In response to the initial question: It's you.

As others have said, look at the NUMBERS of these aircraft out there. They are outselling EVERYone else in the market, even now with a really down market. New airplanes tend to fly more at least initially than do older airplanes, I believe, especially when you just paid a half mil for the thing.

Cirrus has an in house training program. Does Cessna for it's piston models? How about HBC? Mooney?

As pointed out, the accident record is no worse than many other legacy airplanes. I SERIOUSLY doubt that very many pilots of the Cirrus make a go-no-go decision based on the availability of a parachute.

The airplane WAS spin tested for US certification, Cirrus CHOSE to certificate it based on alternate means of compliance (the parachute). It exhibited no unusual spin characteristics.

It's a fast airplane, it accelerates quickly, and the "average" Cirrus pilot isn't the most experienced, which is precisely why Cirrus has their own training program.

The accident near Grand Rapids, MN a couple years ago is illustrative of what may be the primary issue. Fortunately, that one was overturned on appeal, and it looks like Cirrus won't have to pay for the pilot's terrible mistake. A low time, VFR only pilot, who chose not to finish the Cirrus provided training (even though he'd paid for it in buying the airplane) and launched into VERY low clouds, before sunrise, in icing conditions, trying to scud run far enough to get into VFR......Not Cirrus' fault, and in my opinion, falls into the same category as the "Forked Tail Doctor Killer" legend associated with the Bonanza.
MTV

OK, I have a bit more time to elaborate this morning. As has been said, the apparent accident rate is not indicative of the actual comparison with other models in the same class / category. There has been a lot of study and comparison in this area and based on fleet hours flown, the rate is on par with the C-182, Beech A-36, etc. The obvious question remains, why? The Cirrus should be the safest aircraft to fly given all its safety features and advanced avionics, but it is not. Something to keep in mind is that Cirrus (for the most part) are used as X-country aircraft meaning that the flights are often long and cover a lot of ground. This exposes the pilots to changing and often challenging weather conditions that pilots of other aircraft in the same category often do not encounter as frequently. Couple this with the advanced avionics, FIKI systems, and BRS parachute and quite often the aircraft is much more capable than the pilots and / or the pilots are lulled into a false sense of capability both for the aircraft and themselves.

Cirrus did / does an excellent job of designing the "stupid" our of the aircraft meaning they have taken a lot of the workload off of the pilot to help prevent "stupid mistakes". For instance, the Cirrus has a constant speed propeller, but it is automatically controlled by an interconnection with the throttle. If equipped with the DFC90 autopilot the aircraft will right itself from any attitude back to wings level at the touch of a button and never exceed 2.5 g's. (Dave Hirschman tested this in a roll and loop scenario with excellent results and documented his findings in a video log)



Everything is digital and easy to find with just the touch of a button. If a pilot wants to run ROP or LOP all he has to do is tell the computer which he chooses and then pull the mixture back until the light illuminates that he has done so. The wing has been designed as "stall resistant" and it does a great job, but is not stall proof. The Cirrus will fly rock steady all the way into a stall with ample warning and maintain excellent aileron authority...it reminds me of the Maule in its stall characteristics. When all else fails, pull the parachute.



In my opinion the reason for the accident rate not being any better than its competitors is due to the pilot personalities that it attracts coupled with the false sense of security the Cirrus will lull pilots into. When all is going smoothly you can sit back and enjoy the ride, but when it hits the fan you had better have the basic stick and rudder skills to fly without the magic avionics. This (in my opinion) is what is lacking in a large majority of the Cirrus pilot community. They have learned or become so accustom to the glass and ease of the aircraft that their stick & rudder skills have either atrophied or never developed. When the glass goes dark, they have trouble navigating with the backup round dials and dual 430 GPS units…a major handicap to be sure. If the crosswinds get gusty or they are a bit fast on final, they often do not know how to compensate. Rudder is only used to assist the brakes in turning the aircraft on the ground. Yes I meant to say assist the brakes to turn the aircraft…this is why they have hot brake issues…if they would use the rudder and assist it with limited braking it would not be a problem. As I mentioned before, Cirrus accidents would drop considerably if they were required to obtain a TW rating (again my opinion).

With regards to the BRS…the chute has successfully saved lives as low as 400 ft in normal flight conditions, or 1,000 feet in a spin condition. It has been pulled inverted and saved the aircraft successfully. There has only been one instance that I know of where the chute departed the aircraft and that one was pulled at speeds in excess of 180 kts. There is no speed limit for activating the BRS, only a max demonstrated speed of 133 kts. By the way, if you are coming down under canopy you will be doing so at around 1,700 fpm depending on the weight of the aircraft.

