"safe" piston single-engine planes

[Champcar]

Re: "safe" piston sinlge-engine planes

The only "safe" airplane is one that sits in the hanger on cinder blocks. If safety was the #1 concern then we wouldn't fly at all.

Why people crap on Cirrus all the time is beyond me. They make damn good airplanes. Pilots just don't like the fact that the chute takes away some of their control and god like feeling.

 

[P210pilot]

Re: "safe" piston sinlge-engine planes

For example (just making up the numbers here BTW): 6 fatal accidents in cessna 172sp models from 1/1/2000 through 1/1/2009 due to the left strut falling off secondary to metal fatigue. Total number of cessna 172sp models = 6000. That would make the "accident ratio" 6/6000 or equal to 0.1%.

I know you were just making up numbers but to clear the air. To my knowledge there has never been a documented case of 172 accident caused by structural failure. Considering that it is the most highly produced aircraft of all time, it has an absolutely astonishingly good record in that regard.

 

[ozone]

Re: "safe" piston sinlge-engine planes

I know you were just making up numbers but to clear the air. To my knowledge there has never been a documented case of 172 accident caused by structural failure. Considering that it is the most highly produced aircraft of all time, it has an absolutely astonishingly good record in that regard.

I was going to report that you were right, but that darn NTSB showed the following accident due to manufacture problems/structure problems:

ATL04IA138

By the way, I used "fatigue" "structural" and "weld" "wing spar" as my search criteria (new feature on the NTSB site) and looked at cessna 172 (all variations) from 1964 to the present. THAT WAS THE ONLY ONE!!!!!!!!!

So, P210pilot, I have to concede that you are totally correct to clear the air as it were in regard to my hypothetical accident ratio situation. Perhaps I should have used the name "cirrus" instead of "cessna" and no-one would have complained