What's wrong with Cirrus Pilots?

In the article, it reads: "Since that time the NTSB shows 80 fatal Cirrus accidents in its database. Because of the litigious nature of our society, most, if not almost all, have likely resulted in legal action against the company."

Isn't that redundant?
 
The mindset Dick describes is not limited to Cirrus pilots alone, many new pilots I meet seem to be more into the technology in their panel than actually developing the stick and rudder skills required to stay alive.

A few years back here in Oregon a Columbia 400 spun into a field killing all three aboard. It was IMC and the pilot was not rated. He was making a business trip which apparently he made regularly. The suspicion was that he took off, hooked up the autopilot and climbed blissfully into ice until the 400 replayed the Roselawn ATR crash.
 
I see lot's of really dumb Cirrus drivers commenting. The one about the 61 parachute saves had me rolling, if that airplane didnt have a parachute the fatal accident rate would be significantly more.
 
His blog entry is so well planned out that he should be able to get a second one out of it by changing the title to "What's wrong with twin engine pilots?" and then making suitable substitutions. Second engine for parachute, and so on.

Perhaps his comment about doing things in a twin that one wouldn't do in a single is a bit of foreshadowing?
 
Cirrus bashing.

The latest version of the old fork tailed doctor killer B.S. Now of course the V-tail has become a sweet flying classic operated by aviation connoisseurs and traditionally skilled pilots.

I wonder how long until the Cirrus becomes an airplane with safety features ahead of its time, flown by conscientious pilots who know you can navigate an airplane with just an old set of glass panels, manual controls, and looking outside; instead of being fixated on the new holographic avionics systems and speed-of-thought flight controls?
 
The article was incoherent in places and the argument poorly constructed. Most of all, the old Richard L. Collins would have done the research and published the numbers. The contrast is striking for anyone who's read "Flying" 10 years ago. I even went by the author link to make sure that "Dick Collins" was the same man. It's as if he left his writing in the cockpit of that 210. If it's Alzeimer, it's sad. If he thinks that blogging requires less rigour, it's also sad.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Cirrus bashing.

The latest version of the old fork tailed doctor killer B.S. Now of course the V-tail has become a sweet flying classic operated by aviation connoisseurs and traditionally skilled pilots.

I wonder how long until the Cirrus becomes an airplane with safety features ahead of its time, flown by conscientious pilots who know you can navigate an airplane with just an old set of glass panels, manual controls, and looking outside; instead of being fixated on the new holographic avionics systems and speed-of-thought flight controls?
Click to expand...

Got to agree with you on this. A better title might have been: "What's wrong with FAA IFR training standards?"
 
flightmedic said:
In the article, it reads: "Since that time the NTSB shows 80 fatal Cirrus accidents in its database. Because of the litigious nature of our society, most, if not almost all, have likely resulted in legal action against the company."

Isn't that redundant?
Click to expand...
No. "Most" means only "more than half," so "most" would apply for only 51%. "Almost all" implies a much greater percentage (I generally figure that means over 90%), although not as clearly defined as "most."

In any event, Mr. Collins' article, while containing some very good points about the problems of putting high performance aircraft in the hands of low performance pilots, has some factual errors about the aircraft's certification (it was spun during that process, and recovered from every one it entered without use of the BRS). In addition, I've done probably a dozen stalls in Cirri, and the stall characteristics were on a par with other aircraft in its class -- nothing exciting, very straightforward, easy to recover with "normal" inputs. In any event, the real problems he points to are the same we had with Bonanzas back before Cirrus took over that market.

All in all, this just sounds like Dick being Dick as he is now, not as he was 40 years ago. "Move along, nothing to see here."
 
Last edited:
Before it was Cirrus it was doctor-killing Bonazas, etc...

Typical Madlibs style journalism.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
The mindset Dick describes is not limited to Cirrus pilots alone, many new pilots I meet seem to be more into the technology in their panel than actually developing the stick and rudder skills required to stay alive.

