Cirrus claims another vicim

[HPNFlyGirl]

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=4807654

 

[Michael]

I did a search for 10 days last month. according to the NTSB its not only cirrus falling out of the sky. Cirrus is selling more planes than any other manufacture. Been that way for 5 years now. It used to seem the crashes were always piper and cessna. but there is another plane in town, better get used to them crashing folks.

 

[tonycondon]

im getting quite tired of all these PILOTS crashing cirruses. Its not the airplanes fault in almost all cases, folks.

 

[JasonCT]

Too much plane for the brain?!

 

[jesse]

Brook your thread titles for these crashes has been worse than the average news reporter.

Cirrus didn't claim any victims. They produced a pretty safe airplane. Ever report I've read so far it has been the stupid ass ****ing pilot's fault.

 

[flyersfan31]

Paul Bertorelli had a good editorial in this months Aviation Consumer titled "Cirrus, Success, and the Lidle Crash." You should read it to get his full opinion, but he does think that Cirrus' marketing may have attracted some folks who don't have the survival instinct necessary to fly safely.

I can't do his argument justice here, but I more or less agree that the aircraft is a wonderful design. Maybe it's the law of unintended consequences at work: market an aircraft around its cutting-edge safety features and modern design, and end up attracting the kind of people to whom a BRS chute represents a convenient mistake-eraser rather than a last-ditch option.

It's a shame to see Cirrus (the company and its aircraft), and Cirrus pilots, all indicted by the actions of a few pilots. I know a few Cirrus owners. Nice people. Conscientious pilots. I also see one at our 'drome who may be nice (don't know him), but is definitely a Cirrus crash statistic waiting to happen.

Bertorelli also points out that this type of pilot will also be attracted to VLJs. Food for thought. Hey, Eclipse -- fund that litigation reserve while you can!!!!

 

[Michael]

Why does everyone think the cirrus is too complex for some pilots? A 152 is too complex when you first start learning, but pilots seem to get that plane down. Cirrus offers a course when you buy one. Insurance companies require dual time before you fly one. I don't buy the parachute theory either. The same pilot mistakes are made in pipers and cessnas. Its not the plane. Its the fact there are more of them out there. Thats why you see more of them crashing. Look at the ramp at a popular saturday breakfast airport. You will see lots of cirrus as well as pipers and cessnas.

 

[grattonja]

The same pilot mistakes are made in pipers and cessnas.

Yeah, at 110-130 knots, not at 160-180. Cirrus is pushing these aircraft as "easy to fly", pushing them as a transportation for soccer moms (and dads), pushing learning in them etc. Lidle is a primary example. He coulda, probably, got a skyhawk turned around in that space safely. He couldn't get the SR20 around safely, obviously.

That's my problem with the Cirrus. I think the aircraft is lovely technology, that most brand spankin' new pilots are not ready for. And the marketing doesn't emphasize that. You don't see Ferrari trying to sell it's hottest products to teen drivers specifically. You see Cirrus actively marketing newbies to aviation, encouraging them with the glass cockpits (navigation is a snap then, you know) and using the 'chute to emphasize how much safer they are. The problem is they are subject to the same pilot foibles as any other aircraft, particularly a fast one. You don't see, say Columbia, telling everyone how "easy" their plane is to fly. They seem to marketing to people moving up.

My 2 pennies of course.

Jim G

 

[SupraPilot]

its absolutely correct...too many rich people with money to burn dont realize what they are getting into....cirrus is living the "american business dream" and basically all that is, is NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS...they are selling these planes to make money...seriosuly cirrus probably coulnt care less if thier planes were crashing more..as long as thier sales numbers are still there....just like GM..they dont care that pretty mcuh every car that roll out of thier factory floor is a huge pile of plastic sh*t parts that rattles apart after 10k miles...they care that thery are pumping them out by the 100 thousands and selling them...but lately that company is feeling the consequenses of thier penny pinching ways now that the consumers all start to complain and relaize they bought a brand new POS for a car...

its the same concept as someone mentioned before about ferraris..sure they dont market to teenagers to sell ferraris, but they do market to older rich folks..but that definmitely doesnt mean they are qualified to handle something so exotic since they been driving for 50 years or whatever...just like rich pilots arent invincible since they bought a NEW PLANE...whats the bonanza that was nicknamed "The doctor killer"?? its the same concept...rich doctors all bought them but werent REALLY ready for a plane of that status...


Ant

 

[TMetzinger]

I completely disagree with your characterization of the Cirrus company.

Cirrus isn't protected by the 18 year statutory repose, so they are fully exposed to liability for any engineering/production defects in their planes. That's the legal side.

On the Moral side, Alan Klapmeir insisted on minimum training for folks who buy their airplanes. He also just recently sent out a letter to the Cirrus community about the need to establish and respect personal limits.

