Aviation Consumer: Cirrus Safety Record Just Average

Mike H

Mike H

Well-Known Member
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Cirrus_Safety_Record_Average_205914-1.html

December 20, 2011
Aviation Consumer: Cirrus Safety Record Just Average

By AVweb Staff
clearpixel.gif

When the Cirrus SR20 and 22 first appeared a dozen years ago, the models' full airframe parachute system and stall/spin resistant wing were expected to set new standards for light aircraft safety. But according to Aviation Consumer's January edition, the Cirrus line has achieved, at best, a middle of the road safety and accident record that makes its fatal accident rate a bit better than Mooney and Piper high-performance models, but a bit worse than the Columbia/Corvalis series and Cessna's venerable 172 and 182. The magazine studied accident records dating back as far as 30 years on 11 popular GA light aircraft. Among its findings are that the Cirrus overall accident rate is 3.25/100,000, placing it closer to the top of the list of airplanes Aviation Consumer considered and about half of the GA average overall accident rate of 6.3/100,000. Only Diamond's DA40 and DA42 had better overall accident rates -- dramatically so in the case of the DA40, whose overall rate is 1.19, a little more than a sixth of the GA average.

Cirrus aircraft finished lower when fatal rate is considered. The Cirrus combined rate (SR20 and SR22) is 1.6, compared to the GA average of 1.2/100,000. Diamond's DA40 has the lowest fatal rate at .35, followed by the Cessna 172 at .45, the Diamond DA42 at .54 and the Cessna 182 at .69. Cessna's Corvalis line, which began life as the Columbia, has a fatal rate of 1.0, a bit less than the GA average of 1.2. The Columbia/Corvalis models are essentially similar in construction and performance to the Cirrus SR22, but without the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS).

The magazine also examined how effective CAPS has been and concludes that when deployed under optimal conditions of speed and altitude, the system has proven effective in saving lives in preventing serious injury. But it's far from perfect. Of 31 CAPS deployments, both intentional and possibly unintentional, 39 of 57 occupants emerged without injury, while seven occupants have been seriously injured by touchdown under CAPS. There have been six fatalities associated with CAPS deployment, several of which occurred either at very low altitude or speeds beyond the system's demonstrated performance envelope. One surprise from the magazine's study is that at least 12 of the aircraft that landed under CAPS were repaired and returned to service.

The Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association has studied Cirrus accidents extensively and concludes that the models would have a much better safety record if some 83 pilots who got into trouble in circumstances where CAPS was well within its envelope had simply used it. COPA is developing new training methods to teach pilots how to include CAPS more effectively in their response to abnormal flight situations.
Click to expand...

Good news for DA-40 pilots, though
 
It wouldn't injure my feelings in the least if every Cirrus were recycled tomorrow. That said, the certified Columbia/Corvalis is much newer and made in lower numbers, and comparing it to a 172 is sort of ridiculous
 
after flying both for a while the only thing i like better about the 400 vs the cirrus is the speed faster but not by much. the cirrus feels bigger but it is hard to get trimmed out just right. and it doesnt take chop very well.
 
Some of you are not going to like what I'm going to say about the Cirrus.

While it is a wonderful plane to fly, it is the new doctor killer.

The parachute gives the weekend pilot a sense of "invincibility" which can and does get some pilots in trouble in this aircraft. They might take more chances because they believe the CAPS will get them out of trouble.

The sad fact is that the CAPS will destroy the plane if it is pulled too early and this contributes to the fatal accidents in these aircraft. On the other hand, as has been pointed out, some are reluctant to deploy the CAPS and this also will contribute to the fatal accidents.

That is a lot of plane to fly for someone that doesn't fly every week and is not at the top of their game.

I believe Aviation Consumer is being very gentle here with the Cirrus safety record.

Also the CAPS system has a 10 year TBO which will set a Cirrus owner back $15,000. That's not pocket change.

Joe
 
JOEFRIDAY2 said:
Also the CAPS system has a 10 year TBO which will set a Cirrus owner back $15,000. That's not pocket change.

Joe
Click to expand...

I agree with everything in your post, except that the whole $15k deal, that is indeed pocket change for those who can afford a $200-$400k 4 place piston single.
 
<shrug>

Statistics can be formulated to say almost anything.

The demographics of pilots, their experience levels, and the type of flying they do is all drastically different in a Cirrus SR-22, C-172, and DA-40.

I don't think it's fair to compare them as equals. They need to be taken on their own merits independently.
 
jrh said:
<shrug>

Statistics can be formulated to say almost anything.

The demographics of pilots, their experience levels, and the type of flying they do is all drastically different in a Cirrus SR-22, C-172, and DA-40.

I don't think it's fair to compare them as equals. They need to be taken on their own merits independently.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I could crunch the numbers and prove that I am a millionaire, while I only have about $20 to my name. Statistics are good when unbiased, and comparing apples to apples - but that doesn't happen too often.
 
