Although I am a Cessna-owner I was at one point about to put my money down on a Cirrus-Sr20.
The reality is that thus so far the Cirrus has not proved itself to be remarkably safe plane at all.
A total of Seven Fatalities-and the largest percentage of fatalities versus non-fatality accidents in the recent history of certified new models does not inspire confidence.
It makes one trully realise just how dangerous GA really is-as someone with a statistical background a have prepared a paper showing that GA is in fact far more dangerous, in actual fact, than hang-gliding. Cirrus’s thus-so-far legacy of a hundred planes or so and seven dead is a point in case.
It makes one realise that if GA has a serious future this must be given a lot of thought.
I know of only one fatality where the cause has been the design. (Scott Anderson while test flying) The other fatalities, and to my knowledge it’s an additional 3 and not 6, have been cause by poor weather conditions, i.e. IMC when the pilot was only rates VFR.
I don’t understand your point. Try flying in a mountain with your Cessna. If you get out uninjured I’ll sell my SR20 position and buy a Cessna, until then…
Regards,
Placido
Although I am a Cessna-owner I was at one point about to put my money down on a Cirrus-Sr20.
The reality is that thus so far the Cirrus has not proved itself to be remarkably safe plane at all.
A total of Seven Fatalities-and the largest percentage of fatalities versus non-fatality accidents in the recent history of certified new models does not inspire confidence.
It makes one trully realise just how dangerous GA really is-as someone with a statistical background a have prepared a paper showing that GA is in fact far more dangerous, in actual fact, than hang-gliding. Cirrus’s thus-so-far legacy of a hundred planes or so and seven dead is a point in case.
It makes one realise that if GA has a serious future this must be given a lot of thought.
In re: Mr. Cohen’s message, please note the following errors of fact and of interpretation.
- As Placido has pointed out, the total number of fatalities in production Cirrus SRxx aircraft is three, not seven. These occurred in the tragic crash of http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20010423X00798&key=1N116CD earlier this month. If we include the fatal crash of the prototype aircraft http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001205X00274&key=1N115CD, the total number of fatalities is four. If we stretch the definition of Cirrus crashes further to include other types of aircraft — namely, the http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X05368&key=1prototype VK-30 and an http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X05910&key=1amateur-built VK-30 — the total number of fatalities in all aircraft that bear the Cirrus name is six, not seven.
- A fundamental principle of statistics is that it only applies to large-number samples. But there has been only one accident in a production Cirrus. Because this accident involved fatalities, it is indeed true that 100% of all Cirrus accidents to date have involved fatalities. That “statistic” is quite meaningless, hoiwever, because it is based on a sample of one crash. Yet Mr. Cohen apparently uses this meaningless percentage to conclude that Cirrus has “the largest percentage of fatalities versus non-fatality accidents in the recent history of certified new models.” I’m happy to report that this alarming conclusion makes no sense.
Mr. Cohen is, of course, entitled to his opinions about our favorite airplanes. But I must conclude that these opinions are based neither on fact nor on a proper interpretation of the accident data.
— Roger Freedman
Although I am a Cessna-owner I was at one point about to put my money down on a Cirrus-Sr20.
The reality is that thus so far the Cirrus has not proved itself to be remarkably safe plane at all.
A total of Seven Fatalities-and the largest percentage of fatalities versus non-fatality accidents in the recent history of certified new models does not inspire confidence.
It makes one trully realise just how dangerous GA really is-as someone with a statistical background a have prepared a paper showing that GA is in fact far more dangerous, in actual fact, than hang-gliding. Cirrus’s thus-so-far legacy of a hundred planes or so and seven dead is a point in case.
It makes one realise that if GA has a serious future this must be given a lot of thought.
Although I am a Cessna-owner I was at one point about to put my money down on a Cirrus-Sr20.
The reality is that thus so far the Cirrus has not proved itself to be remarkably safe plane at all.