As you say, many of these crashes are due to bad judgement, but while you can train and test pilot technical skills, there's no reliable way to train and test judgement in a short timeframe. Good judgement comes from experience which generally comes from bad judgement. The fact that SATSAir runs charter service in Cirrus airplanes, with a very good safety record, shows that the planes themselves are safe.

In general aviation, the insurance companies have generally acted as the "moderating force" on the pilot community, requiring folks to either pony up a lot of money, or to undergo specific additional training. Eventually they may refuse to insure a pilot/owner in a Cirrus without certain minimums or a professional copilot.

 

[jason]

The great thing about this country is that nobody can take away anybody else's God given right to be stupid.

A business (any business) is in business to make money. I don't fault Cirrus for being successful.

If I were to go in to buy a new shotgun, it isn't Remington's responsibility to tell me not to shoot somebody in the eye. Nor is it their job to make sure that I'm not stupid enough to shoot myself in the eye

I agree that there is an issue here, but it's not with Cirrus. No matter what their marketing department does or who they market to. When that person goes to work that day they have a goal of feeding their family. In order to do that, they have to figure out how to sell another airplane.

 

[Michael]

The same pilot mistakes are made in pipers and cessnas.

Yeah, at 110-130 knots, not at 160-180. Cirrus is pushing these aircraft as "easy to fly", pushing them as a transportation for soccer moms (and dads), pushing learning in them etc. Lidle is a primary example. He coulda, probably, got a skyhawk turned around in that space safely. He couldn't get the SR20 around safely, obviously.

So Its not ok for a pilot to fly a plane that goes faster than 130. You don't think a pilot can learn to fly a faster plane even as a student? Forget what lidle did. That was bad judgment on the Instructor. Lidle was responsible and paid a CFI to show him the correct way to fly the corridor. I never would've bought my mooney if i listened to everyone tell me a low time pilot should not go straight into a mooney from a cessna. I think this bashing cirrus is plain ignorant. They arnt pill pushers on a dark corner, they wont let you take hold of a new plane without their checkout even. What more do you want from them? How fast does the Cessna 182 go? Does cessna require a checkout? How many pilots have crashed those planes in similar circumstances ? But i dont see anyone bashing cessna.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Another idiot crashes a perfectly good airplane

You don't see, say Columbia, telling everyone how "easy" their plane is to fly.

Actually, you do:

“It used to be that you had to do a geometry exercise to navigate a plane,” said Lance Neibauer, the founder of Lancair Co. of Bend, one of a handful of airplane manufacturers helping to transform the way Americans use private planes.

Today’s small planes, however, have a “glass cockpit,” the system of computerized displays and controls that makes pilots’ lives much easier.

“You can literally read a book up there,” said Neibauer...

http://planenews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3494

And that is not only marketing to a soccer mom, it's actively encouraging people to not even pay attention to their flying.

Later in the article:

And read is exactly what she does.

“Last year, we got through Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn,” Huntsman said.

These people are in the air with us!

On the Moral side, Alan Klapmeir insisted on minimum training for folks who buy their airplanes. He also just recently sent out a letter to the Cirrus community about the need to establish and respect personal limits.

I was a board-certified Cirrus hater (well, except for a short time after I actually flew one) until I interviewed Alan Klapmeier in Oshkosh this summer.

Folks, we ***** and moan that there aren't enough pilots. Then, when Cirrus goes out and tries to bring more pilots into the world by marketing to non-pilots and has a bit of trouble, we ***** and moan some more.

Cirrus is trying their best to bring new pilots into the fold AND keep them safe. That's a difficult battle. Their new Cirrus Access program should be a giant leap forward for them and all of us. There will be a new Pilotcast episode with Alan Klapmeier on that very subject coming out very soon, hopefully in a week or so. Until then, listen to or watch the interview linked above, it may give you a new perspective.

 

[flyersfan31]

Please tell me the kids are reading while she's focusing on flying. Please.

 

[TMetzinger]

Please tell me the kids are reading while she's focusing on flying. Please.

Umm. I've read while Otto flies the airplane. Not for more than maybe 10 seconds at a stretch, the way you'd look at a chart, or look out at the scenery. I'm still attuned to the airplane and any discrepancy gets my attention in a hurry.

 

[AdamZ]

Brooke, I'm sorta with Jesse on this one. Who says it was the Plane that killed the pilot more likely the pilot killed the pilot.

 

[Dean]

I look at it like putting a 16 yo that just got his drivers license in a Vette or Viper. Most likely he will kill himself in a short time. Same thing with the Cirrus, not a plane for a low time PP, but with time and good training its not a problem. That's my2 cents worth.

