Prior to the start of my flight training, I was clueless about general aviation safety. When I began researching the SR22, I was extremely surprised that in the short lifespan of the Cirrus planes, they have already been involved in 26 fatal accidents (with 52 deaths). That number still runs chills through my body. To put things in perspective, there are only about 3,400 Cirrus planes ever made. With 26 fatal accidents, that means 1 in approximately every 130 Cirrus planes have crashed killing at least 1 person on board. That’s a sobering statistic. 1 in 130.
Up until this point, I had operated under the assumption that “flying is safer than driving.” This is true when comparing Commercial Airliners against the general driving population, but it’s far from it when comparing General Aviation to car accidents. That was all news to me. I decided I needed to do a lot more research on General Aviation Safety and Cirrus planes before becoming an owner.
Pilot Safety Discussions
If you listen to or read any forum messages where pilots discuss fatal aviation accidents, inevitably someone will blame an incompetent and inexperienced new pilot for making fatal mistakes and they move on. With the Cirrus owners in particular, lots of people blame the “new, young, rich entrepreneur” who gets a plane for all the wrong reasons. They claim that the Cirrus airplanes have become the new “must-have toy” for these rich people who have no business flying and they end up killing themselves and their passengers. Some people even blame Cirrus marketing for going after new pilots.
Unfortunately, such pilot discussions are rarely supported by any studies, statistics or proof to support the case against new pilots. These type of posts appear to be a way to convince the writer him or herself that fatal crashes happen to “other people” who are not competent. Since much of the pilot discussions blamed pilots with my exact background, my research into this matter became even more intense. I was afraid that if the overall statistics are “bad”, then for me (new, rich entrepreneur) flying a high-performance plane such as the Cirrus might be much worse.
Reading the Accident Reports
I decided to dig up some accident reports to see for myself. The first place to get some factual information is the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The NTSB investigates every aviation accident and makes the reports publicly available and searchable on their web site. That’s very cool. Anybody can read the accident reports for themselves. Here’s how to find every Cirrus accident report the NTSB has in its database:
- Go to this page: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
- For the “Make/Model” field, type “cirrus”
- If you prefer to just see the fatal accident reports, you can choose “fatal” under the “Injury/Severity” field
- Click Submit Query and your search results will show
Reading the Cirrus accident reports, it becomes obvious that the problem is not just with new inexperienced pilots. There have been fatal accidents with nearly all kinds of pilots with the largest group of fatal accidents (16 of the 26) having greater than 400 total hours of flight experience. So Cirrus Marketing to new pilots and the new group of rich entrepreneurs who need to have the latest toys are not to blame.
Unfortunately, that still was not very comforting.
Statistics Don’t Lie
The next question I had was about how the Cirrus planes compare to the General Aviation average accident rates. Once again, the NTSB provides excellent statistics about General Aviation accidents. Here’s a summary of the number of fatal accidents per 100,000 hours of flight for the past 20 years:
The graph shows that in recent years fata accidents happen at a rate of 1.3 for every 100,000 hours of flight. The NTSB also puts out an Annual Review of Aircraft Accident Data. The latest copy of this report is for calendar year 2003 (where are the newer ones!?!). This is a very well-prepared document with more statistics than you ever cared to know about General Aviation. It’s an excellent source of information and I highly recommend that every pilot, new or veteran, at least review this information:
NTSB’s Annual Review of Aircraft Accident Data for 2003
I’ve gone ahead and summerized some of the highlights of the report here.
1 in 2,000 Pilots Die Every Year
One of the first graphs you’ll find in the NTSB Annual Review of Aircraft Accident Data is this one:
There’s no good story to tell here. According to this graph, approximately 1 in every 2,000 pilots die every year due to a fatal aviation accident. If you plan to be a pilot for 40 years of your life, the chances during your lifetime (assuming the stats don’t improve) is about 1 in 50! Ouch. That hurts.
It might be comforting to know that according to the National Safety Council’s general population Odds of Dying by any accident during the average lifetime, is about 1 in 22. As a pilot, you’re barely nudging your overall chances in the wrong direction. So don’t worry, you’re in good company. Even if you weren’t a pilot, your overall chances of dying from an accident is 1 in 22.
