Is the Cirrus a Coffin Maker?

[VORTIME]

Hi there,

Guys - anyone have any ideas on this - the Cirrus SR20/SR22 seems to have an awful safety record. Another one is down - the Manhattan crash. Why does everyone keep crashing the damn things??

I personally think you should be type rated on it like a jet.

VT

[172driver]

VORTIME, EVERY plane is a coffin maker if you don't know how to fly it. Some of course are more forgiving than others.... Re your 'rating' idea, AFAIK you already need something like 15 hours conversion training to be able to insure the a/c. There's already more than enough bureaucracy in aviation....

[Maxflyer]

Are there comparative figures to support the statement

the Cirrus SR20/SR22 seems to have an awful safety record

Is this in respect of incidents/number of aircraft built or incident numbers comapred to other makes?

Just interested.

[IO540]

This subject has been done to death in probably every pilot forum in the USA and everywhere else, and as far as I know nobody has demonstrated any statistical significance in this.

Cirrus have sold a lot of planes, and sold them very fast. They attract a lot of attention, for various reasons, some reasonable (the first company to break the Cessna/Piper mould; a nice looking well equipped and very capable plane) and others IMHO less reasonable (product bought by affluent young people which creates envy in the owner-pilot scene which tends to be dominated by rather older people; product advertised in mens' lifestyle mags i.e. to new pilots as a means of executive travel across the USA without spelling out that you need to be a very skilled IR pilot to use it in that way; BRS chute not liked by traditionalists who believe it offers a way out of poor planning and flying; etc). Anybody doubting the "less reasonable" reasons for getting attention needs to only read some of the trash written on the BRS chute... Why not just put a pneumatically operated 3ft spike in the instrument panel which impales the pilot if he makes a mistake? That would cut down the accidents very effectively.

It's probably true that since the plane is a) well equipped and b) has been bought by a lot of less experienced pilots, and c) a lot of them are limited to VFR (IMHO much more than would be the case with that level of mission capability in Europe, where they tend to be bought by IR pilots) the type of accident is different. The cockpit workload on autopilot should be much lower, so different mistakes will be made. Just as the mistakes made by airline pilots are different to those made by C152 pilots.

I think some of the mistakes reported were pretty stupid (like collecting a ton of ice, apparently doing nothing about it, and then pulling the chute when control is lost) and it is certainly true (with hindsight) that most if not all of the BRS activations were not necessary, but people do really stupid and easily avoidable things in ordinary spamcans all the time (like running out of fuel, getting lost, taking off massively overweight and going off the runway, busting controlled airspace etc etc etc) and it doesn't get any special press.

As I said, I have never seen data showing that the accident rate per mile, per hour, or whatever, is any worse than any other piston SE GA type.

[soay]

A member of AOPA US wrote in their forum an interesting analysis of the Cirrus accident statistics, which debunked a lot of myths. For those who are not members, it is quoted verbatim, about half way down this thread.

[scooter boy]

Cirrus

Good points:

Angelina Jolie has one and if she is reading this I think she has great taste in aircraft and would be free to come flying with her anytime.

Bad pointsMiss Jolie you can stop reading now and feel free to PM me)

Fixed gear hanging down into the slipstream (even the most aerodynamic gear fairings are still worse than doing what the birds do and tucking the gear away). I just hate the aesthetics and the idea of that wasted avgas.(same goes for the Lancair Columbia)

Bits have fallen off - the cirrus chief test pilot was killed a few years ago after an aileron departed the airframe - tragically the aircraft he was in did not have a BRS fitted. There have been one or two other 'bits falling off' scenarios that scared me out of buying one.

Composite - I still don't trust it when there is any chance of lightning around - would much rather be in a metal airframe - remember than glider accident when the 2 guys ended up minus the wings sitting in a canopy-less fuselage with the wind whislting up their trouser legs after a lightning strike in a composite glider. (I write this having 500+ hours in composite aircraft myself)

De-icing - actually anti-icing AFAIK - not certified for known ice. So in other words not tested as rigorously as in known ice certified A/C. Hence iceblock scenario.

I really also hate all the "we just saved another life with our BRS" nonsense. C'mon guys - you can strap a 'chute to your back if you like but how many accidents are caused by the aircraft becoming unflyable?

