Is it a perfect airplane? No, of course not. Do people with deep pockets and less common sense than a grasshopper buy them? Absolutely! But there is nothing (in my opinion) inherently dangerous about the Cirrus. We're back to "stupid is as stupid does". Enjoy your Cirrus, Steve. And, I do envy you owning one :wink2:
 
How does the Cirrus compare to the Corvalis? I would think they are similar (high performance TAA etc), yet the Corvalis seems to get less "negative press" regarding accident worthiness.
 
Russell Danson said:
How does the Cirrus compare to the Corvalis? I would think they are similar (high performance TAA etc), yet the Corvalis seems to get less "negative press" regarding accident worthiness.
Click to expand...

The Corvallis is effectively a Lancair ES, just produced as a certified aircraft. If someone buys it up, I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens with the Evolution eventually.

I'd look at a few factors. First, the Corvallis hasn't been around as long as the Cirrus and doesn't have the same popularity, so what accidents it has aren't as numerous and therefore not as much in the public mind.

Second, the Lancair has received no shortage of bad press due to crashes of various aircraft by unskilled pilots. The IV-P is known as the least forgiving - very fast and can get you at a high enough altitude to get you into some really bad weather.

The Cirrus (and the Corvallis) are not "fast" aircraft, despite what many think. The problem is that the brain needs to be trained to think at the speed they require. It needs to be trained for the speed of a 172 (admit it... you all thought your first short final was happening really fast). People who get into them without sufficient experience to build stick-and-rudder skills end up suffering the same fate. This translates up to bigger aircraft, and is why most insurance companies look for particular requirements before letting pilots fly a certain aircraft - both previous experience and dual received with an instructor.
 
weilke said:
You may be able to keep them from doing so by being some sort of a mentor to them. Give them your cell number 'if you ever wonder about a go/no-go decision, give me a call, anytime'. Go fly with them.
Click to expand...

I have, I just hope they use it.
 
Despite the FAA's reputation for requiring excessive certification work, there are some approved items that just make no sense at all - such as:

- The composite fuel tank structure in a Cirrus. There have been so many post crash fires, with many killing the occupants. Floating down in flames per the Boulder, CO accident in 2010 is scary. Doesn't Diamond embed an aluminum fuel tank inside their composite wing?

- Dry vacuum pumps - totally unrelated to Cirrus, but it really is amazing that such a poor design is allowed to drive vital IFR instruments.
 
dmac5356 said:
- The composite fuel tank structure in a Cirrus. There have been so many post crash fires, with many killing the occupants. Floating down in flames per the Boulder, CO accident in 2010 is scary. Doesn't Diamond embed an aluminum fuel tank inside their composite wing?
Click to expand...

An aircraft of ANY tank design short of a formula1 fuel cell would have burned after this in-flight collision. The only difference would have been that the burning wreckage would have made it to the ground in a 12sec freefall instead of the agonizing slow driftdown under the chute (agonizing for the onlookers, the occupant of the Cirrus was dead, so was the pilot of the Pawnee).

Yes Diamond uses the aluminum tanks, they burn up too if they hit hard enough (most of them crash into lakes or the pacific it seems mitigating the fire risk). The accident that scared me away from the Cirrus is the runway loc at montauk that ended with a fire when it should have been a bent landing gear and prop.
 
bbchien said:
I'll look again but I was unable to find a single diamond fire.
Click to expand...

One had a fire after a hard hit, but it didn't consume the plane and somehow was only reported in the prelim.

One reason we dont see many Diamond accidents is that there are far fewer of them and they are not flown in the same way as the Cirri Right now (2:19pm eastern) there are 46 SR22/SR20 in the IFR system and 2 DA40. They are flown by different pilots in different applications leading to different risk exposures.
 
Dean said:
Some friends of mine, both low time pilots, just bought a 2010 SR22. They moved up from a Cherokee 160, I sure hope they don't become one of those statistics.
Click to expand...

I would encourage your friends to join COPA and to take advantage of the great training opportunities they offer, in particular the Cirrus Pilots Proficiency Program (CPPP).
 