A few years back here in Oregon a Columbia 400 spun into a field killing all three aboard. It was IMC and the pilot was not rated. He was making a business trip which apparently he made regularly. The suspicion was that he took off, hooked up the autopilot and climbed blissfully into ice until the 400 replayed the Roselawn ATR crash.
Click to expand...

As you said, this is not just Cirrus pilots. I know a hell of a lot of pilots who have the AP on between 200' & 200' regardless VMC or IMC.
 
The Cirrus wing is a high performance, unforgiving wing design that flies very well within it's flight envelope. Add the false sense of security and invincibility of a parachute and you have average pilots doing and trying extrodinary things. A bad combination IMHO if the pilots exceed their abilities.

We had a Cirrus owner try and land a on a 2,500' grass strip, float 3/4 of the way then decide to go around and put it in the trees at the other end. Certainly, not the plane's fault. :nono:
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
The Cirrus wing is a high performance, unforgiving wing design that flies very well within it's flight envelope. Add the false sense of security and invincibility of a parachute and you have average pilots doing and trying extrodinary things. A bad combination IMHO if the pilots exceed their abilities.

We had a Cirrus owner try and land a on a 2,500' grass strip, float 3/4 of the way then decide to go around and put it in the trees at the other end. Certainly, not the plane's fault. :nono:
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more with the above. I've never owned a Cirrus, but I've flown all three SR22 generations. I would say the airplane has one of the most forgiving wings I've ever flown, only equalled by the Cessna 400. The stall is so benign it's hard to even call it a stall. Slow speed handling is excellent IMO. The G3 with the wide composite prop has to be one of the easiest HP singles to slow down I've ever flown. Pull the power, the blades high drag remind you of a turbine in their ability to rapidly slow the aircraft, so much so I land them with some power in so they don't just stop flying.

If the pilot in the above scenario had a hard time with a Cirrus, how do you think they would have done in a Mooney?
 
flyingron said:
Before it was Cirrus it was doctor-killing Bonazas, etc...

Typical Madlibs style journalism.
Click to expand...

Well, they make tons of money so they know how to target their audience.

Thing is the difference has nothing to do with the planes, it has mostly to do with the mission the pilot has for flying. Most people here took up flying because they love flying, they wanted the challenge, the experience of flight.

These guys are like me. We buy a tool to get a job done. Thing is, I love to fly too ;-) If you have a job for a plane that is efficient inter office travel within a district or a region; most likely the advertisement that is likely to spark your interest will be Cirrus.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
The mindset Dick describes is not limited to Cirrus pilots alone, many new pilots I meet seem to be more into the technology in their panel than actually developing the stick and rudder skills required to stay alive.

A few years back here in Oregon a Columbia 400 spun into a field killing all three aboard. It was IMC and the pilot was not rated. He was making a business trip which apparently he made regularly. The suspicion was that he took off, hooked up the autopilot and climbed blissfully into ice until the 400 replayed the Roselawn ATR crash.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with technology if used to it's best purpose. Many stick & rudder pilots have been lost over the years..............due to not knowing what was exactly ahead......for a variety of reasons.
 
flyingron said:
Before it was Cirrus it was doctor-killing Bonazas, etc...

Typical Madlibs style journalism.
Click to expand...


So are his statistics wrong? SR22s don't have "a higher fatal accident rate than most similar airplanes from other manufacturers?"

- jkw
 
Oldman said:
So are his statistics wrong? SR22s don't have "a higher fatal accident rate than most similar airplanes from other manufacturers?"

- jkw
Click to expand...

The fact's are not in question, it's the illogical inferences derived from the numbers, the jumps to conclussions that don't really have any real support in reasoning.
 
Oldman said:
So are his statistics wrong? SR22s don't have "a higher fatal accident rate than most similar airplanes from other manufacturers?"

- jkw
Click to expand...

Cirrus only makes slick go fast aircraft. "Other manufacturers" make aircraft that are slower. A slower aircraft will tend to be safer, as it is easier to stay ahead of the aircraft and the crash energies are less.

I question whether the overall Cirrus accident rate is any higher. I would expect the higher fatality rate is related to the higher velocities at which they're flown.

