One of the bigger challenges Cirrus had early on was getting pilots to pull the chute.

Many were chute phobic, and wanted to get the plane on the ground themselves.

Now not so much, if at all.

Hey Nate, you telling me I won?

What do I get?



Frankly those stats, if correct are scary good. That's better than turbine stats. That's a huge step in the right direction.

Admiration and camaraderie!

Great point!


and I cant finish without pointing out we could always.....

To be clear, I don't own any airplane yet and so I don't have any bias to make things look a certain way. However, as you say that there is a lot of information our there supporting opposing views. I was using the article because it puts numbers into an easy to view chart. The numbers I quoted in the 2000 to 2009 vs 2010 to 2014 were what I got from the NTSB website. I agree that 2014 looks like a great year for Cirrus and we can be hopeful that things will continue to improve. However 2004 was pretty good to but then look at 2005, 2006 and 2011.
Hish

Hopefully you are right and this is a sign of things to come.

You have all heard the old saw a million times "there are lies, damned lies and statistics". The new debate over the last day or so may represent a good case for truisms having some foundation in truth…

On the other hand. One of the things that no one has mentioned in the Cirrus "safety" debate, at least in the current thread, and certainly not in recent memory is the contribution to accidents of TAA. That is NOT T... and A.. (edited to delete correct spelling after making the mistake of reading this to my wife - but I digress) by the way... but Technically Advanced Aircraft or Avionics (frankly can't remember which - may be old age - or it could be thinking about T…. and A.., not sure ). Regardless, there has been a fair amount published on the relatively high accident/fatal rates of TAA airplanes compared to the GA population as a whole. Almost all Cirrus airplanes are considered TAA aircraft. So, it may be, and probably is true, that some of the Cirrus safety deficiencies - whether they are better or worse than average (and I am temporarily avoiding that debate) - are attributable to the TAA issue which is apparently significant.

The other things that these "comparisons" don't, and can't really, compensate for are flying hours (which are known for the Cirrus fleet but estimates for virtually everything else), progression of safety (the idea that new airplanes have had less investment in training, flying and experiential improvement therein than older models) and use (the possibility that one type may be involved in more risky operations than another - i.e., the idea that a Cirrus is used much more frequently for long distance transportation in more kinds of adverse weather conditions than say a 172 probably is). This has been stated before of course but is generally ignored by those with an axe to grind - which is to say a fair per cent age of the GA pilot population in my experience .

I remember a few years ago laughing out loud when I read that Cirrus and COPA had issued a Safety Stand Down encouraging Cirri pilots to go get additional training in landing procedures following a spate of landing accidents. This was, of course, during my time as a Bonanza pilot with a ridiculously easy to land airplane and no appreciation of the skill required to land an airplane with a much more demanding wing. I now know better! Anyway, what I realize, as a more mature pilot today, is that anytime a manufacturer and type club stress safety I should applaud and not deride... . Landing accidents in Cirrus aircraft have declined I think?

Now, as to the chute it is undeniable that in the early days, i.e. before about 2011- 2012 or so, there were a fair number of dead pilots with perfectly serviceable parachutes attached to their airframes auguring in after some sort of unforeseen (but not unforeseeable) difficulty. I've seen the smoking holes. Very sad. So, Cirrus and COPA focused on reminding owners and pilots that they had a very effective (and very expensive to hear the whining of non Cirrus owners ) safety device available to avoid digging the aforementioned smoking craters. They actually went so far as to devise original and recurrent training focusing on the use of these gadgets (training that my instructor friend who is now a CSIP - which allows him to charge more apparently - and jet captain with a number of type ratings on his certificate has said is comparable to a type rating). The result has been as my friend Nate, whom I have never met but have a remarkably similar aviation history and outlook, who is on vacation and using a iPad, has pointed out that Cirrus' safety record has apparently improved dramatically in fairly short order. Whether the trend will continue is anybody's guess but I certainly hope so! I hope that those that delight in picking nits and arguing against these improvements hope so too. Sometimes I do wonder though as their delight in rehashing OWT's, pointing out ancient history and obfuscating reminds me of some of those old ROP knuckedraggers...

