Is having a reputation as being a very dangerous airplane necessarily all that bad? My Lancair has a bad rep too. It's only fault is a high stall speed. And when it does stall it can be unpredictable. So simple fix, don't stall the F'n airplane. Rather simple. If you are not comfortable flying 100kts till the numbers it isn't for you. I'm fine with that speed. Actually feels rather slow. I have 9 years in the citation X. I have no idea how it behaves in a stall. No need to. Don't stall the F'n airplane!

But, it has a high number of stall spin accidents. So I wish it had an even worse reputation deserved or not. Maybe it would scare some of the pilots coming over from a Cherokee that think it is easy to fly and don't get training. I wish the perceived accident rate was way higher than the actual rate. Insurance doesn't get priced on the perceived rate. My insurance is retarded high. Because of idiots screwing it into the ground after stalling it. A high percentage of the accident pilots are low time and/or have received zero in type training. Since it isn't mandated, I wish for these pilots to stay away. So I like the bad rap and wish it was worse. If you ever read about me balling one up it won't be from stalling. I think even Doug R said he'd never get back in one. He's plenty qualified to fly one. But it's an extension of its bad rap.

Quick off topic response on X and crosswinds. It's problem comes from the high sweep angle. The tips are way behind the main gear. It's X wind limitation isn't due to rudder effectiveness, but because you can not dip a wing very far. 21 KTS demonstrated. As you increase pitch when flaring or rotating the tips come closer to the ground. Folk lore states a combination of 6degrees drags a wing. As in 4 deg pitch up and 2deg roll gets a tip. Not exactly correct but close enough. So landing requires the kick method more than most. There have been numerous wing drags. But no crashes or airframe losses. Not an ego booster though

Tip skids?

For new pilots, no. The more dangerous they perceive the airplane, the more respect and margin they will give it. This is the exact opposite of having a chute where the pilot is lulled into not perceiving danger until it is too late.

For passengers, it can be an issue if they do research on it. I've had passengers comment on the MU2 accident history and they assign that to the machine, so it takes a bit of explaining to properly convey the meaning of the history.


In my mind, its major "fault" is being high performance, does everything fast so pilots can be behind the airplane.

With performance comes responsibility.

Mike C.

Mike,

I am starting to think you have a bias when it comes to an airplane chute. You keep brining it back up. Let it die, we get the idea that you think anyone who flies a Cirrus is an idiot and a danger to society. Let it go, every Cirrus pilot I know disagrees with your sentiments and logic.

Tim (in a very sarcastic mode)

Bias?!?

Was the Mits defense not ironic?

I just address it and move on. Mike's a last word kind of guy. I have a PE that works for me. It's comical when two PE's disagree. Just sit back and watch, but neither are wrong. And if one can pull the code showing why they're right, the other will say why the code is wrong.

With that said, they are also the smartest and most resourceful group I deal with.

I said it before - it can be summed up in one statement. The Cirrus has a fatality rate of 0.82 fatalities per 100k hours over 36 months. 0.32 over 12 months. Show me a travel piston plane fatality rate that's better.

Mike has ONE that he will bring up - the Corvalis. I think he gets this from a dealer that put out a flier with some stats on it that have been proven wrong. (Although the Corvalis does have a good record.)

He is right with the core of his preaching - it is the pilot that makes the most difference. He just can't, for some reason, give the 50 for 50 chute saves any credit.

Bias. <smile> We all have some. But some make it a profession.

I'm sure there will be another rebuttal, but it will be something already stated and answered before, so I'll let it go, unless there's anyhting new.

But the sarcastic bias drew me in Thanks, Tim

I don't think anyone buys and flies a Lancair IV that doesn't think they can handle it. I however don't agree that the aircraft is only dangerous for the untrained or low time pilots, it has taken a lot of very experienced pilots. For my research it appears that an engine out scenario is the most challenging requiring high approach speeds, which will put you to the test when you're looking down at rough terrain, urban areas, etc. I wonder if it had a chute how much different the accident rates would be?

Those numbers are a bit "cooked".

Instead of using FAA fleet hours, like other airplanes being compared to the Cirrus, Cirrus computes their OWN fleet hours using service center data.

Immediately any sane statistician is going to be concerned that the two groups being compared are using different methods of collecting data.

It should be obvious that not every Cirrus gets serviced at a factory service center. Would you expect the service center aircraft to average more, equal, or less hours than the non service center maintained aircraft?

Basically, is it reasonable to extend the average hours of service center maintained aircraft to those not being serviced there?

Think about it if you dare.

The owner who has less money, flies less often, and is more likely to not have their airplane serviced at the factory service center.

Something is a bit fishy about the numbers, too.

In April 2009, Cirrus reported the SR fleet had 3M flights hours. Quote from press release:

"As of April 2009, total time on the worldwide Cirrus Aircraft SR-series fleet surpassed three million hours."

In April 10, 2104, Paul Bertorelli reported the Cirrus fleet had reached 6.0M hours. Quote from his article:

"Cirrus’ Todd Simmons said there have been 40 CAPS deployments in the 5600-aircraft Cirrus fleet, which recently hit the six million fleet-hour mark."

So there was 3M flight hours from April 2009 to April 2014, 5 years.

