dmccormack
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 10,945
- Location
- Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Mc
Regarding, my blog post:
http://stevewilsonblog.com/2009/04/16/dead-pilots-dont-lie.aspx
and statement “There's not a single recorded instance of a strutted-wing single engine Cessna having an airframe failure or flight control malfunction mid-air.”
…please prove my statement untrue. If you can, I want to correct it.
Visually impressive list Ron, and misleading to the reader:
ANC06FA048B – Midair.
NYC05LA002B – Midair.
LAX06LA056B – Midair.
DEN99LA067A – Midair.
MIA99FA126B – Midair.
MIA03LA038B – Collission while taxiing.
SEA01LA122B – Midair.
LAX98LA253B – Midair.
NYC00LA081B – Midair.
CHI04LA104A – Midair.
ATL98FA060B– Midair.
MIA01FA028B– Midair.
FTW01FA025A– Midair.
MIA03FA124A– Midair.
FTW01FA058B– Midair.
CHI99LA040A – Midair.
NYC00FA058A – Midair.
DEN03MA035B – Midair.
Not a single example you present is a failure of the aircraft. And in the case of MIA02FA066 with a corroded aileron cable, the aircraft was proven derelict and shoddily maintained, let alone the fact is had over 7,000 hours total time and was 25 years old. The part did not "fail" per design nor was not properly maintained.
Please try harder.
wanttaja
En-Route
No Google Fu, just a copy of the 2 January 2009 FAA registration database. There were 3624 Cirrus SR20s and SR22s registered on that date.
I counted 43 fatal and 54 non-fatal accidents prior to 1 January 2009 (Henning, did you weed out the Cirrus VK-30s and Schempp-Hirth Cirrus entries?) . These numbers count only the US crashes, since my fleet size statistic is only US-registered aircraft.
The FAA does not automatically remove destroyed aircraft from the registry, but I've noted that more-expensive aircraft are typically removed when destroyed...I suspect the insurance companies are pretty good in this regard. We can assume that all the fatal accidents were probably total write-offs, and some number of the non-fatals were, as well.
So the total number of Cirrus SR-20s and -22s that have been in the US fleet runs somewhere between 3667 and 3721.
Ron Wanttaja
K
KennyFlys
Guest
Rather than dig through and respond to numerous posts opposing my statement, I'll say this...
Are all students and recent private pilot certificate recipients incapable of handling a 300HP aircraft? Nope, not at all. But, history and common sense prove the odds are against them. It's too much aircraft, too soon.
Yes, the Navy does it with a 1,100SHP Texan. But, those guys don't just jump into the cockpit. They spend hours in a simulator and in class beforehand.
I teach primary students in glass and it's not an easy task. We all know the fact of "an airplane makes for a lousy classroom". It is a fact and not a cliché. Thanks to our simulator it's a much easier process where that learning can be done safely and without concern of distraction.
I have some very capable students with incredible smarts and accomplishments in their lives. One has built two good-sized companies from scratch, totaling over $65 million. But, I would be selling him short if I agreed he should just jump into an SR-22 and start his training. His dream is owning that or something similar. He could buy several outright with cash.
I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying it's unwise to do so. If it's recommended I teach BAI for several hours along with VOR tracking and IAPs before entering clouds, why should this be any different for primary training with regard to how fast they fly?
Ever since my experience flying a few ILS approaches with the guy in his A-36 a few months back, I established airspeed limitations for pretty much all phases of flight, especially for primary students:
Are all students and recent private pilot certificate recipients incapable of handling a 300HP aircraft? Nope, not at all. But, history and common sense prove the odds are against them. It's too much aircraft, too soon.
Yes, the Navy does it with a 1,100SHP Texan. But, those guys don't just jump into the cockpit. They spend hours in a simulator and in class beforehand.
I teach primary students in glass and it's not an easy task. We all know the fact of "an airplane makes for a lousy classroom". It is a fact and not a cliché. Thanks to our simulator it's a much easier process where that learning can be done safely and without concern of distraction.
