Mike,

This is what you have missed about SF50 the whole time in all your posts. Nothing will happen in the SF50 much faster than it happens in SR22. At least not when it matters, as in take off and landing. People don't get behind during cruise. This is the major reason why SETP are so popular with owner pilots. This is why SF50 will be as popular. 80knot approach speed. It will be popular precisely because it is not a high performance airplane. It will actually be even easier to fly than a SR22 because of FADEC.

I agree with this ^^^^ for the most part. The ability of the plane to get from 140 down to 80 kts will dictate its safety record IMO. Piston/turboprop guys have no issues losing airspeed on final with the props, but the jet makes that phase of flying much more critical. I can't wait to fly one!

This method does not catch all Cirrus aircraft.

I suspect, but can't prove, those aircraft that are missing are going to average fewer flight hours.


So 25% are missing.

Of the 75%, some of the data could be years old, as well.


I don't understand. You supposedly had the data prior to 2011, so why the correction? Which distribution is more truthful?


Yes, I believe this drop off after a few years to be quite typical.


So do you assume repacked Cirrus fly 225 hours a year?

Or do you assume newly purchased used Cirrus fly 225 hours a year regardless of chute repack?

The chute repack is a normal maintenance function. I don't see how it causes triple usage for the next 3-5 years.


950K hours in 12 months on 5600 airframes is 170 hours each. Seems high. For every 80 hour airframe, you have to have one flying 260 hours. Even if people do that the first 3 years, most planes are now older than that.

Here is the fundamental problem with your method. At the end, you compare the accident rate of Cirrus, computed using the "new" fleet hours you compute using the new formulas since 2011, with other aircraft using no similar method to compute fleet hours.

So your accident rate numbers are not computed in the same way as the FAA numbers so they should not be compared against each other.

Your number MAY be more accurate, but the issue is treating both sides equally.

Mike C.

...fascinating discussion here about twin turboprop safety..

+1

I thought that too before I moved up to my Mits. But it turns out that by far the busiest time in my cockpit due to the performance is just after takeoff - departure climb. You are climbing at 2000fpm or better at 180 KIAS and getting vectors or whatever with rapid handoffs to the next controller, etc. Re-routes to initial fixes or airways are not uncommon.

I have never noticed landing speed as any kind of issue flying high performance aircraft, it's the departure.