A total of Seven Fatalities-and the largest
Must be 4
Do you realize that Cessna’s are much easier hit by F16’s ? I don’t no of any fatalaty with a Cirrus. They are much to fast !
(how to lie with statistics)
Also take in account the total number of flying hours.
I did my training in a C-172 and are always lucky to get out and stretch my legs. There are numerous + 125 hour Cirri after 6 months in this forum, try that with a C-172 !
Keep it safe
Jaap
Where are you getting your erroneous figures from? A competitor trying to discredit Cirrus?
Although I am a Cessna-owner I was at one point about to put my money down on a Cirrus-Sr20.
The reality is that thus so far the Cirrus has not proved itself to be remarkably safe plane at all.
A total of Seven Fatalities-and the largest percentage of fatalities versus non-fatality accidents in the recent history of certified new models does not inspire confidence.
It makes one trully realise just how dangerous GA really is-as someone with a statistical background a have prepared a paper showing that GA is in fact far more dangerous, in actual fact, than hang-gliding. Cirrus’s thus-so-far legacy of a hundred planes or so and seven dead is a point in case.
It makes one realise that if GA has a serious future this must be given a lot of thought.
In addition to the other errors everyone else has pointed out, here is another wrinkle.
There have been two fatal crashes in SR20s.
If the first, Scott Anderson’s test flight, had happened in a real production model SR20, it almost certainly would not(or need not) have been fatal. Scott A’s plane did not have the CAPS parachute. That was not because of recklessness or haste; it was a test plane, and the production model chutes were not yet ready. As the NTSB report (and other accounts, which I describe in my book) make clear, he knew for several minutes that he had control problems with the plane. I don’t know whether a test pilot, in the end, would have deployed a chute even if it were there. But normal civilian pilots probably would. In an equipped plane, that need not have been fatal.
So: we have one fatal crash that would probably not have been so in a finished plane, and another that, on the available evidence, had nothing to do with the particulars of this plane and everything to do with weather.
Could you at least make clear where you got the “seven” figure, Mr. Cohen?
I am under the impression that the sample size of the Cirrus fleet is so small as compared to that of Cessna’s etc… that a statistical analyisis is really ludicrous at this point. If one were to use such a small sampling, one might think:
Piper Meridien - 1 fatal crash out of 40 planes - more dangerous than anything in the air.
Cessna 172 - the only plane out of SMO to crash this year - which might lead me to conclude based on a sample from my airport, that the 172 is infinitely more dangerous than any other plane
Ad infinitum.
HOWEVER, one thing I will say that does personally alarm me is that it seem that there have been more ENGINE PROBLEMS iwth that 360 than I would like to see. Of course, that is not Cirrus’ problem
Dean
Dear Mr. Cohen,
I regret to inform you that one of the accidents that you read (our beloved Friend, his son and brother) must have gotten your attention and you read it twice then you proceed to do your report on casualties. Please try to do another report on Cirrus but please use things that only happen on Cirrus and only because it was a Cirrus aircraft. I do believe then you will have something to say that we will pay attention to it. Let me just use an example. Remember hearing about the guy that was hand proping his airplane, and the airplane took off by itself because he left the throtle at a high setting. Do you thing this accident should be blamed on the aircraft manufactory? I don’t. With that in mind I look forward to seen your next report. If you had a Cirrus you too would be having a great day.
Woor
Although I am a Cessna-owner I was at one point about to put my money down on a Cirrus-Sr20.
The reality is that thus so far the Cirrus has not proved itself to be remarkably safe plane at all.
A total of Seven Fatalities-and the largest percentage of fatalities versus non-fatality accidents in the recent history of certified new models does not inspire confidence.
It makes one trully realise just how dangerous GA really is-as someone with a statistical background a have prepared a paper showing that GA is in fact far more dangerous, in actual fact, than hang-gliding. Cirrus’s thus-so-far legacy of a hundred planes or so and seven dead is a point in case.