The Cirrus is a nice aircraft to fly and easy to do so, although not very capable in the load carrying department. It has its purpose and it does it fairly well, but in comparison to the Corvalis I think it is inferior…again just my opinion. The Corvalis is built much better with noticeable craftsmanship differences, controls are smoother, roomier cabin, and much better load carrying capability. Where Cirrus took the sales lead is in their marketing.

That should give you enough topics for further discussion…I have attached copies of the POH concerning the Spins and CAPS deployment.

You can't make an airplane stupid proof!!!

in response to the first video. Take any plane in a steep left turn apply right rudder then stall the plane, duhh, it spin enters to the right. I did this with an instructer in my cessnsa 120 and the best I ever recovered from it was 250ft and that was on about the fifth try, ready for it, not sitting there fat dumb and happy thinking Im in a stupid proof airplane.

If a cub is "barely fast enough to kill you" a Cirrus is "plenty fast enough to kill you".

And another one...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/31/us-arizona-aircraft-idUSTRE76U04G20110731?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

I don't know exactly where they were, but VFR over the north rim at 9PM makes my palms sweaty just thinking about it. There was significant convective wx over high ground Friday. Maybe they were over the 14,500 ft ceiling of the no-fly zone or down in the Dragon Corridor. Either way, the ground is over 9,000 ft. near the north rim at Kaibab Plateau.

YB

ccurrie wrote:You can't make an airplane stupid proof!!!

in response to the first video. Take any plane in a steep left turn apply right rudder then stall the plane, duhh, it spin enters to the right.

No arguments there, but in the case of Cirrus they have done a lot in the way of trying to do so. Unfortunately (in my opinion) it has resulted in lazy pilots with reference to stick & rudder skills as well as basic pilotage due to an aircraft that is easy to fly and doesn't bite very often. Many of the "old school" flying skills are fading into distant memories.

The thunder has been rocking AZ lately. RIP fellas.

lowflybye wrote: the apparent accident rate is not indicative of the actual comparison with other models in the same class / category. There has been a lot of study and comparison in this area and based on fleet hours flown, the rate is on par with the C-182, Beech A-36, etc.

http://www.diamondaircraft.com/why/safety.php


I agree that the average Cirrus may be exposed to more IMC and long Cross Countires than a the C172/182, but according to these stats from Diamonds website, yore almost 3 times as likely to have a fatal in a SR22 compared to a 182 and almost 4 times as likely when flying the SR20. I understand that a Cirrus burst into flames when the pilot botched a xwind landing with his son and sons friend onboard, Id blame higher landing speeds and fiberglass fuel tanks...Do this in a Cessna or a Diamond and I think you're more likely to survive. Aluminum or rubber fuel tanks and slower speed.

The Corvalis has an even worse record.

Low fly bye I'm curious about what stats and studies you're talking about?

There have been numerous parachute failures due to deploying it at excessive airspeeds. The crash in California over the ski resort and the one in southern Wyoming were just in the last year or two. There are more, just google and dig for that info. The wording of the emergency procedures in the Cirrus POH clearly say, " The maximum demonstrated deployment speed is 133 KIAS. Reduced airspeed allows minimum parachute loads and prevents structural loads and possible parachute failure " In other words, if you pull the jesus handle when you are headed toward the ground at over 200 knots or so , the parachute is not gonna do a damn bit of good, other then give the NTSB a clue on what happened as the chute will be found a long way from the debris pile. I commend lowflybye on his well expressed concept over the Cirrus safety issues..

Ben.

emwhiteman wrote:I agree that the average Cirrus may be exposed to more IMC and long Cross Countires, but according to these stats from Diamonds website, yore almost 3 times as likely to have a fatal in a SR22 compared to a 182 and almost 4 times as likely when flying the SR20. I understand that a Cirrus burst into flames when the pilot botched a xwind landing with his son and sons friend onboard, Id blame higher landing speeds and fiberglass fuel tanks...Do this in a Cessna or a Diamond and I think you're more likely to survive. Aluminum or rubber fuel tanks and slower speed.

The Corvalis has an even worse record.

Low fly bye I'm curious about what stats and studies you're talking about?

