Cirrus Statistics (CAPS & Accidents)

[jrh]

1. I have a student (25 TT) who is set on buying a Cirrus to complete his private and instrument training. Any tips from those who fly these things?

What does your student ultimately want to do with flying? Has he test flown anything else?

The reason I ask this is because a lot of guys with 25 TT get sold on a Cirrus without a true understanding of what they need in a plane. I have nothing against Cirrus, I actually think they're good planes. However, I wouldn't recommend them as a first aircraft for a pilot any more than I'd recommend a new Mooney or Bonanza.

In my opinion, a new C-182 or 206 is a better fit for a low time pilot with the same amount of money. I'd encourage him to at least take a demo flight in one of the new Cessnas before committing to a Cirrus, to have a benchmark to compare the Cirrus to. He might be unimpressed by whatever aircraft he's currently training in (is it an older Cessna or Cherokee?), but a glass-paneled turbo 182 is a very capable machine compared to the trainer he's used to.

Anyway, if he insists on a Cirrus, the biggest difference you'll notice is how "slippery" it is. Very low drag. Therefore you'll need to plan descents and approaches to landing accordingly. Chopping the power and throwing out flaps in a Cirrus will not salvage a high/fast approach the way it will in typical trainers.

Also, the landing picture is different. The Cirrus lands much faster and "flatter" than typical trainers. You, as an instructor, might want to spend an hour or two doing takeoffs and landings with an experienced Cirrus pilot to get the feel for this.

The last piece of advice is to teach to a deeper level than you might otherwise teach somebody in a 172. Everything from checklists to decision making skills become more critical when flying the Cirrus. It goes significantly faster and leaves less margin for error. A good pilot can handle it fine, but it's sort of like landing a tailwheel aircraft--if you have good technique, landing a tailwheel and tricycle gear aircraft is the same. However, a tailwheel aircraft is much less forgiving of mistakes. Same with the Cirrus. Do everything right and it's a great aircraft. Start making mistakes and things will snowball faster than they would if you were in a 172.

 

[shdw]

...Edited for brevity...

I would add: procedures, procedures, procedures!!! If you get some time alone, come up with good procedures for departure, landing, approaching the field, descent profiles, and emergencies. Tweak them to work as best you can and give them to the student, then continue to tweak them with the student to perfect them for him/her. A procedure can then be practiced through chair flying on the ground and really hammered home, IMO that would drastically help.

One final thing, bottom lines and back doors for situations. How long will I let it float before going around? If the weather is bad how low can it go? If it gets there what is my back door? Basically, core decision making that has some direction as apposed to just, you need ADM, here read this. Most often, IMO, they are too vague. Applying bottom lines and back doors to your own made up scenarios on the ground can go a long way in improving their ADM for such an aircraft.

Just my 02.

 

[jrh]

I would add: procedures, procedures, procedures!!! If you get some time alone, come up with good procedures for departure, landing, approaching the field, descent profiles, and emergencies. Tweak them to work as best you can and give them to the student, then continue to tweak them with the student to perfect them for him/her. A procedure can then be practiced through chair flying on the ground and really hammered home, IMO that would drastically help.

One final thing, bottom lines and back doors for situations. How long will I let it float before going around? If the weather is bad how low can it go? If it gets there what is my back door? Basically, core decision making that has some direction as apposed to just, you need ADM, here read this. Most often, IMO, they are too vague. Applying bottom lines and back doors to your own made up scenarios on the ground can go a long way in improving their ADM for such an aircraft.

Very good points. And I would add, these tips apply to learning any aircraft, not just a Cirrus. But since the Cirrus is less forgiving of poor piloting, a pilot has to be more on top of things from the start.

 

[Jpax]

After spending about twenty hours in an SR-22 for time building and to "see what it's all about," I am glad to be back flying the T206. The Cirrus was an uncomfortable ride. The sun bakes you, the seat belts are horrid, the air vents are worthless, it's loud as hell inside...it can turn on a dime, though. And the build quality is uber-crap. It was non-turbo so it struggled through 5,000 with two adults inside....and the fuel burn was ridiculous. Several gallons more than the 206-- and only 20-30 kts faster.

