Cirrus Bashing Counterpoint

spiderweb

spiderweb

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
9,488
Display Name
Ben
I understand the need to crown a new(ish) "doctor-killer," but there are a lot of things Cirrus got right. I thought of two of them today while flying a practice flight.

1) At least with the Perspective, flying approaches nearly perfectly is so easy, it is almost embarrassing. Trust me, I am NOT bragging about my skills.

2) Gusty, variable crosswinds are easily handled.
 
Cirrus is a high performance aircraft with exceptional capabilities. Unlearning bad habits learned in other docile aircraft is the problem. "I can fly anything I can afford" is the problem.
 
Geico266 said:
Cirrus is a high performance aircraft with exceptional capabilities. Unlearning bad habits learned in other docile aircraft is the problem. "I can fly anything I can afford" is the problem.
Click to expand...

Completely agree.
 
It's not the airplane, Ben. It's the mentality of the pilot induced accdents. Yes, CesPers have 'em to, but the extent to which the accident population just pushes the envelope in the chute equipped bird is pretty egregious. That's subjective, but I have read and posted my review of all 233 cirrus accidents (as of Jan 2013). You just want to cry.
 
I suppose what I am saying is that a properly trained pilot will enjoy the advantages the Cirrus aircraft have to offer.

The advertising is indeed misleading if it is suggesting "don't worry--everything will always be perfect and fine because this aircraft is super extra safe."

Dr. Bruce says it best in those first two sentences.
 
I would gladly fly a Cirrus with any responsible and trained pilot - and would decline flying, no matter the bird, with a yutz.

I do still wish the Cirrus had a more robust fuel tank and surrounding structure... but not a deal killer.
 
over 300 hrs on the sr22t and all I can say is a highly capable and useful piston engine plane. It has flown me safely over deserts, dark nights, mountains, across the country, weather systems, icing, low ifr (the one that gets depicted as pink in the metars), really bad gusty crosswinds landings etc :D:D:D:D

My only complaint was the need for about 200-300 more lbs of payload, but that got addressed on the new model iteration.

Also, I can fairly say that the vast majority of people who bash the cirrus have not flown one.:yes::yes::yes:
 
I think they are great airplanes. But I think its an more advanced aircraft to fly and we lack advanced pilots.
 
cirrusmx said:
over 300 hrs on the sr22t and all I can say is a highly capable and useful piston engine plane. It has flown me safely over deserts, dark nights, mountains, across the country, weather systems, icing, low ifr (the one that gets depicted as pink in the metars), really bad gusty crosswinds landings etc :D:D:D:D

My only complaint was the need for about 200-300 more lbs of payload, but that got addressed on the new model iteration.

Also, I can fairly say that the vast majority of people who bash the cirrus have not flown one.:yes::yes::yes:
Click to expand...

+1 :yeahthat:
 
bbchien said:
It's not the airplane, Ben. It's the mentality of the pilot induced accdents. Yes, CesPers have 'em to, but the extent to which the accident population just pushes the envelope in the chute equipped bird is pretty egregious. That's subjective, but I have read and posted my review of all 233 cirrus accidents (as of Jan 2013). You just want to cry.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that I shuold get one too (like the other poster's said) because I think I'm a safe pilot. Heck, even the guy who signed off on my training thinks I'm safe. He then sent me to another guy who is trained to look for these things and examine me over a few hours, he agreed with his signature that I'm safe. Based on his signature the US Government gave me a permit to fly anywhere I want. No way should I ever see grief and should have a long flying career (hobby). Right.
 
It appears to be going pretty well so far, eh?

Jaybird180 said:
So what you're saying is that I shuold get one too (like the other poster's said) because I think I'm a safe pilot. Heck, even the guy who signed off on my training thinks I'm safe. He then sent me to another guy who is trained to look for these things and examine me over a few hours, he agreed with his signature that I'm safe. Based on his signature the US Government gave me a permit to fly anywhere I want. No way should I ever see grief and should have a long flying career (hobby). Right.
Click to expand...
 
Jaybird180 said:
So what you're saying is that I shuold get one too (like the other poster's said) because I think I'm a safe pilot. Heck, even the guy who signed off on my training thinks I'm safe. He then sent me to another guy who is trained to look for these things and examine me over a few hours, he agreed with his signature that I'm safe. Based on his signature the US Government gave me a permit to fly anywhere I want. No way should I ever see grief and should have a long flying career (hobby). Right.
Click to expand...
Are you going to stay safe....ie fly enough to remain proficient?

That is one of the problems with airplanes like Cirrus. Often times those who can afford to own and operate them do not have the time to fly them enough to remain proficient....but they somehow have a twisted sense that they spent all this money on an airplane to make them safer.
 
Cirrus Rocks - So Far

Took my first ride in a heavily used Cirrus from a rental fleet, and I'm hooked.