Of course it makes Cirrus look bad...and Diamond look the best...consider your source:

emwhiteman wrote: according to these stats from Diamonds website

If you had obtained these same stats from Cessna it would lean in their favor, Piper in theirs, etc. The funny thing about stats is that they are very easy to manipulate with just one simple change in parameters so it is hard to get an accurate number. Are those numbers representing # of fatal individuals or # of fatal accidents in general? What was the total flight time of the 1,000 aircraft in each sample? Were they ramp queens or check hauling charters? Were they bush planes or $100 hamburger taxis? The best way that I know of to compare them is in fleet hours flown which puts Cirrus in line with the rest of the competitors. Using fleet hours (in my opinion) is as close to accurate as possible because if you go by number of aircraft that can be very misleading....how many Cessna's do you see sitting with flat tires at an airport compared to Cirrus...how many older Cessna's are flown in hard IFR or icing conditions? etc. etc. This topic has been discussed ad nauseoum on the COPA forum with expert statisticians taking every angle possible and in every instance the light aircraft are pretty comparable between manufacturers with no major standouts. That is where the issue lies…an aircraft with all the saety features and ease of flight that has been designed into the Cirrus should stand out as significantly safer and it does not.

Just for an example (I am going from memory here) there have been 32 CAPS pulls of which there is a 100% survivability rate when pulled within the published limitations. I believe 4 of those were pulled outside of those limitations with varying results in fatality. With only 32 samples the next fatal will slant the numbers fairly significantly compared to a fatal at say 100 pulls. If that fatal had happened earlier on, say with only 4 pulls, it would greatly slant the numbers. This is the case with the Corvalis…when compared by fleet hours they are comparable to other manufactures, but with relatively low total aircraft in the fleet, one loss can slant the numbers significantly depending when using variables such as shown in the example above.

Just or the record…having time in the Cirrus where the CAPS is an option, I will still only use it when I have lost control of the aircraft and no longer feel I can make a safe landing otherwise. My thought process is the same as with my parachute when I fly warbirds or aerobatics…it is a last option, but an option I will choose when the situation dictates and before it is no longer an option.

This is a blog that I wrote on glass panel safety a while back: Flying Glass Wont Save Your ...

I would say the Cirrus suffers from the same malody that the V-tail Bonanza had when it came out. Low time pilots with plenty of money flying an very capable airplane that was beyond their limits. Take a bunch of low time pilots and put them in P-51's and see what happens. We had a Cirrus hit the top of a mountain just West of Hood RIver a few years ago. Weather was crap. Pilot cancelled IFR and descended right into the top of the mountain. A few hundred feet higher and they would have made it. Really tragic.

Low Fly Bye,

Here's the fine print for you (it's at the bottom of the graph previously posted).

Aircraft manufactured in past 10 years.  Specific models are DA20 C1,DA40-180, Cessna 182T, T182, 172S/172R, 350/400, SR20, SR22.  Includes all N-registered aircraft in FAA database, and all accidents with N-registered aircraft from NTSB reports, 1998 - June, 2008.

This appears to be a fair comparison.
1. All aircraft manufactured in the same time period and all late model AC that are all likely to see comparable flight hours per year. No 30 year old ramp mummies in this comparison.
2. I really doubt that Diamond is fabricating this info. If they were manipulating the stats unethically, then they would have motive to make only their AC look safe, and in these comparisons they show both their AC and The 172/182 to be about equal.

Again,

Low fly bye I'm curious about what stats and studies you're talking about

I really am curious because I've never seen favorable statistics that were meaningful for Cirrus safety.

Also I think the statistic is accidents per 1000 AC per year.

Without going down the rabbit trail of analyzing stats, I think Low Fly Bye nailed the major points. I also remember that landing the Cirrus was a little traumatizing because they kept telling me to land it like a light twin, which was a little funny because the Cirrus was the closest thing to a light twin I'd ever been in. The hauling azz 3 wheeled landing was a little disconcerting to a Cessna pilot.

Here's one way to answer the question in the original post in this thread:

Lowflybye - as our resident aviation underwriter, what does it cost to insure a Cirrus SR22 with an identical pilot as compared to the cost to insure a Corvallis?

Given that insurance companies live or die by their ability to understand and assess risk, I'd give their dollars and cents rating a helluva lot more weight than any stats published by anyone else with an ax to grind or a competing aircraft to sell.

As Mark Twain said back in the mid-19th century: "there's lies, damned lies, and then there's statistics!" Not to mention the even less reliable notion of opinion.