I don't miss flying it, it was a decent experience, but not one I would rave about. When people ask about how it flies-- I tell them it handles nicely because, well, it does. Other than that-- meh. All in all, since the topic is about accidents and such, I'd rather be in the 206 if the engine crapped out than in a Cirrus any time, any day. Hands down.


[Flame suit on]

 

[Murdoughnut]

Does the cirrus seat recline? If I'm falling with the aid of the chute, ideally I want to get my body as close to horizontal as possible in order to allow each part to individually absorb the shock of landing. Sitting upright means that the impact forces transfer directly into your spine, compressing, or possibly fracturing it.

Thanks Bill Nye

 

[shdw]

Does the cirrus seat recline? If I'm falling with the aid of the chute, ideally I want to get my body as close to horizontal as possible in order to allow each part to individually absorb the shock of landing. Sitting upright means that the impact forces transfer directly into your spine, compressing, or possibly fracturing it.

Thanks Bill Nye

That is what the baggage compartment is for!

Honestly, I do not know though.

I don't know if this was mentioned yet, but I assume the water landings cause spinal injuries because the landing gear cannot be used efficiently as a shock into water. Instead the body provides a sudden stop. Seems common sense, but I don't know if some people didn't think of it.

 

[woutlaw]

Does the cirrus seat recline? If I'm falling with the aid of the chute, ideally I want to get my body as close to horizontal as possible in order to allow each part to individually absorb the shock of landing. Sitting upright means that the impact forces transfer directly into your spine, compressing, or possibly fracturing it.

Thanks Bill Nye

It reclines, although not flat.

The seat bottom is designed to absorb the shock of landing/crashing under the chute. The seat back, afik, is not.

The gear absorbs quite a bit of the energy as well but apparently it's still a heck of an impact as you are coming down hard.

 

[shdw]

Just wanted to shed some light on what kind of impact we are talking about without the chute, might give some idea as to why there are spinal injuries. Especially with water ops without the gear left to absorb anything. The ROD in my readings is 1500-1700 FPM, a little under 17.1-19.3 MPH.

That is the equivalent of going to your local basketball court, standing on top of the rim, keep your legs straight, and sit back, falling ass first to the pavement. Around a 12 foot free fall is needed to achieve just under 19 MPH.

 

[mikecweb]

Just wanted to shed some light on what kind of impact we are talking about without the chute, might give some idea as to why there are spinal injuries. Especially with water ops without the gear left to absorb anything. The ROD in my readings is 1500-1700 FPM, a little under 17.1-19.3 MPH.

That is the equivalent of going to your local basketball court, standing on top of the rim, keep your legs straight, and sit back, falling ass first to the pavement. Around a 12 foot free fall is needed to achieve just under 19 MPH.

I'll go try that and report back.

 

[shdw]

I'll go try that and report back.

You have to video tape this man. You might send the idea into jackass if that show is still running, bet those morons would do it.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

I'll go try that and report back.

I bet ninja salt could pull it off.

 

[moxiepilot]

I have more statistics I will put in the thread at a later date (probably tomorrow) more along these lines. Accidents during different weather conditions, amount of time in type, etc... Just thought I would put some stuff in here us talk about it and then put more in later. Really I'm just to lazy to type that stuff up now. There fatality rate is pretty high, not going to deny that however I find it interesting to analyze it and try to spitball solutions. I'm trying to prevent any logbooks I sign to become a number.

Im interested in these statistics which have yet to be posted. Not sure if you haven't had time or have run from a thread where some of the koolaid spilled.

Either way, I haven't seen any information documenting the safety of Cirrus over other planes other than the grim statistics I posted disproving that, straight from the NTSB.

 

[jhugz]

Im interested in these statistics which have yet to be posted. Not sure if you haven't had time or have run from a thread where some of the koolaid spilled.

Either way, I haven't seen any information documenting the safety of Cirrus over other planes other than the grim statistics I posted disproving that, straight from the NTSB.

