One's "opinion" of Cirrus pilots is not a reason NOT to build the Cirrus Jet. I don't take "other pilots" into consideration when I'm airplane shopping. Neither does anyone else.

Why does anyone end up dead in a Mits? Why does anyone end up dead in a G4?

Relax Francis. Military aircraft don't play by the same rules.

Yes, actual break done in actual aircraft with actual passengers.

Almost all Naval Aviators on the way home from Tailhook.

Why does anyone end up dead in a Mits? Why does anyone end up dead in a G4?

Absolutely true.

Everything that makes you feel safer (whether it actually makes you truly safer or not) will allow you to rebalance your risk equation.

I will note that automobiles are different in that you take a risk from others far more so than in aviation.


I've analyzed the data and came to a conclusion. Present better data and I will certainly change.

Your lack of compelling data or argument is not my fault, so claiming some sort of mental defect on my part is inappropriate.

Mike C.

Mostly poor pilot decisions.

Last one: left the gear down single engine (not clear the pilot didn't induce the engine failure as well). Similar to the recent Wichita King Air accident in many respects.


Mostly poor pilot decisions.

Last one: pilots apparently left gust lock in place preventing rotation and they ran off the end of the runway.

Notably, the chute would not have helped in either one had the aircraft been so equipped.

Mike C.

Yup.

So your premise is "since pilots make bad decisions airplanes should be banned".

Absolutely true.

Everything that makes you feel safer (whether it actually makes you truly safer or not) will allow you to rebalance your risk equation.

I will note that automobiles are different in that you take a risk from others far more so than in aviation.


I've analyzed the data and came to a conclusion. Present better data and I will certainly change.

Your lack of compelling data or argument is not my fault, so claiming some sort of mental defect on my part is inappropriate.

Mike C.

The connecting ironic thing is that okay, let's say the Cirrus chute takes extra training for risk mitigation. Well the MIT has one better than that: it has an SFAR. Maybe Mike C would be happy if Cirrus had one to.

chute = sfar

I agree. What's the difference?

chute = sfar

I agree. What's the difference?

Yes I agree. Do you not see the point Sam is trying to make?

Mr. Ciholas strange argument stems around "anything extra to make a plane safer is actually making it less safe because it encourages pilots to take risks they should not take". New discoveries should not be made. If you can't fly and old twin with steam gauges safely then you shouldn't be flying blah blah.

The SFAR is encouraging pilots to fly a plane that should never have been built in the first place. Look how many people have been killed by the thing.

Here's the data I have:

NTSB gives data on accidents.

COPA records chute pulls.

Each instance can be examined.

Last 3 years, 21 fatal accidents, 27 chute pulls.

Cirrus pilots are flying themselves into fatal situations (or at least situations they THINK is fatal) 48 times. That seems like a large number to me.

If we assume all chute pulls are saves (an irrational extreme), then the chute was 56% effective at preventing a fatal accident once a pilot got into a fatal situation.

If we assume all chute pulls were NOT saves (an irrational extreme the other way), the chute was 0% effective.

If we judge that 9 of the 27 chute pulls were actually fatal accidents avoided (subjective, I admit), then the chute was 30% effective at preventing a fatal accident.

The claim of improvement in the last 18 months is weak as that went down from 12 in the prior 18 months to 9 in the current 18 months. This despite a marked up tick in chute pulls.

Depending on who does the analysis, over what time frame over what region, Cirrus fatal accident rates are at best no worse than other airplanes, or at worst, about twice the rate.

There is no definitively significant reduction in fatal accidents because the Cirrus has a chute.

There are pilots on this forum who honestly admit the chute allows them to make more use of the airplane. They have expanded the mission profile to include more risk in the mission that is, at least in their mind, compensated for by having a chute. The chute = second engine argument is extremely logical in my mind.


The effectiveness of the chute is not subject to a popularity contest, particularly not a self selected group like Cirrus owners.


Now that you admit the chute allows riskier missions, those a twin would normally do, then the only argument is if the chute provides the benefits the pilots expect.

My evidence and analysis says it doesn't.


Truth doesn't care who speaks it.


Are you going to find out what truth is that way, or find out what people want the truth to be? I think the latter.

That is like polling the Flat Earth Society if the Earth is flat.

Mike C.

If the pilot perceives more benefit to the safety device than it delivers, this is true.

Pilots fly to an acceptable level of risk. Anything that changes their equation changes what missions they undertake and what exposure they endure. A fervent belief in the value of the chute causes too much risk credit to applied. Then the pilot is flying beyond their risk tolerance and not realizing it.

This chute belief system is enhanced by Cirrus themselves claiming so many people have been "saved" by the chute.

In essence, people are dying due to marketing affecting their perceptions. The Culture of Cirrus reinforces this.


SFAR training started 8 years ago.

Fatal MU2 accidents in those 8 years: 2

Fatal MU2 accidents in the prior 8 years: 20

90% reduction. That is AMAZING.

The SFAR has been the most effective aviation safety program ever put in place in all history. It is so effective that there is talk of making something like this a standard twin turboprop requirement.

Mike C.

More precisely, the chute is what you do when ADM has already failed.

The chute tends to encourage poor ADM. It suppresses the self preservation instinct due to lack of perceived danger.

Essentially, the chute encourages pilots to be in situations where they need it.

And then it doesn't save the majority of them.

A Cirrus is safer with a chute.

A Cirrus pilot is more dangerous with a chute.

Training (and a change in tone from Cirrus marketing) could fix that. Hasn't so far.

Mike C.