 

[Fast n' Furious]

I already regret typing this. The wings are not falling off the airplane nor are pilots intentionally trying to exterminate themselves. It's the somewhere in-between the two extremes that are bringing people to grief. Maybe it's easier to suspend the real dangers of flying in a Cirrus than anything else? I don't know but we've been here before. People are not finding new ways to off themselves in this airplane. It's all been done before. I wonder if there would be less focus on this airplane if it didn't have a parachute or an integrated glass cockpit?

 

[mdreger]

Has anyone considered how many hours Cirri are flown relative to the size of their fleet and compared it to the number of hours each other aircraft model is flown relative to their fleet size? I would imagine that these Cirrus owners, being new owners, with very capable aircraft (in order to get the most utility and enjoyment from their "new toy") are flying far more hours/miles relative to the rest of the pilot population, and therefore putting themselves at greater risk.

 

[JRitt]

I'll bet in the mid 1950's when Cessna came out with that new plane (C172) that was as easy to fly as driving a car the same thing was happening and the same conversations were taking place. Lets see a study done on crashes and fatalities per hrs flown because I'll bet the Cirrus is racking up a boatload of hrs/yr based on the ones I have seen for sale

 

[Steve]

If you're interested there's some data in:

http://www.amazingpossibilities.org/flying/CirrusSR2XFatalAccidentAndParachuteActivationHistory.pdf

and

http://www.chesavtraining.com/Cirrus-vs-Lancair.htm

And the media spin:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nyplan1012,0,1242982.story

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/10/12/cirrusreacts/


More interesting data from http://overtheairwaves.com/

GA Fatal Accidents per Million
Gallons of Aviation Gasoline Consumed

Year___Gallons consumed__#of Fatal_____Fatal Accidents
__________(000,000)_____Accidents ____per million gallons
1986 _______91.9__________ 474_________ 5.15
2004 _______36.0 __________314 _________8.7

Has anyone considered how many hours Cirri are flown relative to the size of their fleet and compared it to the number of hours each other aircraft model is flown relative to their fleet size? I would imagine that these Cirrus owners, being new owners, with very capable aircraft (in order to get the most utility and enjoyment from their "new toy") are flying far more hours/miles relative to the rest of the pilot population, and therefore putting themselves at greater risk.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Another idiot crashes a perfectly good airplane

More interesting data from http://overtheairwaves.com/

GA Fatal Accidents per Million
Gallons of Aviation Gasoline Consumed

Year___Gallons consumed__#of Fatal_____Fatal Accidents
__________(000,000)_____Accidents ____per million gallons
1986 _______91.9__________ 474_________ 5.15
2004 _______36.0 __________314 _________8.7

Wow, those numbers are interesting - Especially the huge drop in avgas consumption! However, I'd guess that's very much related to the move from cabin-class piston twins like the 414 up to King Airs, Citations and the like. I highly doubt there is a corresponding drop in total flight hours. Drop, maybe, but not 2/3.

Brooke, I'm sorta with Jesse on this one. Who says it was the Plane that killed the pilot more likely the pilot killed the pilot.

Amen to that. Sheesh.

Umm. I've read while Otto flies the airplane. Not for more than maybe 10 seconds at a stretch, the way you'd look at a chart, or look out at the scenery. I'm still attuned to the airplane and any discrepancy gets my attention in a hurry.

Tim,

Depends what you're reading. If you're reading the POH or something like that with a bunch of fragmented data, OK. If you're reading a novel, not OK - You start out tuned in to the airplane, but after a while the story will grab you and you'll pay less and less attention. I've experimented with this in the truck with trainees driving. I use the computer a lot while they're driving and I can do thinks like check email, etc. while still paying good attention to what's going on because they're mostly short and unrelated.

However, once I was analyzing a bunch of numbers for the flying club because of a complaint, and in the process of refuting the complaint I got very engrossed in things and then - Hey, this road's the wrong color! WI-29 is concrete, this is asphalt! We were on US 53 and my trainee missed the turn. A HALF HOUR AGO.

Please don't read in the cockpit unless you have a safety pilot. If you and the other guy are both reading, what's to stop a mid-air from happening?

 

[flyersfan31]

Reading charts is one thing. Reading Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn to the kids is a whole different matter.

I used to see drivers reading the newspaper on 95 and the Capitol Beltway. At highway speeds. Drove me nuts (pardon the pun).

 

[TMetzinger]

Re: Another idiot crashes a perfectly good airplane

Tim,

Depends what you're reading. If you're reading the POH or something like that with a bunch of fragmented data, OK. If you're reading a novel, not OK - You start out tuned in to the airplane, but after a while the story will grab you and you'll pay less and less attention.

It's a matter of discipline, and people vary at this. It may be a result of training from the military where I had to be able to regularly change my focus of attention on an internal "clock", or from the instrument training where I learned to scan and avoid fixation, but I've never had an "attention gap" like the one you described.

And generally reading only occurs in IMC. If there's something to see out the window, I tend to look at it.