Fatal Accidents by Type of Operation
Unfortunately, it doesn’t get much better for us casual personal & business pilots. Since the overall GA accident statistics also includes corporate jets, which have a signficantly lower accident rate, breaking it down by type of operation brings the casual pilot accident rate closer to 2 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours of flight:
Notice how low the grey bars are. It appears that Corporate/Executive fatal accidents are closer to .1-.2 per 100,000 flight hours making corporate/executive traveling significantly safer than cars. So if you can afford it and you don’t enjoy the flying aspect of being a pilot, hiring a professional pilot for your corporate plane might be a better way to go.
Accidents by Type of Aircraft
One additional set of statistics worth examining is the rate of accidents based on the type of aircraft:
As you can see from the chart above, Amateur-Built experimental planes have the worst safety record, with nearly 4 times as many fatal accidents as a single-engine piston airplane.
Back to Cirrus Planes
With all the General Aviation safety statistics in hand, you’re probably still wondering as I was how the Cirrus stacks up to the GA average accident rates. Fortunately, or unforutnately, depending on how you look at it, the Cirrus planes don’t stand out in either direction. With about 1.44 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours during their lifetime, the Cirrus planes are slightly higher (but statistically insignificant) than the average Single-Engine piston, which stands at 1.41. The big problem is that you’d expect that Cirrus planes would definitely stand out and have a signifcantly lower fatal accident rate. After all, the Cirrus planes have a lot going for them:
- Significantly newer fleet compared to average age of GA planes
- CAPS Safety System (parachute)
- Modern Design for Safety and Control
- State of the Art Avionics
Yet, with all the advantages that Cirrus planes should have, the fatal accident rates so far have not been better than average. There is a lot more Cirrus-specific accident information and statistics on COPA. There’s also an excellent presentation that was given by Rick Beach which is available on COPAPedia. COPAPedia is a Wiki for COPA members with information about everything from maintenance to safety to operations and even accessories. If you aren’t a COPA member and you’re considering a Cirrus plane, it’s a great place to do extensive research and meet other Cirrus pilots.
In Rick’s presentation, he also points out that the CAPS system was activated 13 times with 10 saves (saving 22 lives) and 3 CAPS activations being counted as failures (2 fatalities). However, the overwhelming evidence points to the CAPS system working well in emergency scenarios where the pilot loses control of the aircraft. So when in doubt, pull the chute, ask questions later when you live.
Conclusion
It was disapointing to find that Cirrus planes don’t appear to be any safer than the general single-engine fleet of planes. That brings the safety responsibility back to the pilot. The bad news here is that a lot of pilots don’t think it can happen to them and they blame fatal accidents on stupid pilots. The problem is that we’re all stupid pilots every now and then. The key is to not be in denial. General Aviation is not as safe as driving. Period. It’s about 7 times more fatal (about the same risk as motorcycles). But the risks are significantly less when flying in good weather during the day, in VFR conditions and in familiar territory. Night accidents are almost twice as likely to result in fatalities and forget about it if the weather is bad. Overconfidence contributes to the bad statistics. The plane is a small part of the accident story, which is why the Cirrus planes have not been able to save the pilots who make bad decisions. That’s too bad. I think more can be done.
The thing to remember is that it can happen to you. Make good decisions and when in doubt, pull the chute!
More Research
If you’re looking for additional information on aviation safety, here are some great sources:
- NTSB’s Annual Review of Aircraft Accident Data for 2003
- AOPA’s Air Saftety Foundation Special Reports (Includes a Report on Glass Cockpit planes)
- Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association (COPA)
- COPAPedia (the Wiki maintained by COPA members)
35 responses so far ↓
Rick Beach // November 1, 2007 at 3:31 pm |
Thanks for the link to the Cirrus accident info. You post prompted me to review the NTSB GA accident review, the one where it calculates a rate of 1.41 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours in single-engine piston airplanes. In 2005, that number appears to have jumped significantly to about 1.86, with both more single-engine fatal accidents and fewer hours flown in the FAA survey. Consequently, the Cirrus lifetime rate of 1.44 compares favorably with my calculation. Interesting to see what NTSB presents when they get around to publishing their 2005 data in a couple of years!
sr22 // November 4, 2007 at 1:47 pm |
Rick, thanks for that comment. It’s interesting to see the accident rate jump that high for 2005. Some people are also looking at the FAA’s crackdown on airspace violations as potentially increasing accident rates. People who make sudden movements to avoid airspaces, but then end up running into something.