The COPA web site reported that the fleet amassed 2.7M hours in the last 3 years. Quote:

"0.82 fatal accidents Per 100,000 hours of flying time in past 36 months (22 accidents* in 2.7 million hours)"

Uh, if so, that means there was two years of 150K hours per year and then 3 years of 900K hours per year. Even accounting for fleet growth in units (only about 250/year), that is an unreasonable change in utilization.

Fails sanity check. Numbers are being screwed with. The underlying data and methodology is hidden, thus the numbers resound as "fact" for the believers even though they have no visibility into how it was computed.


What flyer are you talking about? I've not seen it.


It is the most directly comparable aircraft. Roughly the same age, cost to buy, performance, construction, capability, target market, etc.

The only major difference between the two is the chute.


Do you believe all 50 chute pulls are fatal accidents averted?

If you say yes, what does that say about Cirrus pilots finding themselves in so many fatal situations? What causes this risky behavior?

If you say no, then you admit the 50 "saves" overestimates the number of actual saves the chute has.

Or do you avoid thinking about it this way?

Every fatal accident is a "save" the chute didn't make.

Mike C.

Speaking of engineers as problem solvers:

A golfer invited three friends to play at his club: a minister, a doctor and an engineer.

After a few holes one of the guests complained "That foursome ahead of us is really slow -- all over the fairway, in the rough, four-putting holes -- could we ask to play through? The host replied "No, we don't like to do that. Those players are blind. They have a specially trained pro to help them line up shots, and our club lets them play free as a public service."

The minister said "Why, that's marvelous. What determination! I'm going to ask my congregation to pray for a miracle for them."

The doctor said "Maybe I can improve on that. I know an ophthalmologist who's having good success with experimental surgery; maybe he can help."

The engineer scratched his chin for a moment and said "Couldn't they play at night?"

Mike, curious how you came to believe that Cirrus computes the numbers one way while you also claim the methodology is hidden. How so?

Cheers
Rick

Got a reference? Any other airplanes being compared?

Cheers
Rick

Mike, here's a synopsis of the methodology. It's not about the service centers. It's about the airframe.

The group that does the work is the Reliability Engineering team inside Cirrus Aircraft. They want to know the frequency of component failure against flight hours. That helps determine what to prioritize when they encounter a flurry of failures, such as alternators, p-static, brakes, etc.

They maintain a database of Hobbs hours by serial number. Data comes from several sources, usually warranty cards in the first 3-5 years of operation, airworthiness directive compliance cards over the life of the aircraft, service bulletins when kits are ordered, and parachute repacks. Occasionally, Cirrus will certify a used aircraft and start a new warranty, so they get data on such older aircraft.

From the Hobbs data, they fit a Weibull distribution, commonly used for reliability measurements, and extrapolate to the fleet of almost 6,000 aircraft. BTW, they have data for about 75% of the fleet.

As you correctly pointed out, in the 2011 era, a major correction in that distribution was made. That upset the marketing department, who had issued those press releases, because the reality of 10-year-old Cirrus airframes was quite different than they expected, much lower in the out years than during the warranty period.

I provoked the collection of parachute repack data. From the first 60+ repacks, the average Hobbs time was 1200 hours, with a min of 375 hours and max of 3000+ hours. Since those planes were all 10 years old, it indicated that the first 3-5 years under warranty, the planes flew on average about 225 hours per year, while in the next six years, the planes flew only about 500 hours, or about 83 hours per year. Quite a difference.

Then we started seeing some interesting shifts. As used Cirrus aircraft were sold after repacks, their usage became much closer to new aircraft in their first 3-5 years. This suggests that owner/operators of new-to-them Cirrus aircraft fly them a lot.

Got any other manufacturer that shares such data with the type club?

And allows me to publish analyses based on their data?

See this wiki page for details: Cirrus Accident Rates

Cheers
Rick

Do you believe all 50 chute pulls are fatal accidents averted?

If you say yes, what does that say about Cirrus pilots finding themselves in so many fatal situations? What causes this risky behavior?

If you say no, then you admit the 50 "saves" overestimates the number of actual saves the chute has.

Or do you avoid thinking about it this way?

Every fatal accident is a "save" the chute didn't make.

Mike C.

Pick less informed, or passengers that don't troll the internet?



Ouch! Have to agree with Mike


Correct! That's the problem. They think they can, but many can not. You might be surprised how many hit the market 10 hrs after bought, or hit the ground.......

Thee have been a few high time pilots auger them in. But total time doesn't mean jack. Flying around an airliner for 1000s of hours can bring good experience but that experience can negatively transfer. I'm pretty blasé about Tstorms and ice, but not in the IV-P. Bad news.
Engine outs can be a problem. High glide speed. One fatal could have most likely been a walk away,but didn't have his shoulder harness on. The turbine fuel issues are a whole ' 'nother thing. Bad original design.
I have xavion on an iPad mini in mine. It shows all the airports in gliding distance. And the lancair has an excellent glide ratio. Biggest bad zone is rotation to about 4000'. After that good chance of gliding in somewhere. Parachute would only be good for about half to that time.

It's easy to say don't stall the airplane, but right now the #1 fatal cause for single engine airplanes is loss of control in flight, and that's nothing specific to Lancair either although the handling and stall characteristics you mention make it more susceptible to those occurrences becoming fatals.

I don't think anyone means to stall, its hammered in all of us from primary training, and by its nature aviation attracts a capable and intelligent subsection of the general population. I'd like to think I can do it better than the next guy, but what gives me the ability to say that? I don't know, good question.