Cirrus accidents - the high cost of flying?

ApacheBob

ApacheBob

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Messages
1,088
Location
Chicago
Display Name
Display name:
ApacheBob
(thread spinoff)
The Cirrus is a hot aircraft. Is the recent rash of accidents related to the fact that no one can afford one but a new pilot? Some of us who have been flying have been speding so much of our expendable income on getting to be competent pilots that we cannot afford a Cirrus.
Is that the reason for the rash of accidents? Are the crash victims less experienced?:blueplane:
ApacheBob
 
What Scott said -- too much money, too little experience. This may be compounded by a conscious or unconscious willingness to take extra risks because they know the BRS is there to save their butts if it all goes south, but there is no reserach to support that hypothesis.
 
I'm not so sure it has to do with only new pilots being able to afford them. Certainly a lot of new pilots on this forum I don't think could. The pilots who purchase these airplanes I think end up being largely the same sorts who can afford to go out and buy new Ferraris. Being able to afford it doesn't make you any good at handling it. They could probably afford it anyway, but they would probably be better off starting out with something that's not so hot. They also probably don't want to.

I've met a lot of people who have some very fast, high-performing cars and no clue how to drive them. I suspect it's a similar phenomenon.

Just the thoughts from a worthless 105-hour pilot...
 
ApacheBob said:
(thread spinoff)
The Cirrus is a hot aircraft.
Click to expand...

They seem to be fast and have a lot of capability. Or are you saying "hot" as in hard to handle?


Is the recent rash of accidents related to the fact that no one can afford one but a new pilot?
Click to expand...

I did a search in the NTSB database. It doesn't look like they publish pilot experience levels until the probable cause report comes out. In two of the fatal accidents in 2006 that I looked at, the PIC had 500 or more hours time in type, so I wouldn't call those guys "new pilots." I don't know if you can correlate financial means and safety. A guy might have a lot of money and buy one, but have a professional pilot fly it. On the other end, a club may own one, and a guy with not so much money could come to grief in a Cirrus, just like any other plane.


Some of us who have been flying have been speding so much of our expendable income on getting to be competent pilots that we cannot afford a Cirrus.
Click to expand...

They're outside my price range, that's for sure! But so are new Beechcrafts, new Mooneys, and, well, pretty much everything else new.


Is that the reason for the rash of accidents? Are the crash victims less experienced?
Click to expand...

From what I've read, it seems that Cirrus puts a high priority on training. They also have centers that start new PP students in SR20s. It may just be that because the Cirrus fleet is very capable and is being highly utilized that accidents stand out.


Trapper John
 
Most human can be trained to fly an aircraft, but only a subset can develop (or have) the proper judgement skills to be able to stay alive in an aircraft over the long term.

To compound the problem, Cirrus markets their piston single as a way around "flying the airlines", e.g, as transportation, which encourages doofus judgement-making.

ApacheBob, good on you for spending the bucks to stay proficient. It shows you have judgement. Sadly, you can have any two of QUICK, EASY, AFFORDABLE but not all three.
 
bbchien said:
To compound the problem, Cirrus markets their piston single as a way around "flying the airlines", e.g, as transportation, which encourages doofus judgement-making.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the same marketing angle that light aircraft manufacturers have been using for years? Or is Cirrus somehow more aggressive than previous marketing campaigns?

I think it will be interesting to see how Cessna markets the former Columbia aircraft, since they seem to be aimed at the same segment as Cirrus.

Point well taken on the judgement-making. Reminds me of the old saw, "There are old pilots, and bold pilots, but no old bold pilots."


Trapper John
 
Bob's point, while humorous, has some merit... never thought of it that way.