Peter L // November 26, 2007 at 10:41 am |
Your comment about having a 1 in 50 chance of dying over 40 years is incorrect. Each year, you say statistics show you have a 1 in 2000 chance of being killed as a PIC. That means each year. Odds don’t change just because a new year has begun. Think of it this way: There are 2000 marbles in a hat. 1 is red and 1,999 are white. You reach in and pull one out blindfolded. You had a 1 in 2000 chance of pulling the red one out. Now you put the marble back in the hat and pull one out again. You still have the same odds as the first time around. You can do this 40 times but it does not change the odds because each time you pull a marble out is an INDEPENDENT event unconnected to the last drawing. So, therefore, the 1 in 2000 odds do not change no matter how many times
you draw with 2000 marbles in the hat. Past drawings have nothing to do with future ones. Just wanted to clear that up.
sr22 // November 26, 2007 at 10:50 am |
Peter, the odds of each pull of a marble is 1 in 2000, but when you do it 40 times, the collective odd of pulling a red marble is actually 1/2000 + 1/2000 + 1/2000…40 times = 40/2000 = 1/50. So the overall odds of pulling a red marble is actually 1 in 50.
Hope that makes sense.
Scott // November 26, 2007 at 11:50 am |
If you’ve drawn 1 out of 2000, and then again the next year, you’ve drawn 2 out of 4000. Go ask a math teacher!
Scott // November 26, 2007 at 11:56 am |
And, if you really think about it, pilots around 500 hours are potentially some of the most dangerous pilots. They think they know everything but haven’t learned everything so they open themselves up to a lot of risks that newbies and seasoned vets wouldn’t.
sr22 // November 26, 2007 at 12:52 pm |
Scott, no need for a math teacher. I still remember basic arithmetic. By your measure, you’d have the same chance of pulling a red marble regardless of how many times you pull out marbles. So if you tried the pull 1,000 times, using your math, you’d still have a 1 in 2,000 chance of pulling out a red marble. Obviously that’s inaccurate.
Scott // November 26, 2007 at 1:15 pm |
you’re talking about year to year odds, 1 in 2000 people get killed per year. You’re only pulling it out once out of 2000 per year.
sr22 // November 26, 2007 at 1:23 pm |
Scott, each year you have a 1 in 2000 chance (purely statistically speaking). So after 2 years, you have a 2 in 2,000 chance, after 40 years, a 40 in 2,000 chance.
Clearly if a person is only a pilot for 1 year the odds of dying (during the entirety of the person’s life) is significantly less than if the same person is a pilot for 40 years. The way you are doing your math, regardless of how long one is a pilot their odds of dying is the same. That’s not possible.
Peter L // November 27, 2007 at 1:18 pm |
I am sorry but that isn’t correct. If you check with a statistician or actuary, he/she will come to the same result as I did. Scott is correct with the 1 in 2000 and the 2 in 4000. The thing to remember is that they are independent events. If you buy a lottery ticket, and the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 10,000,000; your odds remain the same unless you buy more than 1 ticket in the same drawing. If you buy another ticket for a different drawing, the odds are still 1 in 10,000,000. There is no such thing as cumulative odds from drawing to drawing. It goes the same way with a slot machine. Each “pull” of the lever is an independent event so you have the same odds of winning the jackpot no matter how many times you pull the lever, because each pull of the lever is an independent event. Your idea of 40 in 2000 only applies if you are pulling from the same hat and you do not put the marbles you have already drawn back in each time.
The key is, each year is equivalent to drawing from a different hat. There are still 2000 Pilots in the hat, you are still just one of them. Therefore, the chance of being killed remains at a constant of 1 in 2000 if you your data is correct. Good debate, though there is only one correct mathematical answer, the one that I have given.
sr22 // November 27, 2007 at 2:12 pm |
Peter, you are right in that your chances EACH YEAR are 1 in 2,000. Therefore, if you are a pilot for 40 years your OVERALL chances of dying are greater than if you are a pilot for just 1 year. After 40 years, your odds are roughly 40 in 2,000 and NOT 40 in 80,000 as you suggest. However, this is not entirely accurate. It’s just close. I’ll show how to get exact below.