My friends accuse be of being overly safe. Nonsense. I love my life and I have a family that loves me and needs me. I know myself...I won't attempt things just because I have a 'chute. So the Cirrus adds an extra layer of safety.

I simply love the idea of the parachute. It eliminates a worry I can't do much about. No matter how much I plan and practice, an engine out over metro LA (where I do all of my flying) is risky. And it DOES happen. Met someone just last night that lost an engine in a 152.

I can avoid bad weather. I can use Flight Following and Traffic to help avoid mid-airs. And I can take steps to avoid "stupid stuff" like running out of fuel. But if a piston craps out, it craps out.

Things I loved other than CAPS:

Has a "real" interior. My heavier friends and I don't rub legs during the entire flight. I do like my friends, but not THAT much. :rolleyes:

Handles winds much better than 172. I flew my first flight in 20 knt gusty winds. I never would have known from the handling.

Live traffic and help with traffic avoidance.

Things I don't love so far:

Expensive! The battered rental at $240 is almost 50% more than a nice 172.

Flare - I'll get used to it, but you get one chance in a Cirrus, and then
"plop". Perhaps the 172 builds a bit of a bad habit by letting you flare as many times as you need if you screw it up.

More later! Would love to hear other thoughts!
 
Last edited:
Jaybird180 said:
You're right, Wayne. I've never crashed an airplane. I must be a safe pilot.:D
Click to expand...
OTOH, I have, but since I was able to salvage enough of the engine parts to sell and buy another plane, I decided to call it even
 
Re: Cirrus Rocks - So Far

VWGhiaBob said:
Took my first ride in a heavily used Cirrus from a rental fleet, and I'm hooked.

My friends accuse be of being overly safe. Nonsense. I love my life and I have a family that loves me and needs me. I know myself...I won't attempt things just because I have a 'chute. So the Cirrus adds an extra layer of safety.

I simply love the idea of the parachute. It eliminates a worry I can't do much about. No matter how much I plan and practice, an engine out over metro LA (where I do all of my flying) is risky. And it DOES happen. Met someone just last night that lost an engine in a 152.

I can avoid bad weather. I can use Flight Following and Traffic to help avoid mid-airs. And I can take steps to avoid "stupid stuff" like running out of fuel. But if a piston craps out, it craps out.

Things I loved other than CAPS:

Has a "real" interior. My heavier friends and I don't rub legs during the entire flight. I do like my friends, but not THAT much. :rolleyes:

Handles winds much better than 172. I flew my first flight in 20 knt gusty winds. I never would have known from the handling.

Live traffic and help with traffic avoidance.

Things I don't love so far:

Expensive! The battered rental at $240 is almost 50% more than a nice 172.

Flare - I'll get used to it, but you get one chance in a Cirrus, and then
"plop". Perhaps the 172 builds a bit of a bad habit by letting you flare as many times as you need if you screw it up.

More later! Would love to hear other thoughts!
Click to expand...

Statistically speaking the Mooney is significantly safer than a Cirrus. Plus you don't have to fly around all day with the gear hanging down - that's just embarrassing.
 
Re: Cirrus Rocks - So Far

DavidWhite said:
Statistically speaking the Mooney is significantly safer than a Cirrus. Plus you don't have to fly around all day with the gear hanging down - that's just embarrassing.
Click to expand...

Justification please? How many Mooneys are flying today versus number of Cirri? These planes have similar missions IMO.

Translation: an airplane on the ground is only in danger of an EPA violation.
 
There are some design features I really don't like about the Cirrus. But I also have to admit the chute is the first new semi-passive safety idea I've seen in an airplane since the shoulder restraint. The various active safety features (avionics etc) I think have uses as well.

Once the mentality of the people flying them improves, I think the safety stats should improve with it.
 
Re: Cirrus Rocks - So Far

VWGhiaBob said:
Things I loved other than CAPS:

Has a "real" interior. My heavier friends and I don't rub legs during the entire flight. I do like my friends, but not THAT much. :rolleyes:

Handles winds much better than 172. I flew my first flight in 20 knt gusty winds. I never would have known from the handling.

Live traffic and help with traffic avoidance.
Click to expand...

I like those things VERY much. The interior, traffic, and integrated everything in the Perspective makes the Cirrus very pleasurable on long X-Cs.

VWGhiaBob said:
Things I don't love so far:

Expensive! The battered rental at $240 is almost 50% more than a nice 172.

Flare - I'll get used to it, but you get one chance in a Cirrus, and then
"plop". Perhaps the 172 builds a bit of a bad habit by letting you flare as many times as you need if you screw it up.

More later! Would love to hear other thoughts!
Click to expand...