But I think most of it (the atrocious Cirrus accident record) has to do with the marketing strategy (which is similar to the way the Bo was introduced): "Hey, hotshot business guy! Tired of dealing with the airlines for those important trips and vacations? Get yourself a modern plane, and learn to fly, in all kinds of weather! It's a great investment, and it practically flies itself!! GPS!! Autopilot! !Bite off more than you can chew, and out comes a parachute! Now shipping with the "fix my sloppy flying" button, too!!! buy or lease today!!"


I know they're not exactly marketed in just that way, but it seems- seems -that the target buyer is not just the experienced pilot who wants to upgrade to something newer and slicker (like the Bonanzas, etc., in and of itself, it's a terrific airplane!)... there's the "other guy", the financially-secure newb who wants to skip the "old school" stuff, and can't really be blamed for getting bedazzled by everything a Cirrus seems to offer ...in lieu of a really good flying foundation.

I think this phenomenon falls into the same set as the Mu-2 and single-pilot CJ accident syndromes: somehow, a subset of pilots is learning to kid themselves about flying, and it's related to factors that make a particular aircraft type more widely marketable.
 
Trapper John said:
I don't know if you can correlate financial means and safety.
Click to expand...
I don't think you can. Saying that rich pilots buy too much airplane is just like saying poorer pilots skimp on maintenance because they can't afford it. Both may be true in some instances but I don't think it's a given by any means.
 
If the pilot doesn't stay ahead of the plane, be a Cirrus, Mooney, Lancair or a screaming C152, there will be serious consequences. Maybe not today, or tomorrow, but the odds are stacking against him everytime he goes up.
 
Everskyward said:
I don't think you can. Saying that rich pilots buy too much airplane is just like saying poorer pilots skimp on maintenance because they can't afford it. Both may be true in some instances but I don't think it's a given by any means.
Click to expand...

Good point. Maybe there is a correlation between entrepreneurial, business risk-taking personalities and accidents. That might explain some of what seems to be happening with the Cirrus situation. I say seems because no one has offered up proof that the Cirrus fleet really has a worse record than anything else (unless I'm missing some report/data out there).

If there is a correlation, how long will it take for aviation insurance companies to start doing personality tests to determine insurability?


Trapper John
 
rottydaddy said:
But I think most of it (the atrocious Cirrus accident record) has to do with the marketing strategy ...
Click to expand...

Do the stats really show that this is true?

Over the short term, one can take a fair coin and flip it ten times and it's quite statistically likely to see a "rash" of 7 or 8 tails in a row. Yet in an infinite number of flips, the coin will reveal itself as 50/50. I'd view a rash of any type plane accidents to be similar.

Has the Cirrus flown long enough to reveal it's true nature, ala the Bonanza?

-Rich
 
As a Cirrus owner (4-way partnership in a used 2004 SR22) and pilot (~600 hrs out of ~4400) I have a hard time with these generalizations.

Remember Cirrus has outsold Cessna for a couple of years. There are over 3000 Cirri out there the vast majority being 22's. The last analysis of the accident rate on COPA (cirrus pilot's org) concluded that the accident rate was slightly lower than the general rate over the last 2 years, not statistically significant but certainly not higher. It was different a few years ago but the numbers were a lot smaller.

The analysis of the reasons for accidents and fatalities shows the vast majority of them are caused by poor judgment and many of them weather related. Cirrus has developed a very good program for transition training and COPA has sponsored recurrent training CPPP (Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Program).

The reason for the poor judgement has may theories (conjectures). Ron's suggestion of lower perceived risk due to the safety equipment like BRS and non-FIKI TKS is one that makes a lot of sense to me. The other one I like is the increased speed and range over most trainers results in a requirement for a much better understanding of weather that is not adequately addressed.

Also like most twins the Cirrus is used for traveling, not training, add to that the automation and it's very easy to get rusty. For example my wife and I are on our honeymoon, last few days of a 3 week trip and out of the almost 4000nm and 24 hrs, I've only hand flown an hour or 2. If you have Google Earth installed you can see our progress here. (BTW she is out shopping, that's why I'm on the computer)

My partners and I train on an average of 25% of Cirrus flying time. It helps that 2 of the partners are Cirrus instructors.