The same is true if you play the lottery. If you play the lottery 1 time your OVERALL chances of winning are lower than if you play it 1000 times (even if it’s over 1000 different drawings). Although each time you play you have the same odds of winning, if one was to try to figure out the overall odds of winning during those 1,000 drawings it would be CLOSE TO 1,000 / X where X is the odds of winning in any given drawing.
In fact the National Safety Council also calculates your odds of dying from different events in the same way I have. They take the one-year odds of dying and multiply it by your life expectancy. Take a look at http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm to see what I mean.
But that’s not entirely accurate.
So what is the accurate way of calculating the statistical probability of one pilot dying over a 40-year period? Here are the steps:
– First calculate the odds of surviving each year, which is 1,999 to 2,000 (or 0.9995 or 99.95%).
– Since after 2 years you’d have a 0.9995 x 0.9995 chance of surviving, to calculate the odds of surviving after 40 years, you simply take the odds of surviving for 1 year and raise it to the 40th power. 0.9995^40 = 0.9802 or 98.02% chance of survival.
– To calculate odds of dying, you simply subtract 98.02% from 100% = 1.98% or close to the 2% that I had suggested in the article.
Dave // December 10, 2007 at 9:18 am |
With all of this discussion, I think it is more intuitive to think of the statistics in fatalities per hours of flight time ie: deaths per 100,000 hours. Thus, the more you fly over the years, the higher probability for a fatality. This is no different than any other acitvity such as driving. The more time you spend on a busy highway with speeding trucks, the more likely you will be involved in an accident.
Goose Gowell // January 22, 2008 at 12:04 pm |
Marbles and stats aside; this was a well written and very interesting piece. It should receive more circulation. Great job. Why not show the accidents rate per flying hour. I disagree with comment regarding 500 hour pilots. Goose Gowell
EK // January 29, 2008 at 3:21 pm |
Dave is right. And accidents per operation (TO/Lndg) might be an even better measure. Also, there is a misunderstanding of the meaning of “fatal accidents” in the NTSB data.
The NTSB fatal accident numbers include accidents where anyone on board (or on the ground) died, not just pilots. The chart above is intended to show what portion of pilots are involved in accidents and fatal accidents, not what portion of the pilot population dies. In addition, the measure is “fatal accidents,” not “fatalities.” Sometimes many more than one person dies in a fatal accident.
So, the basic number is that at least 1 fatal accident occurs each year for every 2000 pilots. There are roughly 600,000 pilots, so that means that there are about 300 fatal accidents per year; and, in fact, the latest published NTSB data shows 303 fatal GA accidents in 2006.
If this number holds constant, then during 40 years of flying there will be 40 x 303 = 12,120 fatal accidents. If the number of pilots also holds steady at 600,000, then in a pilot’s flying lifetime there will be 12,120/600,000 = 0.02, or 1 in 50 pilots will be involved in a fatal accident — if all the pilots’ careers span the same 40 years. But they don’t. There will be at least twice that many pilots over a 40 year period, since pilots come and go.
There is another problem in using total licensed pilots, which is that the number of active pilots is far less than 600,000.
Which brings me back to the opening point — that fatal accidents per operation would be a better measure of a pilot’s exposure to a fatality.
It is also relevant that ATP Pilots have a far lower accident rate than others, and that flying experimental airplanes is riskier than average — roughly 5% of the total GA flight hours, but 15-20% of the total GA fatal accidents. And as already mentioned, night time flying in IFR weather raises the risk considerably.
David Brandon // February 8, 2008 at 12:36 pm |
I was a math major in college…the rule for determining cumulative odds for independent events, described by SR22 above is correct; Peter and Scott are wrong.
But statistics really shouldn’t be the concern, since so many other things influence who actually buys the farm. For the fellow whose destiny is to kill himself, through reckless and incompetent flying, his odds are 100%, which significantly lowers the odds for guys like us. ;-) There are plenty of studies showing the accident bell curves for pilots with different levels of training, hours and experience. Suffice it to say that the odds of a fatal accident for an instrument rated pilot with over 500 hours TT and over 120 instrument time, who flies regularly and makes conservative go-no-go decisions, are miniscule.