Transitioning to the SR-20, it took some practice learning to make good landings. The envelope between tailstrike and propstrike is a lot smaller than in Cessnas. The time spent in flare should be the same, as long as you really make sure you're on airspeed.
 
Reducing the prop and tail strike frequency in the pre-dash-3 models will require more than a change in mentality. Cirrus changed the gear geometry to improve the tolerances in the new planes, but the older versions will always be more difficult to land without scraping one or both ends on the pavement. Training will help but won't make them more forgiving.

Ted DuPuis said:
There are some design features I really don't like about the Cirrus. But I also have to admit the chute is the first new semi-passive safety idea I've seen in an airplane since the shoulder restraint. The various active safety features (avionics etc) I think have uses as well.

Once the mentality of the people flying them improves, I think the safety stats should improve with it.
Click to expand...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
There are some design features I really don't like about the Cirrus. But I also have to admit the chute is the first new semi-passive safety idea I've seen in an airplane since the shoulder restraint. The various active safety features (avionics etc) I think have uses as well.

Once the mentality of the people flying them improves, I think the safety stats should improve with it.
Click to expand...

My guess is that there are features of every plane you would not like
( understandably so)
 
wabower said:
Reducing the prop and tail strike frequency in the pre-dash-3 models will require more than a change in mentality. Cirrus changed the gear geometry to improve the tolerances in the new planes, but the older versions will always be more difficult to land without scraping one or both ends on the pavement. Training will help but won't make them more forgiving.
Click to expand...

True, but there are a lot of the deaths that attitudes will help.

AdamZ said:
My guess is that there are features of every plane you would not like
( understandably so)
Click to expand...

You are correct. I think the Cirrus has a longer list than many other aircraft, though.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
True, but there are a lot of the deaths that attitudes will help.



You are correct. I think the Cirrus has a longer list than many other aircraft, though.
Click to expand...

That's just because they have so many fanboys attached to them.:wink2:
 
AdamZ said:
That's just because they have so many fanboys attached to them.:wink2:
Click to expand...

And they're highly prone to catch fire. Don't forget about that. ;)
 
Lest there be any question, if the planes I like were produced with and without chutes, I would always choose "with."
 
wabower said:
Lest there be any question, if the planes I like were produced with and without chutes, I would always choose "with."
Click to expand...

Same here. And some of the avionics gizmos they have in are pretty nifty.
 
I can see it now, the Seneca 6: BRS, the "ultimate in safety" with a useful load of 920 pounds. Sigh. the -"V" is bad enough as is.
 
bbchien said:
I can see it now, the Seneca 6: BRS, the "ultimate in safety" with a useful load of 920 pounds. Sigh. the -"V" is bad enough as is.
Click to expand...

Cars have been getting heavier, too.
 
Well here's how I feel about the 'chute. I don't think about it--great way to make the wife feel more comfortable about flying--but I bet I would think about it if a skydiver took off the empennage.
 
He'd feel the same way if the tail took off his.

spiderweb said:
Well here's how I feel about the 'chute. I don't think about it--great way to make the wife feel more comfortable about flying--but I bet I would think about it if a skydiver took off the empennage.
Click to expand...
 
spiderweb said:
Well here's how I feel about the 'chute. I don't think about it--great way to make the wife feel more comfortable.
Click to expand...

They say it is important to think about the chute, because you'll otherwise fail to use it. And failing to use the chute has cost lives.

The way I was taught to make thinking about the chute part of the routine is to touch the chute handle after takeoff at 400 AGL, when I raise the flaps. That touch, every flight, reminds me that an engine failure above 400 AGL is a chute pull.
 
NoHeat said:
They say it is important to think about the chute, because you'll otherwise fail to use it. And failing to use the chute has cost lives.

The way I was taught to make thinking about the chute part of the routine is to touch the chute handle after takeoff at 400 AGL, when I raise the flaps. That touch, every flight, reminds me that an engine failure above 400 AGL is a chute pull.
Click to expand...

What do you do below 400, FTFA?
 
Re: Cirrus Rocks - So Far

Jaybird180 said:
Justification please? How many Mooneys are flying today versus number of Cirri? These planes have similar missions IMO.

Translation: an airplane on the ground is only in danger of an EPA violation.
Click to expand...


One need not look any further than NTSB reports - for the Mooney M20J there have been 94 accidents since january 1st, 200. Of the 94, 24 were fatals. In the Plastic Fantastic SR20, there were 54 accidents - 22 of which were fatal. In the SR22 - 146 accidents. 63 of which were fatal.

For the entire Mooney fleet, there have been 413 accidents with 104 being fatal, in the Cirrus it is 212 with 91 fatal. Essentially twice as dangerous.

Tell me which one you would rather crash in (and there are usually NTSB reports for CAPS pulls) The "safety" factor that Cirrus has is the biggest line of bull**** since the Taylor administrations promise not to get cholera and die in office.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top