I have been a flight instructor at CPPP programs and the people I've met are serious pilots. Now there is a definite bias in that I've only met people who are concerned about their proficiency and the problem pilots mentioned above in general do not attend FAA or Cirrus seminars.

Oh well enough from me.

Joe
 
rpadula said:
Do the stats really show that this is true?

Over the short term, one can take a fair coin and flip it ten times and it's quite statistically likely to see a "rash" of 7 or 8 tails in a row. Yet in an infinite number of flips, the coin will reveal itself as 50/50. I'd view a rash of any type plane accidents to be similar.

Has the Cirrus flown long enough to reveal it's true nature, ala the Bonanza?

-Rich
Click to expand...

Fair enough, and it's true that the average total time experience for the Cirrus pilots who've come to grief does not clearly show that "most Cirrus owners lack experience"...just seems that way to me, that's all. Maybe I'm just "old school" enough to be irked by an airplane with a built-in parachute. :D

I want to be proven wrong; it's a good airplane and one should be "worthy" to operate one. I'm glad to see Joe and others pointing out the other side of the picture.



But like the Bonanza, which also has nothing fundamentally wrong with it, it's just a more likely airplane to create a slippery slope for any pilots who are not serious about keeping the rust off.
 
The other day, a woman called to inquire about lessons for her daughter. During the conversation, she said they owned a Bonanza her daughter had flown a few times. I jokingly told her I thought the doctors had crashed all the Bonanzas. Her response: "I am a doctor." :)

She admitted though it's not the airplane, it's just the common denominator with the same plane ending up in the hands of the less-experienced.
 
Joe, the problem is CLEARLY NOT the airplane. The problem is the pilot. Yes there are some serious ones. PVT ASEL-IR through ATP. The problem is that judgement capability does not reside in all of them. The corollary of that is (1) How to we teach judgement (2) How do we recognize that judgement is present or not present, and (3) How/when to we tell a pilot who will NEVER become an airman and who, if he continues, will be eased from the gene pool.

It just that since the $$s and newbies are going into SR22 G3s, they are so obvious and easy to cite as examples. As in, "don't be raising what my policy costs!".
 
bbchien said:
Joe, the problem is CLEARLY NOT the airplane. The problem is the pilot. Yes there are some serious ones. PVT ASEL-IR through ATP. The problem is that judgement capability does not reside in all of them. The corollary of that is (1) How to we teach judgement (2) How do we recognize that judgement is present or not present, and (3) How/when to we tell a pilot who will NEVER become an airman and who, if he continues, will be eased from the gene pool.

It just that since the $$s and newbies are going into SR22 G3s, they are so obvious and easy to cite as examples. As in, "don't be raising what my policy costs!".
Click to expand...
Bruce,

I certainly agree that the problems we see are the pilots and the main issue is one mostly a lack of judgment. I'm just not so sure that Cirrus really has it any worse than any other manufacturer. The statistics we keep on hours flown are so bad I'm not sure it's even possible to determine.

I may be a little sensitive to what seems to be anytime a Cirrus cracks some composite everybody seems jump on Cirrus pilots as a group of idiots while whenever a Cessna or Piper bends some metal in the same circumstances it's such a different story. I just don't see the difference.

Joe
 
Areeda said:
I may be a little sensitive to what seems to be anytime a Cirrus cracks some composite everybody seems jump on Cirrus pilots as a group of idiots while whenever a Cessna or Piper bends some metal in the same circumstances it's such a different story. I just don't see the difference.
Click to expand...
I think the difference is jealousy! Cirrus is new and sexy.:blowingkisses::blueplane:
 
There is no question in my mind - pilot judgment is 100% of the issue; the plane seems to me to be well-engineered, and it is slick.