BigWaveDave said:
There is a small 135 outfit out of DVO that runs a cirrus. The pilot is a pro and I'm sure it is a perfectly safe airplane when operated by a pro. Thing is any aircraft is safe when operated by a pro.
Click to expand...

As always the least reliable part of any aircraft is the loose nut in the left seat.

A Cirrus is a great plane for the same missions as a Mooney. However, the CAPS parachute and the glass cockpit tend to be marketed as "the airplane flys itself" and "if anythign goes wrong you can just pull the chute". This plus the price tag lends itself to a dangerous catagory of owners.
 
USMCmech said:
As always the least reliable part of any aircraft is the loose nut in the left seat.

A Cirrus is a great plane for the same missions as a Mooney. However, the CAPS parachute and the glass cockpit tend to be marketed as "the airplane flys itself" and "if anythign goes wrong you can just pull the chute". This plus the price tag lends itself to a dangerous catagory of owners.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you're getting your info, but I have yet to meet ANY pilot who has this mentality. There is not a single owner I know who espouses anything that you have stated, regardless of what they fly.

Do pilots get behind the airplane because they are distracted? Yep. Get behind the airplane because they haven't flown in a month? Sure. Prior to yesterday, I hadn't been in a plane in 3 weeks. And I am in flight school full time. Things in GA happen because people lead busy lives, and don't have the same day-to-day sharpness of a professional pilot. It's not because we're reckless or dangerous.

The price of the plane is a factor. Most of us who fly these planes tend to be small business owners with growing companies which requires us to travel, and we would rather invest into our lives by flying ourselves rather than sit in an airport, get loaded into cattle cars and herded around the country. And so, we make a substantial capital investment to do that.

I assure you, there is nobody who wants to leave a flight in a body bag. Glass or steam, handle or no handle. Nobody.


Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk
 
Canassis said:
I don't know where you're getting your info, but I have yet to meet ANY pilot who has this mentality. There is not a single owner I know who espouses anything that you have stated, regardless of what they fly.
Click to expand...

I do. One flies drives a Cirrus, the other a Bonanza. Well, until he wrecked the Bo. Now that I think about it, I know one flying a Cessna Mustang also.
 
msmspilot said:
I do. One flies drives a Cirrus, the other a Bonanza. Well, until he wrecked the Bo. Now that I think about it, I know one flying a Cessna Mustang also.
Click to expand...

Really? You know people who actually think, "If I get a glass airplane, I won't have to really plan for a flight, preflight, fly the plane, or get myself out of precarious situations using my collective intelligence, and know-how; the airplane will do it for me?" Really?
 
Canassis said:
Really? You know people who actually think, "If I get a glass airplane, I won't have to really plan for a flight, preflight, fly the plane, or get myself out of precarious situations using my collective intelligence, and know-how; the airplane will do it for me?" Really?
Click to expand...
I don't know if this is sarcasm or not but I know people like that. No idea what their limitations are anymore but they know if they use GPS #1 that'll give them up to date maps and GPS #2 has the weather, the one mounted in the dash which isn't updated, because it costs more, still has correct missed depiction though it's not an up to date database.
 
Canassis said:
Really? You know people who actually think, "If I get a glass airplane, I won't have to really plan for a flight, preflight, fly the plane, or get myself out of precarious situations using my collective intelligence, and know-how; the airplane will do it for me?" Really?
Click to expand...

Yep, I sure do.

Now, nobody comes out and says that verbatim but that is their attidue. They have an outlook that technology negates the need for airmanship and sound judgment. The airplane manufacturers have been preaching that line for the last half century since Cessna printed adds foe the Land O Matic tricycle gear which enabled anyone th learn to fly.

OTOH, I do know plenty of Doctor/Lawyer/Buisness owner pilots who are very good pilots, and are well aware of their limitations. It is a pleasure to fly with them in their "Dr. killer" airplanes, bcause they take things as seriously as I do.

The SR-22 turbo is a GREAT plane, and if I had the money I would buy one. Personally the CAPS parachute is not a selling point for me because in most of the cases I would need to pull the parachute (CFIT, low alt stall/spin, ect.) it would be too late. It is just ballast, and would not enter my thought process at all. When I fly with a Cirrus pilot, I recomend that they remove the option of the parachute from their go/no go decision making.
 
USMCmech said:
Yep, I sure do.

Now, nobody comes out and says that verbatim but that is their attidue. They have an outlook that technology negates the need for airmanship and sound judgment.
Click to expand...

X2....I haven't had people say it flat out, (I mean seriously, who would ever say that?) but I've done BFRs with people in their planes that have their own "routine", and when that routine is changed they don't know how to handle it. I had a guy who only did D-> on the GPS. When I put him under the hood and "failed" his GPS, he couldn't even get us pointed in the right direction with a VOR. I let him go for almost 10 minutes in completely the wrong direction before I said "need some help with VORs?".

When I fly with a Cirrus pilot, I recomend that they remove the option of the parachute from their go/no go decision making.
Click to expand...

Excellent suggestion. Just because there's a parachute on board shouldn't ever be a reason to go, when they otherwise wouldn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top