Why is the Cirrus so dangerous?

DavidWhite

DavidWhite

Final Approach
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
7,132
Location
Olympic Peninsula
Display Name
Display name:
DW
Looking at the NTSB database, there have been 7 fatal accidents in both Cirrus models since January first, while there are 10 in the skyhawk. There were only 18 incidents since January, but 8 of them resuluted in fatalities giving you a near 50% chance of surviving a crash, while there were 106 crashes involving skyhawks. Giving you more than 90%.

There have been about 4,000 Cirrus built, and about 45,000 skyhawks (many of which probably arent flying)

So, why are they so dangerous? Do they attract bad pilots? Are they just lousy planes? (With poorly designed fuel tanks) Whats the scoop?
 
kgruber said:
Because it is a high performance airplane sold to low performance pilots.
Click to expand...
...with the implied promise that it will get them anywhere they want to go, any time they want to go.

"I don't care if it rains or freezes,
'Long as I got my plastic Cirrus
Plastered to the butt end of my seat..."
 
Ron Levy said:
...with the implied promise that it will get them anywhere they want to go, any time they want to go.

"I don't care if it rains or freezes,
'Long as I got my plastic Cirrus
Plastered to the butt end of my seat..."
Click to expand...


I haven't heard a reference to that song in a long time, LOL!:rofl:
 
There's a lot of discussion about that David. I have a friend that is or was the president of the Cirrus pilot's group. He stated that if folks participate in the ongoing training program recommended, accidents of those pilot are 25% of the population in general.

Some folks have discussed the way the plane was marketed as a business tool to enhance productivity. They feel the buy new, depreciate and use for business was going to folks with a bit more money than time to train.

The plane is fast and slick. If one moves up from a more docile plane, it can get you into things faster. The turbos also add the challenge of going on longer cross country trips higher up which add a lot of weather challenges.

The student landing in a subdivision by mistake and the recent VMC into IMC could have been in any plane. The one at New Orleans Lake Front was a rough engine; the parachute could have made a real difference.

Just some thoughts.

Best,

Dave
 
DavidWhite said:
Looking at the NTSB database, there have been 7 fatal accidents in both Cirrus models since January first, while there are 10 in the skyhawk. There were only 18 incidents since January, but 8 of them resuluted in fatalities giving you a near 50% chance of surviving a crash, while there were 106 crashes involving skyhawks. Giving you more than 90%.

There have been about 4,000 Cirrus built, and about 45,000 skyhawks (many of which probably arent flying)

So, why are they so dangerous? Do they attract bad pilots? Are they just lousy planes? (With poorly designed fuel tanks) Whats the scoop?
Click to expand...
Just off the top of my head I would say that Cirri (?) are faster than Skyhawks thus having more energy to dissipate when they crash. They are also used for different purposes which probably exposes them to more hazardous conditions in general. Maybe you could try comparing them to Mooneys or Bonanazas which have a more similar mission and speed profile.
 
Everskyward said:
Just off the top of my head I would say that Cirri (?) are faster than Skyhawks thus having more energy to dissipate when they crash. They are also used for different purposes which probably exposes them to more hazardous conditions in general. Maybe you could try comparing them to Mooneys or Bonanazas which have a more similar mission and speed profile.
Click to expand...

never thought of that before, that I shall
 
Ron Levy said:
...with the implied promise that it will get them anywhere they want to go, any time they want to go.

"I don't care if it rains or freezes,
'Long as I got my plastic Cirrus
Plastered to the butt end of my seat..."
Click to expand...

That is the biggest problem with the Cirrus in my opinion. It is a nice new airplane with no more capability than a 1960's Cessna 210. However the Glass cockpit and Ballistic chute can fool pilots into thinking it is more capable and safer when it isn't.

Brian
 
Which plane used to be called the Fork-tailed Doctor Killer?

The implication there is that it takes someone with a lot of money to buy it, but, little time to train/stay proficient. Not to mention it's a lot of plane - it's a lot of plane to chew once you take a bite.
 
Wasn't it Mark Twain who said that there are "lies, damn lies and statistics"?

There have been lots of discussions about whether its appropriate to draw such conclusions. Folks will argue that you need to know hours flown and not just numbers of planes. Then there will be a side argument about whether FlightAware is a good proxy for this or not. Then there will be the arguments of how Skyhawks are primarily used for training which usually results in fewer accidents, etc, etc.

All of this reminds me of my days as a financial auditor when a client of mine would explain in lots of detail why a particular expense item decreased. When corrected that it had actually increased, there was just as long of a list as to why it increased.