It makes one realise that if GA has a serious future this must be given a lot of thought.
I will post the link to the site where I picked up the seven figure-it is a database of all recent accidents in the US-and yes it does include kit,prototype and certified production model-like many I have been watching this plane for a while and didnt mean to “Cirrus-bash”-merely to point out that to date it has had an imperfect history-like most new models do.A good five to ten years will seal its reputation -until then, or at least now, I agree , statistics are not reliable.>Although I am a Cessna-owner I was at one point about to put my money down on a Cirrus-Sr20.
The reality is that thus so far the Cirrus has not proved itself to be remarkably safe plane at all.
A total of Seven Fatalities-and the largest percentage of fatalities versus non-fatality accidents in the recent history of certified new models does not inspire confidence.
It makes one trully realise just how dangerous GA really is-as someone with a statistical background a have prepared a paper showing that GA is in fact far more dangerous, in actual fact, than hang-gliding. Cirrus’s thus-so-far legacy of a hundred planes or so and seven dead is a point in case.
It makes one realise that if GA has a serious future this must be given a lot of thought.
AND using statistics, I note that Israel has the highest resurrection rate of any country in the world …
…as someone with a statistical background…
Then you are well aware that statistics are like a bikini.
What they reveal is interesting.
What they conceal is vital.
Here Here.
FWIW: Statisticaly A Cessna will never hit a SR20 from behind.
Bob 509
FWIW: Statisticaly A Cessna will never hit a SR20 from behind.
Actually not true. Since the stall speed on an SR20 is 57 knots, and the cruise on a 172 is 120 knots, there is always the possibility that a cruising 172 will run over an SR20 practicing low speed flight.
…well yeah, Im Israeli and in Israel myself and a hell of a lot more people are dying here-having a hell of a lot less fun than someone flying a Cirrus!!>AND using statistics, I note that Israel has the highest resurrection rate of any country in the world …
How thoughless of me, my profound apologies. I just wasn’t thinking about all the troubles there.
If people want to kill each other for a whole lot of nonsense you cant have much sympathy-however if an unacceptable number of people are getting injured and killed doing something highly productive and fun such as is the case in GA it is cause for concern-at least for those involved.>How thoughless of me, my profound apologies. I just wasn’t thinking about all the troubles there.
If people want to kill each other for a whole lot of nonsense you cant have much sympathy-however if an unacceptable number of people are getting injured and killed doing something highly productive and fun such as is the case in GA it is cause for concern-at least for those involved.>How thoughless of me, my profound apologies. I just wasn’t thinking about all the troubles there.
I think you’re missing the point of those who responded to you. Having been a part of this forum for some time, I believe that the participants have a very good balance between advocating worthwhile causes in the name of improving the safety or performance of the plane, even if it means being critical of the plane or the company. At the same time, many of us have a vested interest in addressing misinformation or questionable conclusions.
I, and I believe others, believe you have put forth both misinformation and questionable conclusions. First, seven people have not died in the plane. The correct number is four, arising out of two accidents, which we all realize is tragic at that level. The first accident was a plane doing testing prior to selling any airplanes to customers. The second accident was a pilot flying into the side of mountain, flying VFR in heavy IMC. Objectively, while both of these accidents were terrible losses, for which all of us have a profound sorrow, they would not appear to be representative of any safety issue with the current airplane.
Personally, I closely look at the history of the airplane, and ask the question “Does this indicate any problems that would be relevant to the safety of my flying the airplane?” My conclusion is that, recoginzing that there is a small sample size, at this point there have been no fatal accidents that cause me concern. If anything, I am attentive to the HSI and engine failures.
Our forum, in my opinion, has a history of constructive objectivity. I feel that if I, or anyone else, makes critical comments that don’t hold up to scrutiny, that they will be politely refuted. It seems to me that this happened in response to your posting.