As much as anything else, it is the demographic- Cirrus is bringing people who would not otherwise be flying as pilots into the fold, or bringing them into higher-performance aircraft before they might otherwise have gotten there. Good news/bad news.

The good- expanding the scope of general aviation. The bad- by definition, you are plugging in lower-skilled and less-experienced pilots, and the inevitable result is that there will be some losses.

Many of these are people who, had they come up the traditional way, would have been either lost in a crash, or frightened away from flying, while operating a 152 or a Cherokee 140. Could I have been trained to fly an SR-22 ab initio? Sure. Would I feel that would have been safe? Well, the technical skills can be taught, and the lessons of judgment can be taught as well, but no matter how much we are told something, nothing conveys the real message like the cold, harsh light of experience.

Maybe those events we have all had (OK, some of us), the ones that end with us in the left seat of a Warrior on the taxiway past the hold-short line with our knees knocking together and our heads spinning would end up with us, instead, in a smoking hole in the ground if we first experience them in a slick high-performance airplane that we are piloting, mentally, from ten feet behind the rudder.

---

There is nothing wrong with the airplane.
 
Ohh, goody -- I get to tell my Cirrus story.

Last week, I'm taxiing out to Rwy 6 at Wings. AWOS is reporting winds 030 @5kts. Pretty straightforward. Even a student could figure that out.

Cue sparkling Cirrus on the Ramp: "Wings Unicom, Cirrus xxxxx, what is the current active runway." I let him know that we're headed to 6, being the neighborly type, but I made a snide remark to my CFI about "listen to the AWOS Bozo!" I may also have made a crack about active runways at non-towered fields. Anyway, it gets better.

So, we're down at the runup area, listening to those mighty Lycomings sing on the Seminole, when ol'Cirrus Ace gets on the radio again...

"Wings Unicom, Cirrus xxxx, uh, can you get me an IFR clearance, or what do I do here?"
"Cirrus xxxx, Unicom. You need to call Philly Approach"
"Uh, ok, I'll just pick it up in the air. Are we in the Bravo airspace, or are we under it? What's the ceiling of the Bravo above us??"

CFI and I now are both snorting. CFI says "He has a big MFD right in front of him and he's asking the guys in Line Service?" I said "What about the chart he "has" open on his lap?"

Now, I don't hold myself out to be the world's greatest pilot. I do my best to be a conscientious pilot. I can guarantee you I've never departed a strange airport not knowing, oh, where Bravo is, or how to find out. Moreover, there are plenty of dumba$$es flying, say, 172s out there. Still, if you're going to play with the big boys in a $400k plane, fly IFR, the works, I would expect a little more from you.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Ohh, goody -- I get to tell my Cirrus story.
Click to expand...

First of all I want to say I'm in Bozeman MT one of the most beautiful places on earth with my new wife, one of the most beautiful women on earth so I am a happy dude and nothing on the Internet can change how content I am. I want to be clear that I am not out to defend all Cirrus pilots or to really disagree with the stories in this thread.

Please tell me what plane you were flying when this happened. I'll bet you 50¢ that I can come up with a story about a bozo in that make/model to match it.

One of my favorites just a month or so ago was a TBM doing practice approaces with us in the Inland Empire when SoCal comes on the radio and says "You know you're flying much too big and fast a plane to be making mistakes like that".

Joe
 
Last edited:
The FAA database lists 3,404 Cirrus aircraft registered in the US and 1,068 Diamond singles. Two modern aircraft, different missions, maybe different demographic of pilot.

How many of each has crashed?

I don't see what makes the Cirrus a bonehead-magnet. If I had more money than sense, I'd pick up some warbird, not a Cirrus. I guess they do that, too. :rolleyes: Joe not included, of course.
 
My favorite story comes from the red board. Cirrus pilot comes on with his story of ice encounter, and was very generous with information and his thought process. "I tried higher, I tried lower, then I tried a lot higher..." I mentioned 'did you try 180?' As in, turn around and go the other way?