I have some very capable students with incredible smarts and accomplishments in their lives. One has built two good-sized companies from scratch, totaling over $65 million. But, I would be selling him short if I agreed he should just jump into an SR-22 and start his training. His dream is owning that or something similar. He could buy several outright with cash.
I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying it's unwise to do so. If it's recommended I teach BAI for several hours along with VOR tracking and IAPs before entering clouds, why should this be any different for primary training with regard to how fast they fly?
Ever since my experience flying a few ILS approaches with the guy in his A-36 a few months back, I established airspeed limitations for pretty much all phases of flight, especially for primary students:
Some of those flying too fast never knew what hit them... or rather, what they hit.
wanttaja
En-Route
Your statement said, "There's not a single recorded instance of a strutted-wing single engine Cessna having an airframe failure or flight control malfunction mid-air.” Your statement was in reference to the Cirrus having a ballistic chute. It made no reference to design failures, only that no strutted Cessna had ever had an accident due to these causes.
Your statement, as written, was deceptive. Whether the control or airframe failure was due to a faulty design or bad maintenance is completely immaterial. Someone sitting at 3,000 feet in an airplane minus a wing does not care if the wing was gone because of a design fault or because it was snipped off by a passing F-16. They may care, at that point, whether a parachute is available.
You could add a clarifying phrase to your statement: "There's not a single recorded instance of a strutted-wing single engine Cessna having an airframe failure or flight control malfunction mid-air that hasn't been attributed to bad maintenance or a collision with another aircraft.”
Unfortunately, most pilots *do* know that bad maintenance occurs, and that midair collisions don't discriminate between aircraft types...so that kinds of weakens your argument against ballistic chutes.
Ron Wanttaja
Thanks, so if we toss in the European Cirruses (Yes, I culled out the VK-30s, 6 I think it was) and accidents prior to 1962, the Cirrus shows a lower rate of accidents/fleet, but higher fatalities/ accident. Of course a good part of that is 2 more seats and quite a few of "3s" & "4s" in the fatalities number, but there is also their propensity to burn that bothers me. I have seen it claimed that the Ercoupe is the safest trainer there is, if that's true, then the Cirrus is quite alright, and many of the 20s are being used as primary trainers.
Or is it a matter of not enough instructor? How many CFIs working have 250hrs in a HP single? how about 25hrs?
SkyHog
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,431
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
- Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
To sum up the thread:
1) Flying is hard
2) These crazy youngsters with their Dan Fogelberg and their pacman video games think they can spend their money on whatever plane they want!
3) Technology is scary
4) It takes 15 hours of transition training to fly the G1000
5) Somehow, flying a more capable plane with more safety features is more dangerous.
Did I miss anything?
1) Flying is hard
2) These crazy youngsters with their Dan Fogelberg and their pacman video games think they can spend their money on whatever plane they want!
3) Technology is scary
4) It takes 15 hours of transition training to fly the G1000
5) Somehow, flying a more capable plane with more safety features is more dangerous.
Did I miss anything?
Ron,
I am not arguing against parachutes. Thank God for them! My argument is to counter Cirrus's misleading claim of safety record:
http://www.whycirrus.com/safety/2008-ga-safety-record.aspx
Bad maintenance and in-flight collisions are not "failures" of the aircraft. I'll think about defining the word failure for reader's sake.
Thanks,
Steve
Well, define failure... If you look at it from a structural perspective, the airframe failed. If you look at it from a causal perspective, the airframe structural engineering was not causal of the failure. If you look at it from a design/human factors perspective, the airframe design failed to provide an available, survivable option in the light of known human error. So, the "failure" argument is valid for open discussion. There is more to design than structural engineering.
Last edited:
SkyHog
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,431
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
- Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
HAHA! You're the Steven Wilson that Kenny was referring to, aren't you?
That's a hoot. So tell me, why is the Cessna 172 better than Bonanzas. I can't wait to hear this...
Last edited:
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,449
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
SkyHog
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,431
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
- Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
That is absolutely hilarious, Steve. I'm not surprised in the least that you and Kenny hooked up on this one.