Karen A // April 8, 2008 at 7:00 am |
Given the same innate abilities to fly an airplane, there is no way a 500 hour pilot can be as experienced and therefore as competent in skills and decision making as a 12,000 hour pilot. Obvioulsy having “been there and done that” is an immense advantage. At 500 hours many pilots tend to be more brave than brand new pilots, who have yet to test the waters, and veterans who have tested it and know how to avoid that activity in the future! As a flight instructor for the past 30 years I have seen proof of this theory many times as I’ve marveled at incredible decisions made by relatively low-time pilots. They just haven’t had time to acquire the experiences that are always the best teachers.
dave // April 27, 2008 at 1:01 am |
either way you go on this topic if you are a good pilot and make good decisions you won’t become a statistic. As far as the cirrus goes it is an very safe plane if it is flown correctly… which means unless you don’t have a wing you shouldn’t pull the chute… Almost all the stories I have read about pilots pulling the chute have done it cause it was an option not because they had to, they made a bad decision and put themselves into a situation they shouldn’t have been in.
Doug P // May 7, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
I just checked the NTSB accident database, and there have been another 11 fatal accidents involving Cirrus aircraft since this article was published, about 6 months ago. 9 of those 11 accidents involved the SR-22.
Thom // June 4, 2008 at 5:30 pm |
As a new pilot and plane owner, I appreciate
this information. I race open wheel formula
cars and have always had motorcycles, I was
surprised to learn how dangerous flying really
is. I agree, we are all stupid pilots once
in a while–they’re called mistakes.
Brian Corner // July 19, 2008 at 4:06 am |
cirus use a TKS De-ice system manufactured in the UK. Do any of the Cirrus accidents point to a failure of that system.
big daddy // August 21, 2008 at 1:23 am |
I was also a math major in college and continued on to get a doctorate in mathematics. Peter and Scott are DEAD wrong! Not even close. They remind me of my students that ardently argue a point, but are blind to the mathematic reality of the situation. Gentlemen, it is a nice try to tell “Sr22″ that he is wrong and talk down to him, but for those of us who know math you couldn’t have a more juvenile and incorrect understanding of this concept. I would be afraid to fly with you, and, for example, your “heading” may be off and as someone tries to correct you, and you stubbornly insist and are sure you are right….and auger the plane right into a mountain. Its really embarrassing for the both of you!
Just one final piece of advice for Scott and Peter: it is better to be presumed a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt!”
Thanks Gentlemen
FL420 // June 18, 2009 at 9:46 am |
In addition to your degrees “big daddy”, you can now add the title of “Certified Ass”.
Larry B // August 25, 2008 at 9:24 pm |
If the first year your odds of a fatality is 1:2000 and the second year 1:1999 (pilot 2000 is dead), is your average chance of a fatality 1:1999.5 or does it jump to 1:1000? In genetics, the chance of giving birth to a boy each pregnancy is 1:2 (actually slightly higher..more boys are born). The odds of a boy next time are 1:2 (same), as each year they are independent events. Just because you had a boy this time DOES NOT increase your odds of having a girl next time. To predict 4 boys in a row, though, is 1:16 (1:(2×2x2×2)), but EACH BIRTH is still 1:2. Your odds of being involved in a fatal crash in the next 40 years is 40:2000 or 1:50 if 40 pilots out of each 2000 will die in the next 40 years, but each year is only 1:2000 and remains 1:2000 per year (slightly less unless you replace the dead pilot). If you survive that year, next year the odds again are 1:2000. So both are right. : )
big daddy // September 10, 2008 at 10:06 pm |
The dead pilots have nothing to do with it. Don’t confuse rate (or odds) with real pilots! One in two thousand is simply a rate, Larry. You almost had it right. Both certainly are not right. Everything you said is right except when you derailed your brain and started talking about dead pilots being replaced. Big Daddy has spoken!