Pity the chute doesn't seem to do much good.
 
Blame it on the plane, they all come out to defend their choice. Blame it on the pilots, they get upset as 'how dare you'.

Can't win.
 
L.Adamson said:
Nothing wrong with technology if used to it's best purpose. Many stick & rudder pilots have been lost over the years..............due to not knowing what was exactly ahead......for a variety of reasons.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. Technology for technology's sake is a bane to our culture, witness the many gadget addicted individuals we see daily. There is no question modern avionics have made flying safer. When used within their design parameters and properly monitored they are great, but they are no substitute for a well prepared pilot.
 
"Normally a single-engine airplane has to be spun as part of the certification process. The Cirrus wasn’t. The FAA waived this requirement and accepted the airframe parachute as an alternate means of compliance. I kid you not, the spin recovery in a Cirrus is based on deploying the chute. That is the only way a pilot can recover from a spin in a Cirrus."

Glad I read this, never riding in a Cirrus with any pilot's that like doing (sloppy) stalls every flight.
 
Another pilot and myself had a conversation via PM using an article with published data questioning the Cirrus safety record. Our conclusions were that Cirrus accident rates were 'on par' with GA with the SR20 doing worse. The results of our informal research and discussion are inconclusive however, because there was an unexplained spike in the data from the DA40 (suspiciously low accident rate per hours used).
 
bigblockz8 said:
"Normally a single-engine airplane has to be spun as part of the certification process. The Cirrus wasn’t. The FAA waived this requirement and accepted the airframe parachute as an alternate means of compliance. I kid you not, the spin recovery in a Cirrus is based on deploying the chute. That is the only way a pilot can recover from a spin in a Cirrus."

Glad I read this, never riding in a Cirrus with any pilot's that like doing (sloppy) stalls every flight.
Click to expand...


The jury's still out on this. If Cap'n Ron comes back with proof that the Cirrus was spun, the I think Mr Collins may be facing libel for regurgitating OWT considering that he's considered a "credible" source in the aviation community.
 
steingar said:
Cirrus only makes slick go fast aircraft. "Other manufacturers" make aircraft that are slower.
Click to expand...
You mean, say, Mooney and Aerostar?

I question whether the overall Cirrus accident rate is any higher.
Click to expand...
Ask that question of the actuaries -- it really is.

I would expect the higher fatality rate is related to the higher velocities at which they're flown.
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, all the Cirrus fatals I've seen would have been fatal in anything. OTOH, there have been quite a few BRS saves where the result would have been fatal in anything else had the pilot done the same thing.

Pity the chute doesn't seem to do much good.
Click to expand...
The record suggests otherwise. The problem is that it appears people are doing things in the Cirrus that they'd never do in anything without the BRS, and then relying on the BRS to save them from their own foolishness. IOW, it's all about the pilots, not the airplane.
 
bigblockz8 said:
"Normally a single-engine airplane has to be spun as part of the certification process. The Cirrus wasn’t. The FAA waived this requirement and accepted the airframe parachute as an alternate means of compliance. I kid you not, the spin recovery in a Cirrus is based on deploying the chute. That is the only way a pilot can recover from a spin in a Cirrus."

Glad I read this...
Click to expand...
Except it's not true. While the FAA did waive the spin tests, Cirrus was well into the program when the waiver came through, and it had passed every test it attempted up to that point. While the book says the approved procedure for spin recovery is to pop the chute, that's not the only way a pilot can recover from a spin -- just the only approved method. Nevertheless, based on my own experience in the Cirrus, you'd really have to work to spin it -- stalls are pretty benign, with no noticable tendency to yaw or drop a wing.
 
Jaybird180 said:
The jury's still out on this. If Cap'n Ron comes back with proof that the Cirrus was spun, the I think Mr Collins may be facing libel for regurgitating OWT considering that he's considered a "credible" source in the aviation community.
Click to expand...
I don't have the proof, as that page posted by their VP-Engineering was taken down. However, Cirrus does have the documentation in their files. As for Mr. Collins being "considered a 'credible' source in the aviation community," I think those days are past.
 