Tell me, how many hours would you think it takes to learn to fly a glass panel in IMC, Steve?
I'm sorry, I do not know Kenny.
wanttaja
En-Route
A higher fatality rate can have a variety of causes. Speed at impact is the primary one, and a slipperier airplane like the Cirrus might have more of a tendency to thwack into the ground harder.
I've never performed an analysis on Cirrus accidents to the depth I've looked at homebuilts, but I do track some overall numbers. To remind folks, my database covers the years 1998 through 2006, inclusive. I have the FAA registration database for 1997, and from 2001 through 2009 to determine fleet sizes.
The average annual fleet accident rates are as follows:
New Cessna 172s: 1.9%
New Cessna 182s: 0.66%
Cirrus SR-20s/22s: 0.84%
I suspect the higher rate for the 172s is due to their common use as trainers.
However, this comparison is based on the total accidents during that nine year period and the AVERAGE number of airplanes of that type between 1998 and January 2007. There were only 2 Cirruses on the rolls in mid-1997, so that'd skew the average.
If I based the computation on the total accidents over the nine years divided by JUST the number of planes on the registry in January 2007, the Cirrus comes out slightly better than the new 182s.
My database confirms your results on the relative number of fatal accidents. 40.3% of the Cirrus accidents had fatalities involved, compared to 20.7% of the new 182s. A brief look at the causes didn't show any standouts. Both had about the same sad proportion of spacial disorientation in IMC.
Icing was mentioned in several of the Cirrus cases, vs. only one in the new 182 set. But about a quarter of the new 182 fatals involved botched landings or losing control on a go-around, vs just 8% for the Cirri. Curious.
Ron Wanttaja
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,449
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Kenny is the original poster on this thread who linked to your blog.
Anyway, welcome to POA, Steve. As you have noticed many of us here are quite opinionated and we love to debate.
Given the above scenario where it is very likely he will own an SR-22 in the near future, I think it's unwise not to start him from day one in one. Will he be ready for a PP check ride as fast as if he did it in a 152 with steam? No As fast as a person in a G1000 172? Not to far away.... Lets say if he can make it in 40 in a 152, he'll make it in an SR-22 in 60. Do you think that he will be a better prepared SR-22 pilot after 40hrs in a 152 and 20hrs transition into the SR-22 than he would be starting flight 1 with the SR-22 and having all 60 in it? Remember, the few dollars cost difference to this client is inconsequential. As my clients put it, "Just get me what you think is my best value." The insurance companies I bet would prefer he had 60hrs in type when he was turned loose in it than 20. Heck, Even if you have 200hrs in a 152, you climb into an SR-22 and your rates will be astronomical for your first 100/year in type, and then go down. Insurance likes to see 100hrs as well, so you might as well stay with him for another 40hrs through his IR and get that knocked out. During all of this time, he can also be utilizing the plane on business, or recreation, and guess what, you're along with pay and expenses! Even after he has his IR, he'll still have you for some flights where conditions down and it makes sense to be 2pilot IFR regardless of the planes capabilities. Now, since he learned in a fast piston single, it proved pretty useful getting places (the 172 not so much) and he learned going fast, so stepping up to a Citation or a Lear isn't too bad of a deal and it'll really open up travelling utility, and guess what, now you have a job flying a jet.
BTW, would anything change if it was a Cessnumbia instead of a Cirrus?
Last edited:
dmccormack
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 10,945
- Location
- Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Mc
It's kinda like slowing down to 50 MPH on the motorcycle -- when you're in a 145HP C172 or a 90 HP C150 you feel like you can get out and walk to observe the landing.
And if you never experience it, you never have to unlearn it and learn something new. SR-22 touches down in the low 60s, pretty much the same as a PA-28, and I don't see them argued as bad trainers.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
Insurance companies think time in type is the most critical underwriting factor, and the reason why they require a certain level of training/experience for the airplanes flown. It's especially true for pilots on their way up the complexity-performance scale. They will privately admit that most pilots need more than they require but in a competitive business they are forced to cut back.