The stats I gave earlier were for fatal accident per 100,000 hours flown and the only fair way to compare (though adding in types of ops can also give insight)

Patrol Guy it's not just you, I've had the impression that Cirrus had a significantly higher than average fatality rate.

littlewheelinback wrote:The Cirrus has a fatality accident rate of 1.44 per 100,000 hours flown vs 1.41 for certified single engine piston GA aircraft in general. It has a better fatal accident rate than several popular legacy high performance piston singles such as the C-210 and Bonanza and not as good as Mooneys (they have a very good safety record, probably due to the wing levelers that were standard equipment for many years). Since the fleet of Cirrus aircraft are fairly new and they have the 'chute, you would think they might do better, but they are by no means falling out of the sky at a much greater rate than most other high performance singles. Of course if you really want to see dangerous aircraft, go into a twin engine at over 2 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours, or fly homebuilt aircraft or gliders at over 5 per 100,000.

LW thanks, I missed that earlier. Your numbers for GA single fatals are close to those from this one:
http://www.diamondaircraft.com/_images/chart_safety04_large.Gif
So comparing your stats and Diamonds stats, it's not that Cirrus is worse than average I think the conclusion is Cirrus is the Diamonds, C172 and C182's are significantly safer than average.

emwhiteman wrote:
This appears to be a fair comparison.
1. All aircraft manufactured in the same time period and all late model AC that are all likely to see comparable flight hours per year. No 30 year old ramp mummies in this comparison.
2. I really doubt that Diamond is fabricating this info. If they were manipulating the stats unethically, then they would have motive to make only their AC look safe, and in these comparisons they show both their AC and The 172/182 to be about equal.

As I said, it is really easy to manipulate statistics based on what unit is used for a standard of comparison. I am not saying that Diamond is fabricating anything; it is probably accurate based on what they used for comparison. Keep this in mind, there are only 693 total 350/400 series aircraft and an additional 78 total 300 series so it is not fair to compare per 1,000 aircraft over 10 years...refer back to what I said earlier about how stats are susceptible to total numbers used.

emwhiteman wrote:Again,

Low fly bye I'm curious about what stats and studies you're talking about

I really am curious because I've never seen favorable statistics that were meaningful for Cirrus safety.

I would be glad to give you those stats, however, I let my COPA membership expire and cannot access them any longer. Suffice it to say that a fellow was completing his master’s thesis on the safety of Technically Advanced Aircraft and chose the Cirrus as his model for research. Throughout a year he posted more stats based on research than I have ever seen done on any aircraft and he used information collected from every source imaginable. Before he was done, he had earned the respect of most every statistician, engineer, and data cruncher on the forum. Not all the results were flattering to Cirrus, but they were all factual based on an unbiased research. I know that sounds like a cop-out, but as others will attest and past threads will show, I do not fabricate information or spout off half cocked statements…and if I still had access to the information to share with you I would gladly do so.

emwhiteman wrote:Also I think the statistic is accidents per 1000 AC per year.

Refer to my previous comment about the total number of 300, 350 and 400 series aircraft.

Nmflyguy – That is actually a very complex answer and I will get back to you on it in a bit…gotta help the wife get the kids ready for bed…

nmflyguy wrote:Here's one way to answer the question in the original post in this thread:

Lowflybye - as our resident aviation underwriter, what does it cost to insure a Cirrus SR22 with an identical pilot as compared to the cost to insure a Corvallis?

Given that insurance companies live or die by their ability to understand and assess risk, I'd give their dollars and cents rating a helluva lot more weight than any stats published by anyone else with an ax to grind or a competing aircraft to sell.

As Mark Twain said back in the mid-19th century: "there's lies, damned lies, and then there's statistics!" Not to mention the even less reliable notion of opinion.

OK back to our story...the aircraft rates on those two are pretty similar, but for different reasons all pertaining to assessing the risk. Underwriting risk effectively has more factors than just the accident rate...keep in mind that incidents and any other damage not qualifying as reportable never shows up on the NTSB or FAA stats. As I mentioned in a previous post, the Corvalis has a very limited production number and the parts between the 300, 350, and 400 are not all interchangeable...not to mention they have been through more than one manufacturer. Because of these factors there are not enough numbers to make any accurate accident stats for underwriting purposes AND the cost of repair can be quite high for a loss due to the (comparatively) limited shops qualified to make the repairs and the limited parts availability. The Cirrus on the other hand has a good number of aircraft flying from which to pull more accurate accident stats. The Cirrus also has a continued production line with many similar parts and extensive factory support. It too suffers from a relatively limited number of qualified shops for repair compared to spam cans, however, the problem with the Cirrus has been the loss rates and the high number of student pilots who can afford to buy “the best”. I guess I should define loss rate...it is the ratio between the amount of premium collected divided by the amount of money paid in claims. This is not a good indicator of accident rates, but of the profitability of a risk at a given premium.