Jim Logajan said:
From: http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/Safetylessonslearned.aspx
​
Click to expand...
​
As a potential Cirrus buyer, the 145 posts that preceeded mine have been interesting. Some posts were useless banter, some provided different perspectives of the same data, and others (very, very few) actually provided useful informtion to the original question.

In the above link I found it curious that there were accidents attributed to weather that were VFR in VMC conditions. Can someone please help me with that one?
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Ford Crown Victoria – 756,458 registered vehicle years – Driver deaths per million registered vehicle years 53

Mercury Grand Marquis – 1,141,009 registered vehicle years - Driver deaths per million registered vehicle years 83

((83-53)/53)*100 = 57% increase in death rate. For (essentially) the same car.
Click to expand...

Same car yes... same driver, probably not.

When I think Crown Vics I think of cops and taxis. When I think of Grand Marquis, I think of OPDECS and FOPs.
 
Jaybird180 said:
[/INDENT]As a potential Cirrus buyer, the 145 posts that preceeded mine have been interesting. Some posts were useless banter, some provided different perspectives of the same data, and others (very, very few) actually provided useful informtion to the original question.

In the above link I found it curious that there were accidents attributed to weather that were VFR in VMC conditions. Can someone please help me with that one?
Click to expand...
Flying near/too close to T-storms. You don't have to be in IMC to get killed by them. LLWS can be another killer. Flying too fast in turbulence. Trying to avoid/outrun weather and flying into terrain/obstacles because you are trying to stay out of IMC. Lot's of ways to have weather related accidents while still in VMC.
 
Jaybird180 said:
[/INDENT] In the above link I found it curious that there were accidents attributed to weather that were VFR in VMC conditions. Can someone please help me with that one?
Click to expand...
Actually I didn't see any statistics at that link specifically on weather-related accidents that happened in VMC. There was one on fatal accidents according to the flight rules, IFR vs VFR, in which the VFR group included VFR-into-IMC accidents. Then just before that was one on fatal accidents according to "good wx vs bad wx", where there was no attempt to separate weather-related accidents from non-weather-related ones, and so no way to tell how many of the "bad wx" accidents were VMC but bad in some other way, vs those that were IMC; and presumably all of the VFR-into-IMC accidents from the next question were included in the "bad wx" group.

Maybe I missed something there?
 
Jeanie said:
OPDECS and FOPs? :confused:
Click to expand...

Sorry, guess I've spent too much time in snowbird areas. "Old People Driving Enormous Cars...." is common use in Florida and "Friggin Old People" in Arizona.
 
IMO, the answer on Cirrus is that it is an airplane a non-pilot is going to like the first time he climbs into one. So when a monied guy shows up at the airport with the goal of getting his ticket then buying a cross country airplane, he's likely to end up in a Cirrus.

The guy (at least the accident waiting to happen guy) is someone who hasn't read every aviation magazine since he was a kid. He hasn't read through hundreds or thousands of NTSB reports to get an idea of some of the things not to do. He's never immersed himself in aviation, and doesn't have much depth or breadth of knowledge on flying a small airplane.

So once he gets his license and then quickly buys a Cirrus and gets his IFR ticket, he's off on trip after trip.

And one day, either through ignorance or cockyness, he gets himself in over his head and we have another Cirrus thread.

It is the same thing that happed with Bonanzas back in their heyday.

It isn't the airplane, it is the pilots. In reality, it is a small segment of the Cirrus flying community. I know plenty of Cirrus pilots who are really good, sensible, knowledgable pilots. And I know a couple who can fly the airplane OK, but are usually behind the curve when it comes to decision making.
 
NoHeat said:
The results of spending a minute searching the NTSB database for Diamond and fire:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20101213X95210&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20050928X01545&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20021030X05408&key=1
Click to expand...

Two of those flew into powerlines.

The first one is the only one I am aware of where a regular accident caused a post-impact fire. If you read the report, you notice that it takes 4 paragraphs to describle all the different pieces the plane broke up into.
 
Last edited:
kyleb said:
So once he gets his license and then quickly buys a Cirrus and gets his IFR ticket, he's off on trip after trip.