I trained a guy in his new (to him) 340 a couple years ago. The insurance company wanted 50-some hours, which I thought would be an eternity of boring learn-nothing flights. I was wrong, he was still learning a lot at the end of his training, and could have easily done another 10-15 hours without either of us getting bored.
If you had to send a family member in a SR-22 with one of two 60-hour pilots (God forbid) one of which had 60 hours in the Cirrus and the other with 20, which pilot would you choose?
I trained a guy in his new (to him) 340 a couple years ago. The insurance company wanted 50-some hours, which I thought would be an eternity of boring learn-nothing flights. I was wrong, he was still learning a lot at the end of his training, and could have easily done another 10-15 hours without either of us getting bored.
If you had to send a family member in a SR-22 with one of two 60-hour pilots (God forbid) one of which had 60 hours in the Cirrus and the other with 20, which pilot would you choose?
Last edited:
Trapper John
Ejection Handle Pulled
You say this a lot. Do you have some kind of statistics on this or is this just anecdotal from your very limited experience as an instructor in a limited geographical area?
Trapper John
dmccormack
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 10,945
- Location
- Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Mc
I tried to follow here...
Does this mean, "If you experience X, you can't learn something new...?"
Does this mean, "If you experience X, you can't learn something new...?"
I tried to follow here...
Does this mean, "If you experience X, you can't learn something new...?"
No, if you learn to produce Z result using X process, and you then have to produce Z result using X' process, and X' process has different cues and and muscle memory settings, then you will have to unlearn, or rather, ignore, the X process, and once something is learned and committed to rote, modifying the process to get Z result is more "work" than just learning the X' process in the first place. If you have an adequate amount of runway, the difference between landing at 40 or 140 is purely psychological. If the plane is meant to land at that speed, it will land well at that speed and you can learn ab initio at that speed. The difference in consequences of error increase with speed, but not likelyhood. If anything, the lighter slower plane will allow more time for making errors as you float next to the ground longer and have lower inertia. Hope that clarified things.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
The 182 and the SR20 are within 10 knots of speed, have payloads within 50 lbs of each other, and are very similar aircraft. Why should the 182 be compared with the SR22?
Another thing, a student who learns day one in the SR-22 will be way ahead of the energy management curve than the 152 student.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
FWIW, I agree with Kenny on the quote that you posted... People tend to not get nearly enough training after they're rated. I think that the group we have here is far better than the average pilot - We're obviously the type of people who continuously seek new knowledge in aviation, love doing it, love talking about it... There are a lot of people who have ASEL-IA in their pocket and a Bo or Cirrus in their hangar who aren't really passionate about flying, it's just a way for them to get somewhere.
The 182 and the SR20 are within 10 knots of speed, have payloads within 50 lbs of each other, and are very similar aircraft. Why should the 182 be compared with the SR22?
There is no comparison between an SR-22 and a 182, doesn't exist. Best comparison of the traditional Cessna line would be a 210. The Cessnumbia 400 is nice though, and a direct market competitor.
Really, any aircraft can be trained in. If a person wants to "learn to fly" with no clear future vision in aviation, sure, fly the cheapest easiest thing first and then figure out what you want/need and step into that, may never need more.
However, if a successful business person comes in and says "I've been looking, and I think an SR-22 or even Cessna 340 will do exactly what I need it to do, but I don't know how to fly yet." That person is best served by buying the plane he knows he needs to serve his requirements and learning in it from the get go. Is it a cheap way? No, it isn't. It may very well be a high value way. If he gets the perceived utility benefit he was counting on while getting training underway, he has gotten greater value out of his training even if it takes him a 150hrs before he takes a checkride than if he does 40 in a 152 and 50 in an Arrow or Mooney.... and he is much better prepared in his ultimate aircraft than if he would have spent all that time learning and developing muscle memory and tuning kinesthetic senses and systems knowledge and peculiarities in several "upgrade" aircraft that just now becomes mental clutter. High value is not always cheap, but there are people who prefer to pay for it.
dmccormack
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 10,945
- Location
- Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Mc
No, if you learn to produce Z result using X process, and you then have to produce Z result using X' process, and X' process has different cues and and muscle memory settings, then you will have to unlearn, or rather, ignore, the X process, and once something is learned and committed to rote, modifying the process to get Z result is more "work" than just learning the X' process in the first place. If you have an adequate amount of runway, the difference between landing at 40 or 140 is purely psychological. If the plane is meant to land at that speed, it will land well at that speed and you can learn ab initio at that speed. The difference in consequences of error increase with speed, but not likelyhood. If anything, the lighter slower plane will allow more time for making errors as you float next to the ground longer and have lower inertia. Hope that clarified things.