Shane Stakem // September 11, 2008 at 11:21 pm |
Great thread spanning almost a year. I am a student pilot of a SR-20 transitioning from weight shift/ultralights. I have many reservations regarding safety in Cirrus aircraft and in my opinion its mostly over the fact that these designs are “high performance” and initially give the a new pilot more to think about than just flying a airplane. I was more than enamored with the whole glass cockpit design especially being a network systems engineer , but honestly I think that I never really learned to “fly” the plane outside of that. I spent far to much time in the “glass” and didn’t feel confident in the aircraft when systems became unavailable i.e. (TCAS,NAV). I have moved on and always try an remember “fly first, gadgets later” A great quote for this thread I think! “There are two kinds of statistics: the kind you look up and the kind you make up” Lets make sure none of us “make up” a damm thing!
Johnny O'Sullivan // November 26, 2008 at 1:04 pm |
I just logged on to Facebook and was compelled to tell friends many of which do not fly my concerns over the cirrus. Allegedly, to prevent any come back. I have been flying with my late father from a young age (2 mayday landings during the first 10 years) later I managed to have the funds to gain my own licence (purely a licence). I fly PA-28 old planes with an IMC (UK). My point is I recently went flying with a Cirrus owner.. my view after 8 years qualified flying was to him … this plane could get you in trouble. To his natural surprise he said ‘Why’ and I responded saying that if I had this I would push the boundaries in all sorts of weather because it makes it so easy. Bottomline, 2 questions 1. Is the VNe of the aircraft approx 10-20% more then the indicated speed ? or is that wrong. 2. Do you think the glass cockpit distracts pilots from what is going on, to much automation. My concern transpires as after flying with this Cirrus pilot he smashed the prop on landing 2 weeks later (always thought he came in too steep and told him… but I understand the prop clearance is very low on older models). And unfortunately another guy ditched in the sea recently outside where we live Accident Investigation Bureau checking now…. my belief is two options spatial disorientation and the screens flicked off (which I understand is actually quite common) or structural failure. Both concerns are early days in investigations and I do not assume to know the answers however after my priviliged flight in a Cirrus where I told the owner how lucky he was ….I am quite happy to fly PA-28s, old technology and fly the plane as priority not head in the glass cockpit of an automatic pilot orientated design. On saying all this I believe Cirrus have made remarkable leaps in aviation and I wish them good luck just a sense of caution on development.
Marcos Zarikian // December 23, 2008 at 7:49 pm |
Good plane ,low paiload (not for 4 passenger , to short tail for the torque of the motor can easyly overpower the steering .Be carefull it can be a big sorprise . It does not stall like other plans it sinks not glide at low speeds . But is fast , confortable, good when it crashes in to the floor .Hope you never try it
Richard Miles // January 3, 2009 at 10:48 am |
The clearest formula to use to determine your chance of dying is to ask yourself how many hours you plan to fly over your lifetime and multiply that by the fatal accident rate for the airplane you fly. If you fly 100 hours a year over four decades that’s 4,000 hours. Multiply that by 1.2 deaths/100,000 hours of flight time and your looking at a 1 in 21 chance.
The accident statistics on Cirrus aircraft is improving significantly, possibly due to better pilot training, more likely due to statistical variations because the population (the total number of aircraft produced) only totals a couple thousand.
You can improve your odds many times over if you:
* Buy a plane with a better accident history.
* Put yourself through a more rigorous training program and take follow up training.
* Gain experience, many pilots die in their first 500 hours – the 100 to 200 hour range is especially deadly.
* Always fly with a co-pilot.
* Use a quality autopilot.
* Stay out of planes without up-to-date avionics that provide situational awareness.
Tim Shea // March 13, 2009 at 2:04 pm |
Hamid, this is a really good analysis, one of the most lucid I’ve seen for the layperson. We’re debating safety & the BRS system over on the Cessna Pilot’s Association, and I linked to your article… very nice. Just wanted to say thank you.
Glenn Baldwin // April 10, 2009 at 4:59 pm |
Four more fatal accidents leaving ten more dead since Rick Beach bragged
“2008 ends with improvement in Cirrus fatal accident rate” betterwww.cirruspilots.org/blogs/pull_early_pull_often/archive/…/2008-ends-with-improvement-in-cirrus-fatal-accident-rate.aspx
With all the advantages (age, spacial awareness, fixed gear, simplified throttle, fuel injection, improved technology, and of course the CAPS system) these new planes should be far safer than the tired 25 average age fleet. The fact is they are not. I suspect the problem is either the MFD or the plane or either equally. The industry and particularly the trade publications are ignoring this horrific problem to their great detriment. Cirrus is beginning to give GA a bad name.