All in all, I think Ron and Dave hit on the main reasons.
 
DavidWhite said:
Only 8 fatals of combined M20 and V35 crashes since January.
Click to expand...
But that doesn't really mean anything unless you compare either the fatals as a ratio of total accidents in type or you compare it to the number of hours flown in in all three types.
 
Everskyward said:
But that doesn't really mean anything unless you compare either the fatals as a ratio of total accidents in type or you compare it to the number of hours flown in in all three types.
Click to expand...

I'm getting there. 3 of the 4 V-tail accidents have been fatal, while 5 of the 25 mooney accidetns have been fatal. 9 total crashes of the A36 with 3 of them being fatal.


All numbers since January 1 of this year.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
There's a lot of discussion about that David. I have a friend that is or was the president of the Cirrus pilot's group. He stated that if folks participate in the ongoing training program recommended, accidents of those pilot are 25% of the population in general.
Click to expand...
COPA's safety director told me 80% of Cirrus accidents involve the 20% of Cirrus owners who don't participate in COPA's annual refresher training programs. The question that hasn't been answered is whether that's because the programs are that good, or because that 20% are the ones who choose not to participate for the same reasons they make bad decisions in flight -- general blockheadedness (aka invulnerability, macho, and anti-authority attitudes), i.e, even if they did the training they wouldn't change the dumb ways they operate their airplanes (see Law of Readiness in your Aviation Instructor's Handbook). I suspect the latter has a lot to do with it given the way and to whom Cirrus markets their product -- pretty much all just dumb pilot tricks.

To be honest, with 30 or 40 hours in Cirruses (Cirri?), I have to say there's no airplane-related reason for them to have this records. It's easy to fly with good handling characteristics and superb cockpit layout and equipment. IMO, there's really no excuse for pranging one other than bad pilot decision-making or really weak stick-and-rudder skills, and a read-through of Cirrus acciidents supports my opinion.
 
Last edited:
How do the insurance rates compare between these different aircraft?
 
DavidWhite said:
I'm getting there. 3 of the 4 V-tail accidents have been fatal, while 5 of the 25 mooney accidetns have been fatal. 9 total crashes of the A36 with 3 of them being fatal.


All numbers since January 1 of this year.
Click to expand...
So maybe the V-tails deserve their reputation? 75% fatals for them. Much worse than Cirrus. Obviously these statistical samplings are pretty small and subject to huge errors but according to your numbers it seems like 44% of Cirrus accidents are fatal as opposed to 29% of Bonanzas and Mooneys. Maybe it would be better if you broadened you time frame to the past 10 years or something.
 
chucky said:
How do the insurance rates compare between these different aircraft?
Click to expand...
A while back, I compared the rates for a brand-new SR20 with a comparable (complexity, price, and performance) AG-5B Tiger. The Cirrus' insurance bill was triple the Tiger's.:yikes:
 
Cirrus aircraft are a lot like pit bulls - all depends on the owners. Actually I see a great deal of similar marketing tactics going on with the LSA Icon aircraft. I believe if they ever get their weight issues sorted out (and that's a big if) we will see a huge number of accidents with that airplane. Having twenty hour pilots driving around in an airplane where sometimes you should land with the gear up and sometimes you should land with the gear down is an invitation to disaster.
 
Ron Levy said:
A while back, I compared the rates for a brand-new SR20 with a comparable (complexity, price, and performance) AG-5B Tiger. The Cirrus' insurance bill was triple the Tiger's.:yikes:
Click to expand...
Maybe I don't understand what you wrote but where is there a Tiger which costs as much as a brand new Cirrus. Doesn't hull value matter a lot in the cost of insurance?
 
Ron Levy said:
....The question that hasn't been answered is whether that's because the programs are that good, or because that 20% are the ones who choose not to participate for the same reasons they make bad decisions in flight -- general blockheadedness (aka invulnerability, macho, and anti-authority attitudes), i.e, even if they did the training they wouldn't change the dumb ways they operate their airplanes (see Law of Readiness in your Aviation Instructor's Handbook). I suspect the latter has a lot to do with it given the way and to whom Cirrus markets their product -- pretty much all just dumb pilot tricks.
Click to expand...

Similar sentiments are used to explain why the WINGS and AOPA ASF and other safety seminars haven't further reduced the fatal accident rate.

I'm going to invent a new cartoon character - General Blockhead - based on your description. Should he be an Army or an Air Force or a Marine General?
 