Basically it's a plane for people who want their plane to be like a car with a get-out handle.

I am now going to hide as I know how popular they are.

Seriously though, Miss Jolie, Brad does not fly and you could have a lot more fun flying with me - I might even get into your cirrus if you promised to hold my stick.

SB

[waldopepper42]

Nope, the Cirrus SR20/SR22 is most certainly NOT a coffin maker!


Might be a coffin FILLER, though...

[Cirrus-Pilot]

A Cirrus owner speaking

I fly a Cirrus and have to say that when presented with the option of flying 20 year, and older, GA planes that populate the skies of the UK or flying a new modern Cirrus with all the latest technology there is no contest. I have come to the conclusion that most of what is being said is "Sour Grapes" from people who cannot afford to fly one. Planes such as the Cirrus will keep GA alive.

[robin]

Originally Posted by Cirrus-Pilot

..... I have come to the conclusion that most of what is being said is "Sour Grapes" from people who cannot afford to fly one. Planes such as the Cirrus will keep GA alive.

Not at those prices they won't

[Confabulous]

If they keep pulling the chute in stupid situations it's going to get a repuation as dangerous, even if it's not. Take for instance the guy that pulled if after having a partial stroke. When he woke up it was going downhill above Vne. The chute held, but the descent rate was such that he broke his back, mainly because he landed on water, with no landing gear to absorb all those forces.

[soay]

Originally Posted by Confabulous

If they keep pulling the chute in stupid situations it's going to get a repuation as dangerous, even if it's not. Take for instance the guy that pulled if after having a partial stroke. When he woke up it was going downhill above Vne. The chute held, but the descent rate was such that he broke his back, mainly because he landed on water, with no landing gear to absorb all those forces.

Are you suggesting that he was stupid to pull the chute in that circumstance? Seems like a good idea to me.

FYI, his "broken back" was a crushed vertebra, which was minor compared with the loss of function he suffered after the brain surgery for the tumour. The full story can be read here.

[MNBluestater]

Flying Magazine on the Cirrus

Originally Posted by Maxflyer

Are there comparative figures to support the statement

Is this in respect of incidents/number of aircraft built or incident numbers comapred to other makes?

Just interested.

http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp...print_pag e=y tells about the aircraft and record at the time the article was written

[MNBluestater]

OOOOOOhhhhhh , yeah

Originally Posted by scooter boy

Good points:

Angelina Jolie has one and if she is reading this I think she has great taste in aircraft and would be free to come flying with her anytime.

Seriously though, Miss Jolie, Brad does not fly and you could have a lot more fun flying with me - I might even get into your cirrus if you promised to hold my stick.

SB

Would you get into her Cirrus if she promised to look after your nacelles as well ?...

[englishal]

Prehaps we should ban thunderstorms as well. Seems to have been a number of IFR deaths recently attributed to thunderstorms in America. Prehaps, having a ballistic chute may just save your life when the wings depart the airframe when you accidentally enter a cell.

Anyway, Miss Jolie has a very nice aeroplane, I had a little nose around one day. We used to fly the same aeroplane don't you know......

[Morgo]

Originally Posted by robin

Not at those prices they won't

Well, if anyone is interested, I'm in the process of setting up a group based around a near new Cirrus SR22 G2. Depending on actual aircraft purchased, share price approx £20K with monthly of £70 and dry rate of £20/hr.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...ghlight=cirrus

being in a group makes flying a Cirrus far more affordable!

[shortstripper]

I have to admit, if I ever needed encouragement to get into any aeroplane (I'm easy generally ) Angelina Jolie would have no problem .... PLEASE PLEASE!

SS

[Confabulous]

Prehaps, having a ballistic chute may just save your life when the wings depart the airframe when you accidentally enter a cell.

Perhaps, but I'm fairly certain that a CB strong enough to cause structural failure would also suck you up to 35,000 feet or more. If a Cirrus wing fails at around 9G, it could turn the chute into hankies.