You don't write instruction manuals for IKEA on the side, do you?
It's much harder to ride a bike slowly, but that's how we learn. Then we add speed and complicate the conditions (rain, ruts, roots, mud, rocks).
Learning in a Skipper or 150/152 series permits recognition and correction within a fairly lengthy cycle.
I'm thinking an Extra or Pitts doesn't afford this benefit.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
How good do they have to be? Who and how determines if they are good enough?
If the student comes to you and says "I just won the lottery, and next year I'm going to be flying airshow aerobatic routines in an Extra 300." You now have 1 year and 200hrs to train this person. Do you think he will be safer at the end of that year having trained 50 hrs in a Citabria, 50 hrs in a Cap 10, 50hrs in an Extra 200 and 50 hrs in an Extra 300, or by doing all 200hrs in the Extra 300?
BTW, Benefit of training ab initio in the Extra 300..... Student can't break the plane flying it...
If the end result you need has all the complications in it, it may be more efficient to learn at a lower single curve with all the complications already there than have to learn many steeper shorter curves and piece them together haphazardly especially when the don't mesh quite perfectly and you have to make adjustments.
Last edited:
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
astanley
En-Route
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Reading through the passage you quoted, I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. I think you're trying to get me to say that they have to be good enough to stay within PTS standards, and that the DPE or FAA inspector decides if they're good enough... But that's not the case.
They have to be good enough to not kill themselves when the poop hits the prop, and only they can determine if they are going to be good enough.
The particular example I'm thinking of was a guy with a Bo who hadn't flown all winter - There was a car with a flat tire parked in the hangar in front of the Bo, and the Bo had a flat tire too - And sometime in April decided to throw his family in the plane, launch into OVC007, and fly to Florida. I'm quite sure he wasn't 90-day current, probably wasn't instrument current, but he was gonna get in his airplane and do that. There were quite a few others like that as well - In fact, out of the 150 or so airplanes based where I was working at the time, I can count on my hands the number of people who really made an effort to stay proficient and/or expand their knowledge and skills. Hell, in a 3-month period only about 1/3 of the airplanes would even see the light of day.
astanley
En-Route
We learn to push pedals with training wheels, going slow. When my dad took off my training wheels, he pushed me down the grass so I had enough speed to be stable. I pedaled, stayed upright, stopped pedaling, crashed. Took me years to learn to ride "slowly"... a far more nuanced skill than riding "fast".
Just nitpicking
Cheers,
-Andrew
We learn to push pedals with training wheels, going slow. When my dad took off my training wheels, he pushed me down the grass so I had enough speed to be stable. I pedaled, stayed upright, stopped pedaling, crashed. Took me years to learn to ride "slowly"... a far more nuanced skill than riding "fast".
Just nitpicking
Cheers,
-Andrew
Me too, after the training wheels came off, push it to the top of the hill and give the kid a shove.... Everything is easier with a little excess energy than not quite enough.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,449
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
I agree with this. Your senses and timing become attuned to whatever speed you are accustomed to traveling. We are not physiologically much different than people of 100 years ago, most of whom had not driven a car much less flown an airplane. They probably thought 50 mph was an incredibly dangerous speed to be traveling. How could your reflexes handle it??
I showed one of the aerial photographers I used to work with how to fly around and land a C-206 since he expressed some interest. Later he decided to take some flying lessons in a C-172. His comments to me were about how slow and gutless it was, how it felt like a kite and how he had problems with overcontrolling until he got used to it.