It didn't even register in his thought process. This is a bad thing.
 
I dug out my accident database to take a quick look at the Cirrus-vs-the-world situation. I have downloaded the NTSB accident reports for 1998 through 2006, inclusive, and have merged them into a single database. While my primary interest is homebuilt accidents, it usually doesn't take much to dig up other types of details.

I've run a comparison between Cirruses and Cessna 172s and 182s built from the mid-90s to later. This gives us a better head-to-head comparison, as there are a lot of 172s/182s still on the registration rolls that are no longer flying.

Accidents during the 1998-2006 Time Period:

Cirrus: 58
Post-1990 C-172s: 257
Post-1990 C-182s: 62

My usual practice is the compute the annual accident rate for each type based on the average number of that aircraft type during the subject period:

Cirrus: 822 Aircraft
Post-1990 C-172s: 1463 Aircraft
Post-1990 C-182s: 822 Aircraft

Average Annual Fleet Accident Rate for Each Type:

Cirrus: 0.84%
Post-1990 C-172s: 1.05%
Post-1990 C-182s: 0.65%

The majority of the late-model 172 accidents are listed as having occurred during an instructional flight (59%). The late-model 182s and the Cirruses were mostly "Personal" flights, with about 81% of each.

Ratings:

Cirrus: Private 66%
-------Commercial 16.1%
-------ATP 4.8%

New 172s: Private 36.6%
-------Commercial 8.6%
-------ATP 0.4%

New 182s: Private 66.1%
-------Commercial 16.1%
-------ATP 4.8%

Median Pilot Hours:
Cirrus: 124
New 172: 42
New 182: 107

I took a *very* quick look at causes. The Cirrus has a ~65% rate of pilot error (of all types), while the new 182 and new 172's rates were both around 85%.

However, Cirrus' teething problems are pretty obvious...only two out of the New 182's 58 accidents were attributed to mechanical problems, but 14 of the Cirrus' 62 were due to engine or airframe malfunctions.

Still, the Cirrus did have fewer pilot error accidents than the new 182s, despite having more total accidents.

Ron Wanttaja
 
flyersfan31 said:
Cue sparkling Cirrus on the Ramp: "Wings Unicom, Cirrus xxxxx, what is the current active runway." I let him know that we're headed to 6, being the neighborly type, but I made a snide remark to my CFI about "listen to the AWOS Bozo!" I may also have made a crack about active runways at non-towered fields. Anyway, it gets better.
Click to expand...
It's not just Cirrus pilots... some idiot started the practice of radio checks and airport advisories then all the rest of the idiots followed suit. I hear it all the time and sometimes, I hear it so much I key up before the "unicom guy" has a chance and say, "It works!" After I unkey, I say... "Now, shut up!." A Lear 60 captain told me he often does say "Shut up" on the air after telling them it works.

I have a student I took over recently who is nearly ready for a checkride. He's one of four such students handed off to me. I've flown with this one twice before but it had been a few weeks. Yesterday, he calls unicom for a radio check and airport advisory. I asked him what he would accomplish that he could not verify by talking to our own FBO as far as a radio check, not to mention cutting down on chatter on unicom. Lastly, he would ask for an "airport advisory." He'd promptly receive all he needed by tuning into the ASOS then as he taxied out of the ramp and to the runway, keeping his eyes open and head on a swivel along with the radio volume turned up, he'd hear as much or more than the "unicom guy." He'd definitely see more. By the way, he was doing it just because the first instructor he flew with did it and so did everyone else. I'm also the first instructor who taught him to lean power on climb out and again in cruise.

I'm anxiously awaiting to hear the exchange the first time a pilot asks the new tower for a radio check and airport advisory.

Idiocy isn't limited to Cirrus owners. They are just high-horsepower idiots.
 