There have been 66 fatals for 181 accidents in the A36, 31 fatals for 72 accidents in the V35, 90 fatals for 366 accidents in the mooney, and 70 fatals for 178 accidents in the Cirrus (with 127 of those being in the SR22)

all since 1/1/2000
 
Everskyward said:
Maybe I don't understand what you wrote but where is there a Tiger which costs as much as a brand new Cirrus. Doesn't hull value matter a lot in the cost of insurance?
Click to expand...
Yes, it does, but at the time, new SR20's and new AG-5B's were selling for rougly the same price (mid-to-upper 200's) and that's what was compared, and that's why I mentioned "comparable price." Obviously, since then, Tiger Aircraft has gone out of business and TrueFlight hasn't yet restarted production, and the price of a new SR20 has gone up. But the comparison was pretty much MacIntosh to Rome Beauty at the time.
 
So... from someone who has never flown one, I had this interesting discussion with a new club member a couple weeks back. He literally just got his ticket (with about 150 hours in), and took a demo flight in an SR20.

He was absolutely thrilled with it. Said he might just buy one, since it just beats the heck out of anything else. I had just gone through my transition training to a fixed-gear 182 (and high-perf endorsement), and was trying to say how steep of a learning curve that was for me, handling the bigger, more capable plane. Then he said the thing that really stuck in mind: "you don't understand, with the Cirrus, you don't have to fly the thing at all. Soon as you're 200ft off the ground, it flies itself, and the same for landing. The technology is awesome!"

I still want to fly the 182 a while longer before I try something as powerful as the Cirrus. AFAIK, he is moving forward on his purchase. All he's flown thus far was a Cherokee and a 172. It made me nervous. That comment really stayed with me, because I want to try to fly the Cirrus, but not if I can't FLY it, if you know what I mean. I felt a little sheepish after that discussion for being a worrywart. Anyway, for what it's worth, this discussion brought that other one back vividly.
 
onwards said:
He was absolutely thrilled with it. Said he might just buy one, since it just beats the heck out of anything else. I had just gone through my transition training to a fixed-gear 182 (and high-perf endorsement), and was trying to say how steep of a learning curve that was for me, handling the bigger, more capable plane. Then he said the thing that really stuck in mind: "you don't understand, with the Cirrus, you don't have to fly the thing at all. Soon as you're 200ft off the ground, it flies itself, and the same for landing. The technology is awesome!"
Click to expand...
Yup, and that's a lot of the problem. Cirrus teaches autopilot "on" at 300-500 feet, and it stays on until short final -- no real stick and rudder practice obtained on routine flights, which I think is a real bad idea for inexperienced pilots or those who don't fly often.

That said, if you're a competent 182 pilot, the actual flying part of transitioning to a Cirrus shouldn't be hard -- it's learning all the systems and how to operate them that takes several days of ground training and a good bit of practice in flight. In many ways, the avionics systems in the Perspective aircraft are as as, or more complicated than, those in the most electronically sophisticated tactical jets (A-6E and F-111D) I flew in the military, and the training program in those even for fighter crews experienced in something like the F-4 was several months long including several weeks of ground systems training.
 
Last edited:
So what happens when, ya know, a Cirrus pilot actually has to fly the airplane?

Maybe they should just take the autopilots out, ye gods!

But then all they would all kill themselves because I bet most of them cant fly in IMC without an autpilot.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes, it does, but at the time, new SR20's and new AG-5B's were selling for rougly the same price (mid-to-upper 200's) and that's what was compared, and that's why I mentioned "comparable price." Obviously, since then, Tiger Aircraft has gone out of business and TrueFlight hasn't yet restarted production, and the price of a new SR20 has gone up. But the comparison was pretty much MacIntosh to Rome Beauty at the time.
Click to expand...
OK, I wasn't aware that they made brand new Tigers that recently. For some reason I thought they were 1970s-1980s airplanes.
 
DavidWhite said:
There have been 66 fatals for 181 accidents in the A36, 31 fatals for 72 accidents in the V35, 90 fatals for 366 accidents in the mooney, and 70 fatals for 178 accidents in the Cirrus (with 127 of those being in the SR22)

all since 1/1/2000
Click to expand...
That means the percentage of fatal accidents compared to total accidents are:

A36 - 36%
V35 - 43%
Mooney - 24%
Cirrus - 39%

So the Cirrus is not way out of line in that regard.

It would be interesting to see the number of accidents compared to the number of hours flown but there's not any easy way to figure that out.
 
