Cirrus safety vs Mooney safety

[denverpilot]

What's the old saw? "An airplane can kill you. A safer airplane can only barely kill you."

 

[Gary F]

What's the old saw? "An airplane can kill you. A safer airplane can only barely kill you."

True in general but I think safety should still be a consideration when deciding which airplane to fly or buy. The fact is that some airplanes require a higher degree of skill or experience to fly safely. Higher performance aircraft usually higher performance pilots. To paraphrase Dirty Harry, A pilot was got to know his limitations.

 

[Ted]

True in general but I think safety should still be a consideration when deciding which airplane to fly or buy. The fact is that some airplanes require a higher degree of skill or experience to fly safely. Higher performance aircraft usually higher performance pilots. To paraphrase Dirty Harry, A pilot was got to know his limitations.

The part that is frequently left out is that a higher performance aircraft with a proper pilot can, in a number of cases, provide additional safety over a low performance plane. Example: A Cherokee or 172 probably wouldn't have dealt too well with my flight yesterday that I made in the de-iced Colemill 310.

But you are absolutely correct - a pilot's got to know his (or her) limitations.

 

[Gary F]

The part that is frequently left out is that a higher performance aircraft with a proper pilot can, in a number of cases, provide additional safety over a low performance plane. Example: A Cherokee or 172 probably wouldn't have dealt too well with my flight yesterday that I made in the de-iced Colemill 310.

But you are absolutely correct - a pilot's got to know his (or her) limitations.

I can't argue with that. A more common problem occurs when a relatively inexperience pilot buys a high performance aircraft. Doctors and dentists are famous for this. The cardiologist who invented coronary angioplasty decided he was qualified to fly a Baron when he had about 400 total hours.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001214X37964&key=1

 

[Ted]

I can't argue with that. A more common problem occurs when a relatively inexperience pilot buys a high performance aircraft. Doctors and dentists are famous for this. The cardiologist who invented coronary angioplasty decided he was qualified to fly a Baron when he had about 400 total hours.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001214X37964&key=1

I bought my de-iced, on-board radar Aztec at 225 hours total time. The insurance thought I was qualified to fly it by 250, and now at around 1150 TT (with 800 MEL) I haven't made them regret their decision.

But (and this is the big one), I didn't take my fresh CP-AMEL-IA and go fly in ice and on a really nasty thunderstorm day, or really on any particularly nasty weather day.

 

[Everskyward]

But Mooney owners, maybe knowing there's no parachute, might not as likely to take weather- and terrain- risks, and put overmuch faith in 'idiot-proof' rescue devices . That's a guess. It's not parachute OR roll-cage that saves the bacon. It's a pilot who's just a little conservative when that's what's needed.

Do you think it's that or do you think it's that some people are primed to point their finger at a Cirrus when it has an accident? Isn't it ironic then that the accident people are discussing over in another thread took place in a Mooney? Here's another recent weather related one.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20101222X54546&key=1

The pilot reported “VFR on top” and entering clouds during the approach at glide slope intercept at 8,500 feet mean sea level (MSL) Weather at 1154 was reported 100 foot ceiling, .25 mile visibility with freezing fog, temperature 26.6 degrees F, and winds 160 degrees at 07 knots. During the approach runway visual range was reported to the pilot as varying between 800 feet and 1,200 feet. While the pilot was speaking to approach controllers during his approach two commercial aircraft departed COS and reported to approach controllers light icing.

 

[Ted]

Do you think it's that or do you think it's that some people are primed to point their finger at a Cirrus when it has an accident? Isn't it ironic then that the accident people are discussing over in another thread took place in a Mooney? Here's another recent weather related one.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20101222X54546&key=1

Correct. Every airplane ever built has been crashed, and stupid is as stupid does. Cirrus just seems to market their airplanes in such a manner that encourages that behavior, which is not the plane's fault.

 

[Gary F]

Here is a link to an NTSB meeting on GA airbag study.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/Boardmeeting.htm
http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2011/ga_airbag_study/presentations.htm