And one day, either through ignorance or cockyness, he gets himself in over his head and we have another Cirrus thread.
Click to expand...

There are a good number of Cirrus fatals with high time pilots at the controls. It's not that simple.
 
It's a bummer when the facts don't fit the stereotype.
weilke said:
There are a good number of Cirrus fatals with high time pilots at the controls. It's not that simple.
Click to expand...
 
kyleb said:
IMO, the answer on Cirrus is that it is an airplane a non-pilot is going to like the first time he climbs into one. So when a monied guy shows up at the airport with the goal of getting his ticket then buying a cross country airplane, he's likely to end up in a Cirrus.

The guy (at least the accident waiting to happen guy) is someone who hasn't read every aviation magazine since he was a kid. He hasn't read through hundreds or thousands of NTSB reports to get an idea of some of the things not to do. He's never immersed himself in aviation, and doesn't have much depth or breadth of knowledge on flying a small airplane.

So once he gets his license and then quickly buys a Cirrus and gets his IFR ticket, he's off on trip after trip.

And one day, either through ignorance or cockyness, he gets himself in over his head and we have another Cirrus thread.

It is the same thing that happed with Bonanzas back in their heyday.

It isn't the airplane, it is the pilots. In reality, it is a small segment of the Cirrus flying community. I know plenty of Cirrus pilots who are really good, sensible, knowledgable pilots. And I know a couple who can fly the airplane OK, but are usually behind the curve when it comes to decision making.
Click to expand...

More money than brains syndrome...





weilke said:
There are a good number of Cirrus fatals with high time pilots at the controls. It's not that simple.
Click to expand...

But yeah definitely some hightime accidents. I wrote a scholarly paper on the Cirrus BRS for my Bachelors, I'll see if I can dig it up. In a nutshell though, while I suppose its better to have a parachute than not, $9000 in flight training instead would save many more lives. You can't pull he chute too late, you can't pull the chute too fast, pulling the chute is the only demonstrated spin recovery.. actually one of the hightime accidents was a macho hazardous attitude with pilot & instructor that tried to recover from a spin without pulling the chute during the incipent stage. They spun quite a few times and finally pulled the chute about 900AGL which would have been too low IF it opened but it ripped off anyway and they slammed into the ground. Hard to blame him, who that knows better wants to pull the 'total me' switch. One my old instructors told me in his Air Force days he knew a guy that flew a trainer (T40? I forget) into a thunderstorm trying to out climb it. He ended going down with the jet, could of, should have ejected they suspect he didn't want to face the reprecussions.

<---<^>--->
 
p1l0t said:
pulling the chute is the only demonstrated spin recovery
Click to expand...

Technically yes, for US certification. Cirrus had to demonstrate recovery from a 1 turn spin for EASA certification and no significant anomalies were noted using normal recovery techniques.

I think a lot of it comes down to decision making and judgement. I have been teaching primary and commercial students in the Cirrus SR20 for the last two years and they have all done really well. If you teach them how to evaluate a situation and the best way to make the right decision, you can mitigate a lot of issues that lead down the accident chain.
 
Last edited:
p1l0t said:
$9000 in flight training instead would save many more lives. You can't pull he chute too late, you can't pull the chute too fast, pulling the chute is the only demonstrated spin recovery..
Click to expand...

If you look at the 30-40 chute pulls and lives that were saved, I think it's pretty ridiculous to say that $9000 in flight training would have saved more lives. Just not true...or at least...impossible to "prove". I'm CERTAINLY not advocating AGAINST flight training...AND I agree that, in general, flight training is probably the single biggest thing you can do to improve your odds as a pilot. BUT...I really like having that chute. The parameters you're able to pull are pretty easy to stay within. To date...of the 30-40 pulls, there have only been 3 or so that were fatal due to pulling outside the envelope. Too low or way too fast.

As for spins...it's really kind of a silly argument about Cirrus's. It was just a business decision in the US...not to get the certification...instead they spent the money on the chute development. It doesn't mean it doesn't recover exactly the same way every other plane recovers...as proven in EASA certification.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top