I'm getting it out of a magazine I left I work. I will post them. May not be for a couple days though.

 

[jhugz]

Lack of experience in the SR2X:

7 fatal accidents happened with more then 400 in type
12 w/ less then 400 but more then 150
17 w/ less the 150
and 3 w/ a CFI onboard

Weather

30 Fatal Accidents in IMC
25 In Visual

------------------------------

21 Fatal Accidents In IMC
13 VFR into IMC
21 VFR in VMC


Just want to conclude that after one awesomely nasty, personally insulting PM I'm not a drone to the Cirrus Company. They have their faults as an airplane but I believe they are a solid built, safe, and easy flying airplane. The problem I believe w/ Cirrus is their lack of standardized training. Pilots need to understand what they are getting themselves into and need to be willing to spend the money on proper training since you are dropping 3/4 of a million dollars on a single engine piston. I hope someone got some use out of this thread before all the stupidity showed up. As for the PM'er dropping me that awesome piece of writing personally insulting me over a thread about airplanes and their safety records understand that stuff happens get over it and don't take it out on unrelated others.

 

[Vector4Food]

As a recreational pilot, and seasonal commercial pilot, it scares the living crap out of me to read that someone wouldn't even attempt to find a suitable off-field landing site, but just "pull a chute"

Goes to show where flight training has gone these days, sickening and honestly IMO you should be ashamed of yourself. When you're flying the airplane YOU control where its going to land, if you just pop a chute several things "Could" happen:

Chute may not deploy properly, now you're going to crash into the ground in an uncontrollable aircraft, killing everyone onboard, and likely crash onto a field you could have simply flown onto.

You might pop the chute and drift into a lake and everyone onboard drowns, you might drift into high tension powerlines and kill everyone onboard.

Here's my bottom line, if the airplane is CONTROLLABLE then if you fly the airplane you stand a much better chance of guaranteeing your survival assuming you're not bombing around at 500 AGL, if you operate you airplane safely to begin with, unless you have structural failure, or flying at night over the mountains any pilot worth his salt NEVER needs chute.

 

[shdw]

a drone to the Cirrus Company.

Don't lie! We all seen you get your xmas bonus. JK bud

I personally think cirrus is just a little ahead of it's time. When training aircraft fly faster and the training programs are redesigned, in many ways, then cirrus will have a great market. They get alot of undue heat because of their statistics and people just being stupid or not having the training.

I won't blab on about training, most of you have read it. But the cirrus statistics only help to prove many of my points on training. It is not a hard aircraft to fly, but some how people still get miles behind it. We have to be proactive, not reactive, across all spectrums of aviation. I think alot of us forget that.

As one of my professors in college once said, "The only good thing about being behind the aircraft is you won't be there when it crashes." Apparently some people take that as a literal statement. :dunno:

 

[wjmiller3]

As a recreational pilot, and seasonal commercial pilot, it scares the living crap out of me to read that someone wouldn't even attempt to find a suitable off-field landing site, but just "pull a chute"

Goes to show where flight training has gone these days, sickening and honestly IMO you should be ashamed of yourself. When you're flying the airplane YOU control where its going to land, if you just pop a chute several things "Could" happen:

Chute may not deploy properly, now you're going to crash into the ground in an uncontrollable aircraft, killing everyone onboard, and likely crash onto a field you could have simply flown onto.

You might pop the chute and drift into a lake and everyone onboard drowns, you might drift into high tension powerlines and kill everyone onboard.

Here's my bottom line, if the airplane is CONTROLLABLE then if you fly the airplane you stand a much better chance of guaranteeing your survival assuming you're not bombing around at 500 AGL, if you operate you airplane safely to begin with, unless you have structural failure, or flying at night over the mountains any pilot worth his salt NEVER needs chute.

Not that it has anything to do with this thread, but you should prabably not say "NEVER". Talking in absolutes usually doesn't pan out. But I do agree pulling the chute should not be the first option.