Ron Levy said:
The problem is that it appears people are doing things in the Cirrus that they'd never do in anything without the BRS, and then relying on the BRS to save them from their own foolishness. IOW, it's all about the pilots, not the airplane.
Click to expand...


Which is just what Collins said:

"Such might be the case with Cirrus pilots. With training, advanced equipment, and a parachute, a pilot could develop a false sense of security about flying the airplane."

- jkw
 
Ron Levy said:
Except it's not true. While the FAA did waive the spin tests, Cirrus was well into the program when the waiver came through, and it had passed every test it attempted up to that point. While the book says the approved procedure for spin recovery is to pop the chute, that's not the only way a pilot can recover from a spin -- just the only approved method. Nevertheless, based on my own experience in the Cirrus, you'd really have to work to spin it -- stalls are pretty benign, with no noticable tendency to yaw or drop a wing.
Click to expand...
You think there's any value in Cirrus completing the spin certification? Think they could (based on your own experiences, of course)?
 
Jaybird180 said:
The jury's still out on this. If Cap'n Ron comes back with proof that the Cirrus was spun, the I think Mr Collins may be facing libel for regurgitating OWT considering that he's considered a "credible" source in the aviation community.
Click to expand...

The only FAA certified way to recover from a spin in a Cirrus is to pull the chute. That's a fact. The POH will tell you that if you enter a spin, pull the chute. Collins is not going to face libel or anything else...

In reality you can recover from a 1 turn spin in about 1000 feet in a cirrus. But you wouldn't know that unless you tried it, which is illegal.
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
The only FAA certified way to recover from a spin in a Cirrus is to pull the chute. That's a fact. The POH will tell you that if you enter a spin, pull the chute.

In reality you can recover from a 1 turn spin in about 1000 feet in a cirrus. But you wouldn't know that unless you tried it, which is illegal.
Click to expand...

It's a fact that it's the only legal way. It is not yet an established fact that it is the only way to recover.

All due respect, there is a difference, sir.
 
Jaybird180 said:
You think there's any value in Cirrus completing the spin certification? Think they could (based on your own experiences, of course)?
Click to expand...

No, just wasted money once they could use the BRS, as a normal category plane intentional spins would be prohibeted anyway.
 
dell30rb said:
The only FAA certified way to recover from a spin in a Cirrus is to pull the chute. That's a fact. The POH will tell you that if you enter a spin, pull the chute.

In reality you can recover from a 1 turn spin in about 1000 feet in a cirrus. But you wouldn't know that unless you tried it, which is illegal.
Click to expand...

1000ft/turn, sounds just as dangerous as those pesky Cessna and Piper products:rolleyes2:
 
Jaybird180 said:
Maybe there's marketing value???
Click to expand...

To whom? Folks don't but them to spin, they buy them to get places. Let's be optimistic and say theyd sell two more planes. But let's also remember that before 2008 happened they were selling planes as fast as they could mold them, I'd wager their marketing position was plenty strong (and still is)
 
I'm just reading this wondering about the chute. Can it be released once the spin is recovered so the plane can fly again or does the plane have to go all the way to the ground with the chute?
 
Oldman said:
Which is just what Collins said:

"Such might be the case with Cirrus pilots. With training, advanced equipment, and a parachute, a pilot could develop a false sense of security about flying the airplane."
Click to expand...
If that was all he said, I'd be fine. However, he said a lot of other things which I found to be inaccurate and/or unsupportable.
 
pilotod said:
I'm just reading this wondering about the chute. Can it be released once the spin is recovered so the plane can fly again or does the plane have to go all the way to the ground with the chute?
Click to expand...
Once you pull, you dispose

Although Cirrus has a handful that they've reconditioned and recertified (and sold), in spite of them thinking they would not be able to.
 
Jaybird180 said:
You think there's any value in Cirrus completing the spin certification?
Click to expand...
No.

Think they could (based on your own experiences, of course)?
Click to expand...
Insufficient personal experiential data to say on that basis, but based on that plus everything I've read (which goes well beyond my own experience), I see no reason why not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top