Stephen Wilson // April 21, 2009 at 6:25 am |
As of April 2009, NTSB reports show the Cirrus is not as safe as Cirrus claims:
http://stevewilsonblog.com/2009/04/16/dead-pilots-dont-lie.aspx
Paul Platt // May 17, 2009 at 1:44 pm |
The blog link listed is to one run by a Cessna dealer. If you pick a recent fixed period, I took 1/1/07 to 1/1/09 and count the number of fatals for aircraft of similar type and then compare to number in the air on Flightaware you will see that the SR22 is no more dangerous than others. Even the C182 doesn’t look better. The C210/P210 looks much worse. There are a lot of SR22 accidents becasue there are a lot of them beign used for challenging missions. It is being flown like a light to mid-sized twin rather than a trainer. The accident rate is similar to a Beech Baron BE58. Cessna hates Cirrus because the SR22 has been the number one selling piston for many years.
Randy Africano // September 14, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
In doing research comparing the Cirrus to the Bonanza line of aircraft, if safety is a concern, forget the parachute AND the Cirrus as the Bonanza is a far safer aircraft based on FAA accident data from 2005 to 2009. Consider these facts: The chance of being involved in a fatal accident versus an accident with injuries in a Cirrus is 2.5 to 1. In ANY Bonanza, independent of age, its less than 1.1 to 1. Now consider the accident rate involving fatalities and injuries… Cirrus is 34.7% and ALL Bonanzas is 19.3%. As an ATP pilot with 38 years experience looking to purchase a new airplane, a quick review of the safety stats made for an easy decision. When you take into consideration resale value, a time-proven airframe, and customer support, it was a non brainer.
Paul Platt // September 14, 2009 at 7:00 pm |
How was the Bonanza data calculate? I respect the Bonanza as a capable aircraft. My data says its accident rate is similar to the SR22. However, I try to normalize for hours flown per type rather than number manufactured. Newer planes are generally flown more than older planes. A plane that sits and isn’t flown can make the accident rate of a type look better than it is. I use Flightaware data taken over a period of time to look at relative flight activity between types. Since you mention fatalities as a percentage of accidents, there is an interesting graph of this vs. stall speed with higher stall speed aircraft upping the ratio.
Brian Lee // October 6, 2009 at 8:18 pm |
I read somewhere that about 14% of GA accidents are from mechanical failure. So over 85% are pilot error.
Taking off or landing in high crosswinds or bad weather, flying through ice, landing or taking off on short and narrow fields, running out of fuel, overloading or incorrect loading, high density altitude, spatial disorientation, flying at night, flying too low, flying too slow, not maintaining VFR separation, runway incursions, flying too high without O2, exceeding aircraft limitations, not slowing to maneuvering speed in turbulence, flying under the influence, flying fatigued, not paying attention, conversations in the plane causing distraction, lack of familiarity with the aircraft’s equipment or operation. I’m certain I’ve missed plenty of pilot error possibilities… But think about what I ‘have’ listed. Aren’t these preventable by all of us…? The more chances we take, the better the chance we’ll screw up. Feel free to add any pilot errors you’ve heard of. Let’s all help each other.
So before we take off in crummy weather, we choose to wait for it to clear up a bit. We follow our check lists, we know our plane and it’s performance and limitations.
Sure there is always broken crank shafts, contaminated fuel, bad electrical, popped tires, bad props, vacuum failure, bird strikes, etc. Some things just go wrong and break….but only 14% of the time and not always resulting in a crash. That means we have more than an 86% chance of doing things correctly, by making the right decisions. It’s up to us. We become statistics when we make bad decisions.
I love to fly at night, but if something goes wrong, I’d like to SEE where I’m putting the plane down. When I fly at night or IFR, I know that the odds start to stack up if I face an emergency. IFR can be challenging and fun…but again…more dangers.
Whenever we get in a plane, there are dangers…How much, depends mainly on ourselves.
Ya’ll fly safe…be careful…be smart…!
And barring any mechanical failure, or a dummy running into you, you’ll have a great time.