Can you articulate an underlying mechanism for that?

That is, why would a Corvalis owner fly their airplane less?

Mike C.

Use data from controller.
Look at the planes for sale and determine how many hours they flew per year on average. Do it for both plane types. This will give you some confidence in the fleet hour number for Cirrus, or skew both sets of numbers.
You would need to watch the controller for a while to get a better sample rate.

Tim

Mike - while I agree with others for reasons already listed concerning number of flight hours per airframe, props for effort and open mindedness - at least, in regard to the data listed.

In another area, these numbers could also be looked at in regard to safety of TAA. The comparison would hit the challenges of comparison in flight hours, but these numbers are potentially giving some life to the benefits.

Mike, congratulations on a significant effort. As you say, there are many assumptions that affect your calculations. Yet, your summary observation confirms what several of us have been saying -- trends look better in the Cirrus fleet.

As you found out, things are quite different now than they were -- in both fleets of Cirrus and Corvalis. That's both good and bad, respectively.

Hope the Lancair/Columbia/Corvalis community grows safely.

Cheers
Rick

Mike,

Have you posted this on the COPA forum?

My club had both Corvalis and Cirrus for rent at the same rate. Corvalis barely got flown and was eventually removed.

Not sure how valid it is but I did as someone suggested and looked at the planes for sale on controller. Going back to 2001 models which was the oldest sr22 I saw (I did not look at sr20s), I came up with 136.3 average per year (apy) on Cirrus and 85.6 apy on the Corvallis. So if there is any validity to sampling "planes that are for sale" it may be true that Cirrus flies more. For grins the SD is 72 and 30 respectively.

Does this make the Cirri about twice as safe?

David - how many a/c did you look at? Were these all the SR22's and Corvalis currently list on Controller?

BTW, does anyone else think that the greater BT community simply has too much time on their hands?? We may save lots of hours of our life flying our magic carpets around but we likely give 2X the 'saved' hours back messing around on BT all day...

David - how many a/c did you look at? Were these all the SR22's and Corvalis currently list on Controller?

BTW, does anyone else think that the greater BT community simply has too much time on their hands?? We may save lots of hours of our life flying our magic carpets around but we likely give 2X the 'saved' hours back messing around on BT all day...

I thought of that and sounds worthwhile.

I worry if this introduces some non obvious bias. For example, higher time planes are more likely to be sold?

Well, we can try and do it and see. I have no idea what the outcome will be. What if it shows Corvalis fly more?

Like I said, there are plenty of valid criticisms of every methodology you chose and it is always easier to be a critic than a data miner.

Mike C.

As of right Now ON FLIGHTAWARE:

SR22...........41
SR20...........3
CORVALIS....8


ALSO NOTED

BE36 - 31
BE58 - 21
BE55 - 9
BE33 - 10
BE35 - 8

The SR20 is a 172, and needs to come out of the numbers.

What is the total number of SR22s built?

Some of this to me seems like conclusions that oppose common sense.

For example, the Corvalis is a great airplane, a pilots airplane, but it has the same limitations and risks as every other single out there. The Cirrus has a chute, that adds a level of safety beyond any other single. The effectiveness has been proven as recently as the mid-air in MD. No one was walking away from that in anything but a Cirrus. What more is there to say about it?

Another example is the 182, a statistically very safe airplane, but why? It has the same power plant and equipment as any other single. Fly around in REAL IMC and listen to what aircraft are on frequency, very few 182's relative to production. We all know they are favored by a primarily day VFR or super light IMC pilot group. Doesn't make them intrinsically any safer to me, but it would easy to make that argument statistically.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Pilots should value common sense first above anything else IMO.

Just to meddle ... A surprising number of airplanes land after midairs. Don't get me wrong - I'd pick a cirrus 99 times out of 99 when planning a mid air but it's not honest to say any other plane would mean certain death. Somewhere around half of planes in midairs land under control.