Paging
@wanttaja
I think he has covered this topic pretty well.
Oooo, it's the bat signal!
Well, I guess it's just a splotch of pizza sauce on a shirt-front, but it'll do.
I ran an analysis earlier this year, comparing the Cirrus with the Cessna 210 and a combination of Glasairs and Lancairs. This gave three groups with the same number of accidents over a ~15-year period.
The Cirrus had the highest rate of what I call "Pilot Miscontrol" accidents...related to basic pilot skills vs. judgement. 51% of 231 Cirrus accidents were due to Pilot Miscontrol, vs. 35% of the Cessna 210s and 40% for the homebuilts. This can be mostly laid to pilot inexperience. The median total time for pilots involved in Cirrus accidents was 727 hours. HALF that of the Cessna 210 group (1468) and way under the Glasair/Lancair set (1700 hours).
As a comparison the Cessna 172 had a Pilot Miscontrol rate of over 60% and the median flight hours was less than a third of the Cirrus (215 hours). Mind you, the 172 is often used as a trainer.
The relative occurrence of other accident causes can be viewed here:
The Cirrus does not have an unusual rate of engine failures or fuel exhaustion. Thirteen percent of all Cirrus accidents begin with a loss of engine power (for any cause, mechanical or pilot). In the case of both the Cessna 210s and the Glasair/Lancair set, the rate is double...over 30%, in both cases. It's higher for even the Cessna 172 (15%).
One of the most arresting results was the percentage of accidents that resulted in serious injuries or fatalities after an engine failure for any reason (mechanical or pilot issues). In those cases where a reportable accident occurred (e.g., the NTSB doesn't track no-damage forced landings) 16.7% of Cirrus engine failures lead to at least one fatality or serious injury, vs. 39.3% for the Cessna 210 and 41.3% for the High Performance Homebuilts. Having the CAPS is probably a big factor, here, and no doubt improved crashworthiness of the more-modern design is a contributor as well.
As a final factor, consider: The rate of serious injuries after CAPS deployments *within the CAPS envelope* is extremely low. Imagine you're flying with your family and an emergency develops within the envelope and with enough decision time available. You can pull the CAPS...and everyone will survive. Or you can try to perform a forced landing, with the knowledge that if you aren't 100% perfect, there's a 40% chance someone you love will die.
Me, I fly a single-seat airplane with no BRS and no personal chute. Whatever happens, I'll ride it in. But no one else's lives are riding on my skills, luck, or decision-making capabilities.
Ron Wanttaja