 

[jhugz]

As a recreational pilot, and seasonal commercial pilot, it scares the living crap out of me to read that someone wouldn't even attempt to find a suitable off-field landing site, but just "pull a chute"

Lets stop there for one second. I'm not a huge fan of not using this argument because of the Airline Pilot Section but really you are going to make all these comments based on the fact that you are a "seasonal pilot" that gets to go out and fly a couple times a year. Give me a break. How much time in type do you have to base these opinions off of?

Goes to show where flight training has gone these days, sickening and honestly IMO you should be ashamed of yourself. When you're flying the airplane YOU control where its going to land.

I am absolutely ashamed to want to pick the choice most logical to my survival.

Nice mature shot at my flight training BTW.

During an engine out you do not get to control where to land. You get a couple of options and have to pick out which one has the greatest possibility of survival. You get to pick field A,B, or C but w/ the chute you get an option D. Weigh all those possibilities and pick the one w/ the best possibility of survival and unless A,B, or C is an airport then I'm hitting the chute.

Chute may not deploy properly, now you're going to crash into the ground in an uncontrollable aircraft, killing everyone onboard, and likely crash onto a field you could have simply flown onto.

If used properly, the chute has only had one malfunction that was later AD'ed. I'm sure though that you have some other statistics that prove me wrong though right?

You might pop the chute and drift into a lake and everyone onboard drowns, you might drift into high tension powerlines and kill everyone onboard.

#1 In bushes/trees - 1 uninjured

Trying to find two other pictures and will edit them in. One that landed in the mountains and the other that landed in power lines.

Here's my bottom line, if the airplane is CONTROLLABLE then if you fly the airplane you stand a much better chance of guaranteeing your survival assuming you're not bombing around at 500 AGL...

Any statistics to back that up?

...any pilot worth his salt NEVER needs chute.

I love how you use this line right after you gave two situations where YOU personally would use it.

 

[shdw]

I love how you use this line right after you gave two situations where YOU personally would use it.

Where? Sorry not trying to start anything, I just don't see them.

--------BREAK---------

However, he did say, "Here's my bottom line." Didn't say it had to be everyone else's. Though I am inclined to agree with him on most of those points, I wouldn't word them so aggressively.

From reading those statistics on the shoot pulls from the OP, almost every one of them (16/20 debatably of course) had some form, or another, of basic airplane flying or decision making failures. It would have been refreshing, to me, if at least half of them were situations that really needed a shoot pull. What I mean is the pilots made smart choices and it was necessary as a last resort.

Jhugz: One final thought, and I mean no disrespect. You seem very quick on the gun, taking many posts almost to heart, like someone is trash talking your favorite toy. Relax, breathe, and remember, this thread is an opinion and we are all entitled to them.

 

[MikeD]

During an engine out you do not get to control where to land. You get a couple of options and have to pick out which one has the greatest possibility of survival. You get to pick field A,B, or C but w/ the chute you get an option D. Weigh all those possibilities and pick the one w/ the best possibility of survival and unless A,B, or C is an airport then I'm hitting the chute.

This is one area of concern I've had with some Cirrus pilots I've spoken to. During an engine out, you actually do get to control where you land, albeit limited, but you are still under control. With a chute, you are no longer in control, you're just along for the ride. I don't many of the guys I've talked to truly understand this. They seem to think that the chute is an instant lifesaver, when it isn't. It's simply another, and IMO a last ditch, option. To me, if you still have control of your aircraft (still structurally sound), then keep flying it. The chute is the option that the Cirrus has that other planes won't have come structural failure time, or at times when there may not be any sort of place to put down safely and under your control. So the chute definitely has a place as a safety item, but might not always be the best "immediate action" item.

and unless A,B, or C is an airport then I'm hitting the chute.

That's what Im talking about. Don't know if you meant it specifically, but I'd sure pick a road, canal bank, large empty field, etc that I can put down in before pulling the chute. Not "everything is a chute pull, if there's no airport." The chute is a great tool, and the Cirrus is a fine airplane IMO. I just wonder where people feel like stopping flying when they still can, and cash all their chips into being suspended beneath a chute when they may not need to be.