The insurance companies, of all people, have enough statisticians to know that their sample size is insufficient as a predictor. Having said that, they’ve made a couple of significant payouts (particularly in the Kohler incident) and the underwriters are certainly not happy.
The crash in Arizona could have been in any airplane, but if they were travelling at 110 knots instead of 150, perhaps they would have had an extra second or two to alter the flight path. I know of at least one landing incident involving damage in addition to the totalled 22 of last week as well, which would raise their actuarial eyebrows to be sure.
Perhaps there is something unique about the combination of the plane and the profile of the typical owner (or the training thereof) that leads to more frequent insurance claims? I get the feeling that a large number of the SR2x owners (particularly the 20) are 200 hour pilots who have spent almost all of their time flying 172s. The landing characteristics of the Cirri make up the single biggest difference between the two (in terms of how they fly). Perhaps more focused training is necessary about the differences, and about the consequences of reverting to 172 habits.
Speed is also an issue, though we tend to think of it in terms of slowing down to get into the pattern, or as time compression when flying instrument approaches. Driving home the message that it is a really good idea to slow down if you’re MVFR (and the plane will happily fly as slowly as a 172) would be a good thing. Also a graphic demonstration of how much more space (and bank angle) it takes to make a standard rate turn at 150 knots versus 110.
Hopefully Cirrus and Wings Aloft are thinking along the same lines.