Cirrus ain't perfect but if I'm ever going down without enough altitude to get to an airport like Jamie , I am going to be glad that I have the option to pull that little red handle instead of auguring in with my certitude of its ineffectiveness forever intact.

Welcome to BT Hish!

P.S. I just learned that BT has a limit on smilies, per post, of 15! Who knew? Certainly not me - but after over 4,000 posts here, I am very happy to learn something new…maybe it'll contagious! Dammit I need smiley smiley for that one...

P.S. I just learned that BT has a limit on smilies, per post, of 15! Who knew? Certainly not me - but after over 4,000 posts here, I am very happy to learn something new…maybe it'll contagious! Dammit I need smiley smiley for that one...


I got your back Tony

Tony,
I don't know whether to thank you for the insightful post or for using your 16th smiley to welcome me to BT....but in any event, thank you. I thoroughly enjoyed and learned from your post.
Hish

Hish, as you have discovered, lots of opinions and not a lot of analysis about GA safety statistics.

As the Aviation Safety Chair for the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association (COPA), the Cirrus type club like ABS, we've learned a lot about improving a COPA Culture of Safety. We've had our rough patches, we've had people like Steve Wilson who was a sales dealer for a competitor, we've had skeptics who believed you needed to be a "real aviator" to fly anything, we've had successes.

In the past several years, we have had a remarkable trend in decreasing fatal accidents. Here's the data overlayed on a slide prepared by NTSB Board member and ABS member Earl Weener:


And the data for all accident investigations in the NTSB database looks like this:


Couple of interesting observations. 1) Fatal accident rate for Personal flying in all of GA actually increased 20 percent in the decade 2000-2010. 2) Cirrus accident rate has been trending downward for a decade. 3) Overall Cirrus investigations have been less than the overall GA rate for a long time.

Have fun with data, eh?

Cheers
Rick

Sources:
Presentation slides: compiled for a safety briefing to the Aero Club of Northern California, "Accident Wise", April 30, 2015 by Rick Beach
NTSB accident rates: presentation by NTSB Board Member Earl Weener (see http://www.ntsb.gov/news/speeches/EWeen ... 150318.pdf)
Cirrus fatal accidents: world-wide data compiled by COPA, includes several foreign accidents never investigated by NTSB (see Cirrus Accident Rates)
Cirrus investigations: query of NTSB database for model=Cirrus, category=Airplane, Amateur Built=No
Cirrus fleet hours: Reliability Engineering staff at Cirrus aircraft based on data by serial number of Hobbs hours from warranty cards, service bulletins, and CAPS repacks, then modeled using Weibull distribution to the fleet

You obviously have not yet met Boris Popov, the inventor and founder of BRS Aerospace!

Cheers
Rick

... I was using the article because it puts numbers into an easy to view chart. The numbers I quoted in the 2000 to 2009 vs 2010 to 2014 were what I got from the NTSB website. I agree that 2014 looks like a great year for Cirrus and we can be hopeful that things will continue to improve. However 2004 was pretty good to but then look at 2005, 2006 and 2011.
Hish

Tony, we have seen a troubling increase in non-fatal landing accidents in Cirrus aircraft in the past 24 months. The earlier safety stand down in 2010 followed two fatal landing accidents. Consequently, we saw a reduction. Somehow, they are happening again. So, COPA and Cirrus have issued another Safety Letter and beefed up our training resources for landings. With a very effective world-wide Cirrus training partner network, we have the potential to make a big improvement. Stand by for results . . .

Cheers
Rick

Rick,

Thanks for the update. It is disturbing. What is not disturbing, however, is that the manufacturer, and type club of the largest selling aircraft in the world continue to work together to confront reality (whatever it is) and find solutions.