Sort of in line with what has been said above -

I think it might be fair to say that the average experience level of people flying Cirrus vs. similar HP planes is lower. Maybe that's because the SR22 is the 'cool' plane to buy right now and new pilots who want to step up/buy their first plane go with that trend. That, and the SR22 isn't that expensive compared to other options. I've met a lot more new pilots with SR22s than Bonanzas or Saratogas. When those models were new to the market, the situation was probably similar.

If the above is true, it's not surprising that there are more high profile accidents. While the accident rate might not be that different (though I'm curious - is it really lower than the accident rate not for all of GA, but for similar airplanes), the decision making that led to the accident often seems more outrageous when SR22s are involved.

All this might not be true, though. Coming to think of it, I hear just as much bad radio technique from any other make of aircraft.

-Felix
 
Last edited:
Areeda said:
Please tell me what plane you were flying when this happened. I'll bet you 50¢ that I can come up with a story about a bozo in that make/model to match it.
Click to expand...

Agreed, Joe. A lot of people have Cirrus stories. I think we all have stories of some aircraft or another that are just as bad, if no worse. Two stories I've observed to cite an example:

Cirrus story: Cirrus SR22 comes in to land at KIPT on a night landing. Didn't see where the runway was well enough, came in nose low, had a prop strike.

Piper story: Piper Dakota comes in to land at KERI on a day landing. Saw where the runway was, came in nose low anyway, had a prop strike anyway.
 
Areeda said:
Please tell me what plane you were flying when this happened. I'll bet you 50¢ that I can come up with a story about a bozo in that make/model to match it.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know, I know. There's more than enough stupidity to go around. I just had to share -- it's more the stupidity of the incident I had to relate. The fact it was a Cirrus was a bonus, given this is a Cirrus-bashing thread!!!
 
I can understand Joe's frustration... it's similar to what I get when people go on about Jaguars being terrible cars. It's amazing how many people "know" this having never owned one or worked on one. I must not know anything about them, having owned 7 and worked on close to 200. :rolleyes:
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I can understand Joe's frustration... it's similar to what I get when people go on about Jaguars being terrible cars. It's amazing how many people "know" this having never owned one or worked on one. I must not know anything about them, having owned 7 and worked on close to 200. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I still remember the joy of owning my '74 XKE (V12). Unfortunately, I spent so much time getting it perfect that I became almost afraid to take it out on the road. But when I did...

Dan
 
wanttaja said:
I took a *very* quick look at causes. The Cirrus has a ~65% rate of pilot error (of all types), while the new 182 and new 172's rates were both around 85%.

However, Cirrus' teething problems are pretty obvious...only two out of the New 182's 58 accidents were attributed to mechanical problems, but 14 of the Cirrus' 62 were due to engine or airframe malfunctions.

Still, the Cirrus did have fewer pilot error accidents than the new 182s, despite having more total accidents.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Great analysis, Ron, and it's good to see you here on POA. I've enjoyed your Fly Baby site for years!
 
Dan Smith said:
I still remember the joy of owning my '74 XKE (V12). Unfortunately, I spent so much time getting it perfect that I became almost afraid to take it out on the road. But when I did...
Click to expand...

I drove my '82 XJ-S V12 35,000 miles in one year, starting at 130,000 total vehicle miles, and the car was 20 years old. Problems in that time: one very old distributor cap exploded and one fuel pump died. Both of them were quick repairs. Of course, I did spend a good sum of time getting it roadworthy in the first place.

My '92 XJS V12 I bought close to 2 years ago, have put 15,000 miles on it, and so far the only problems have been self-induced. I wouldn't have had to touch it if I had left well enough alone and not decided that I wanted the thing to go faster. :)

The 70s were admittedly a dark time for even the Prince of Darkness. By the 80s, things were substantially improved. As a Jaguar mechanic, most of the cars I worked on were 15-20 years old. It amazed me how well most of these cars performed despite their age, high mileage, and complete lack of maintenance on the part of the various owners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top