Ron Levy said:
COPA's safety director told me 80% of Cirrus accidents involve the 20% of Cirrus owners who don't participate in COPA's annual refresher training programs. The question that hasn't been answered is whether that's because the programs are that good, or because that 20% are the ones who choose not to participate for the same reasons they make bad decisions in flight -- general blockheadedness (aka invulnerability, macho, and anti-authority attitudes), i.e, even if they did the training they wouldn't change the dumb ways they operate their airplanes (see Law of Readiness in your Aviation Instructor's Handbook). I suspect the latter has a lot to do with it given the way and to whom Cirrus markets their product -- pretty much all just dumb pilot tricks.
Click to expand...

The following would argue against the old "marketed to newbies" as causal - simple overconfidence and/or complacency on the part of higher-time pilots seems a likely common factor, to the extent any common factor exists:

From: http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/Safetylessonslearned.aspx
"Surprisingly, high-time pilots are involved in more than half of the Cirrus fatal accidents. Critics of Cirrus Design often complain about the marketing to newbie pilots, so they expect a rash of accidents involving low-time pilots. Not so.

Pilots with more than 400 hours total time were involved in 22 of 41 fatal accidents with 11 to be determined. That level of experience usually comes from several years of flying. Yet, that experience did not keep them out of trouble.

Interestingly, only one pilot in a Cirrus fatal accident had less than 150 hours total time, and that was Cory Lidle, who had an instructor in the right seat during the accident.

Unfortunately, we do not know the proportion of Cirrus pilots with high or low experience. Therefore, we cannot determine if pilots with low experience have a greater rate of accidents. However, with the addition of Cirrus airplanes to flight training schools for primary flight instruction, we know that the pool of new pilots is growing.

Furthermore, pilots with instrument, commercial and instructor certificates were involved in three-quarters of all Cirrus fatal accidents."

​
 
Everskyward said:
OK, I wasn't aware that they made brand new Tigers that recently. For some reason I thought they were 1970s-1980s airplanes.
Click to expand...
The AA-5B's were built by Grumman-American/Gulfstream-American initially in Cleveland OH and later in Savannah GA from 1975 to 1979. The AG-5B Tigers were built by American General Aircraft Company (AGAC) in Greenville MS from 1989 to 1993, and by Tiger Aircraft (a division of the Tung Lung Metal Company of Taiwan) in Martinsburg WV from 2003-2006 -- the last half-dozen with G1000 avionics. The operation was bought from the bankruptcy seller by TrueFlight Aerospace a couple of years ago, and production of the AG-5B version is expected to resume in Valdosta GA in the next year or two.
 
Ron Levy said:
The AA-5B's were built by Grumman-American/Gulfstream-American initially in Cleveland OH and later in Savannah GA from 1975 to 1979. The AG-5B Tigers were built by American General Aircraft Company (AGAC) in Greenville MS from 1989 to 1993, and by Tiger Aircraft (a division of the Tung Lung Metal Company of Taiwan) in Martinsburg WV from 2003-2006 -- the last half-dozen with G1000 avionics. The operation was bought from the bankruptcy seller by TrueFlight Aerospace a couple of years ago, and production of the AG-5B version is expected to resume in Valdosta GA in the next year or two.
Click to expand...
That's cool. I have a little bit of time in a Tiger and a Cheetah a long time ago and I always thought they were nice airplanes.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Furthermore, pilots with instrument, commercial and instructor certificates were involved in three-quarters of all Cirrus fatal accidents."
Click to expand...
Which just goes to show that an impressive resume does not make anyone invulnerable. The aerodynamic qualities of Terra Firma do not vary in relation to your certification level.
 
Ron Levy said:
Unfortunately, the accident data suggest they don't always do that, and that's a good portion of the fatal accident stats.
Click to expand...
I know, I know....just being silly.

I think the problem is that folks get in over their heads until it is too late to do anything (pop the chute or otherwise). I suspect that is what happened in the Illinois crash the other day.

More horsepower onboard than skills.

As has already been mentioned, this was a big part of the problem with Bos and was also a big reason for the bad press that Malibus got.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yup, and that's a lot of the problem. Cirrus teaches autopilot "on" at 300-500 feet, and it stays on until short final -- no real stick and rudder practice obtained on routine flights, which I think is a real bad idea for inexperienced pilots or those who don't fly often.
Click to expand...
But that would be a fault of the training program, not of the airplane. I can appreciate teaching people to operate the automation but you would think they would also want people to get a feel for the airplane. Don't they require the students to hand-fly at least some of the approaches? Don't they go out and do airwork like stalls and steep turns?
 
DavidWhite said:
Whats the scoop?
Click to expand...

Take a look at the article I linked to in post #33. If there is any single factor that stands out (and nothing ever stands out that much) it appears to me to be that the Cirrus is being utilized more in marginal weather than aircraft like the Skyhawk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top