As for the chute pull over Vne, I'm not sure. It seems like pulling the handle converts the pilot to a passenger, and it may or may not be the lesser of two evils. We know a BRS is not a panacea. It's a great idea on low weight/speed aircraft, that's for sure. And there's no doubt that the 135kt max-deploy speed is a tad conservative. But I get the impression, which could easily be wrong, that in some cases it was deployed because the pilot left himself with no way out. I'd guess it was designed for these situations:

1. Inadvertant spins
2. Structural failure

That's it. As far as I'm aware, Cirrus and Columbia both wanted aircraft that were either spin-proof or spin resistant. Cirrus convinced the FAA that the BRS counted as spin-proof, while Columbia went with being aerodynamically spin resistant. No point in going over the old Cirrus spin debate. It wasn't designed to get you out of jail free. It's been used for all sorts since, beyond its intended design brief. But that's not the aircraft's fault - it's a stunning design, fast, powerful and efficient.

However, claiming 'sour grapes' is not such a good idea - many simply don't need or want a Cirrus. Depending on the Cirrus, cruise is between 140 - 180kts depending on power setting. GA pilots in general rarely fly with more than one passenger, more often solo. And if you have the money to buy one, that's fine too, and I applaud you for it. But realise this: there are PFA aircraft out there that will almost match the Cirrus for speed and range, and do it at the price that makes the Cirrus look a tad silly. What's 10kts here and there?

If I had £200k to play with, a Cirrus would not be a priority - an Escapade and a Pitts S1S, with fuel, maintenance, insurance and hangarage (not to mention training) for 5 years would. Or maybe an MCR-01 with expenses for 10 years. I know a millionaire who'd go for the latter without a second's thought.

Like I said, don't bother trying to claim sour grapes

EnglishAl: Did you hear that she gave her instructor a present of her bra when she passed her PPL test?

[wileydog3]

Originally Posted by VORTIME

Hi there,
Guys - anyone have any ideas on this - the Cirrus SR20/SR22 seems to have an awful safety record. Another one is down - the Manhattan crash. Why does everyone keep crashing the damn things??
I personally think you should be type rated on it like a jet.
VT

More people are injured and killed in the US on ladders than in gen-av airplanes.
LETS BAN LADDERS!!!! or require a 5 day school on ladders and their use.

[Fuji Abound]

If I had £200k to play with, a Cirrus would not be a priority - an Escapade and a Pitts S1S, with fuel, maintenance, insurance and hangarage (not to mention training) for 5 years would. Or maybe an MCR-01 with expenses for 10 years. I know a millionaire who'd go for the latter without a second's thought.

I agree with much of your comment. Whilst clearly the above paragraph is a personal view, I think it is also important to understand the reasons for the success of aircraft like the Cirrus. The comparison with home builds or Escapade is not valid any more than comparing a Caterham with a Porsche. Both might offer similar performance but that is the extent of the comparison. Cirrus offer an "executive" cabin for pilot and passengers, a "solid" aircraft with many other safety features (aside from the BP), and a sophistication of avionics, to name but a few of the features not offered elsewhere. Its the whole package that makes the product attractive to some, in the same way that there are those that prefer Porsches to Caterhams.

Horses for .. .. ..

[IO540]

1. Inadvertant spins
2. Structural failure

3. Engine failure above mountainous terrain or dense forest

a CB strong enough to cause structural failure would also suck you up to 35,000 feet or more. If a Cirrus wing fails at around 9G, it could turn the chute into hankies

Within one CB, you get multiple columns of air, each going up and down. Each can be a few miles across, so you go up one minute and down the next. The structural failure risk is not from the vertical speed itself; it's from the vertical acceleration resulting from flying too fast through the boundaries between these.

I am sure it would take a lot to break the wings off a Cirrus, or a TB20 for that matter. Probably flying into a nasty CB at close to Vne. But once a wing breaks off, the thing is just going to plummet; around 10,000fpm (100kt vertical speed) according to some NTSB reports. No CB will suck a 1000kg+ lump upwards, IMHO. The chute should work.

Re Permit planes, they can't go IFR and that severely limits mission capability. One can do a lot going "ostensibly VFR" especially if bending every rule enroute but you still end up scrapping some 90% of preplanned flights because you would never get back down.

While it is very possible that VFR-only 140kt composite planes costing under £70k will (over the next 20 years) suck the £250k+ European IFR aircraft market dry, there will always be a demand for planes that can carry 3-4 people and stuff across Europe. The flow of new models will be assured by the US market which has a large IFR contingent (accessible IR, etc).