Both aircraft have a limited number of underwriting companies willing to insure them for the reasons listed above, but only the Cirrus has insurance required annual factory designed training…one company even requires semi-annual landing recurrency training due to the high number of landing losses they have incurred.

One thing to remember, even if the CAPS saves lives, it often totals the aircraft. Another thing to remember when comparing these aircraft to their spam can competitors is their cost. These are very high valued aircraft and costly to repair / replace them due to their composite structures, parts availability, and new designs. Compare this to the untold number of spare parts laying around for Cessna, Piper, and Beech aircraft whose basic design has not changed in decades. These aircraft can have a much worse accident rate and still have a lower insurance premium than the Cirrus or Corvalis simply due to the lower cost of repair, parts availability, repair knowledge base, and the sheer number of insurable units from which to spread the risk.

Any way you cut it, the Cirrus and Corvalis are very costly to insure compared to similarly priced competitors. I have some student pilots in half million dollar Cirrus’s paying over $20k per year. This is more than most will pay for a King Air at a higher value and liability limit. Even high time pilots with values comparable to say a Bonanza will pay slightly higher rates and they are flying fixed gear aircraft…that does not include the cost of completing the required training.

Hopefully that info helps more than it confuses…all that to say that insurance rates are not necessarily indicative of the safety of an aircraft.

Enough for tonight...I'll check back tomorrow for more discussion when I get some time.

Lowflybye - informative response, as always. But not responsive to my question.

My question was not directed to comparing insurance rates between a Cirrus SR22 and a typical "spam can", because as I said in my post, they're not comparable aircraft. My question was, what are the rates for an identical pilot in the SR22 vs. a Corvallis?

I asked the question that way so as to use two very comparable aircraft - but one is the supposedly "unsafe" Cirrus, and the other is the supposedly "safe" Cessna.

So - are the rates for those two specific aircraft comparable, or is one significantly higher than the
other?

And let's not use a student pilot as the identical pilot ... obviously very low time pilots have much higher rates than those with a thousand hours or more in their logbooks, and factors associated with very low time pilots could skew the results for most of the pilots who are actually flying these aircraft.

So what would the liability only premium typically be for a 1,000 hour pilot, IFR rated and current, no claims history, 100 hours logged in type, in the Cirrus SR 22 vs. the Corvallis 400?

That should settle the relative safety question, and eliminate factors related to parts availability, limited supply of repair shops, etc. that you mentioned in your response.

For the same reason that retractable gear models nearly always cost more for a given pilot to insure than their fixed-gear competitors of otherwise similar value/age/complexity (i.e., a Piper Arrow vs. a Cherokee, or a C-182 RG vs. a standard 182). And just as a twin costs more to insure than a single engine in a comparable airframe (i.e., a Piper Seneca II or III vs. a Cherokee Six-300). It's determined by accident history associated with a given airframe.

It's summer time. Go out and have some back country fun. Why waste your time yapping about planes that aren't any good for back country fun. I'm headed to some grass strips tomorrow. Frickken Cirrus.

lowflybye wrote:

nmflyguy wrote:Here's one way to answer the question in the original post in this thread:

Lowflybye - as our resident aviation underwriter, what does it cost to insure a Cirrus SR22 with an identical pilot as compared to the cost to insure a Corvallis?

Given that insurance companies live or die by their ability to understand and assess risk, I'd give their dollars and cents rating a helluva lot more weight than any stats published by anyone else with an ax to grind or a competing aircraft to sell.

As Mark Twain said back in the mid-19th century: "there's lies, damned lies, and then there's statistics!" Not to mention the even less reliable notion of opinion.

One thing to remember, even if the CAPS saves lives, it often totals the aircraft. Another thing to remember when comparing these aircraft to their spam can competitors is their cost. These are very high valued aircraft and costly to repair / replace them due to their composite structures, parts availability, and new designs.
Enough for tonight...I'll check back tomorrow for more discussion when I get some time.

One correction... A deployment --- ALWAYS ----totals the aircraft. To my knowledge there has not been even one Cirrus repaired after the chute was used.