Because they died.

Mike C.

Marriage? Family? Now there's a sure way to crash and burn

I know they do. Local guy to Billings was at 13,000 in northern Utah about 5 years ago, lost an engine in his 310 and couldn't handle it.

Because they died.

Mike C.

(For the sake of more similarity, let's use Cirrus and Corvalis)

Depends on YOU.

If you NEVER fly the Cirrus on a trip you wouldn't take the Corvalis, then the Cirrus is probably a bit safer, one extra escape mechanism the Corvalis doesn't have.

If you fly the Cirrus like it is a twin, in worse weather, over more inhospitable terrain, in more chance of icing, and you wouldn't do that in the Corvalis, then the Corvalis is safer.

Again, it depends on YOU.

Somehow, the Corvalis pilots tend to avoid more situations requiring the chute or ending up in fatal accidents as compared to the Cirrus pilots.

The accident history shows the chute affects pilot's decisions. The stronger you believe in the chute, the more effect it has on you.

If I sold an airplane to folks telling them the plane is invincible, it will never kill you, there would be dead bodies everywhere.

How many pilots here have flown a sim and "died" in one? I'd be pretty sure that number is close to 100%. That's an example of the "invincible" airplane effect.

Making a pilot feel safe is the most dangerous thing in aviation.

Mike C.

Because they died.

Mike C.

Propulsion!

Because they are all twin jets.

And that is why this chute debate is going on in this thread. Give me a twin TF50, no chute, and that airplane is safer than the SF50. No doubt in my mind about that.

And then, as a bonus, it is also faster, farther, and cheaper.

There is no downside to being a twin jet over a single. None.

Mike C.

(For the sake of more similarity, let's use Cirrus and Corvalis)

The human is the issue. Specifically the effect the plane equipment has on the decisions the human makes.

A Cirrus airplane is very safe. It causes an accident extremely rarely.

A Cirrus pilot is another story.

Mike C.

Same you but different decisions. You make different choices based on equipment you have.

The airplane changes you. This is perfectly normal. But it means you+Cirrus is a different situation than you+Mooney. It just is.


So you admit the chute made pilots more dangerous until 18 months ago? If not, how do you explain the change in stats you spoke of?

Perhaps they didn't change all that much. Did you actually go look at the NSTB site?

I count 9 fatal SR accidents in the last 18 months (6/18/2013 to 12/18/2014), one every 2 months on average.

You sure that is what we define as "beddy beddy good" these days?

The prior 18 months (12/18/2012 to 6/17/2013) had 12 fatal accidents.

So there was a recent reduction, but hardly one of seemingly great statistical significance.

I'd like Cirrus to have 0 fatal accidents like everyone else here. But crowing about recent improvements seems a bit misplaced.

Mike C.

SFAR (or any type training) teaches pilots how to fly safely.

Red handle teaches pilots they can fly dangerously and escape.

Mike C.

Mike,

You are repeating the same arguments for seat belts, twin engines and airbags. Basically any safety device in aviation or automobiles. When you look at history, you will find that risk takers always will use any excuse to justify his/her behavior to take additional risks.

You will never be convinced about a chute, you have a preconceived notion and nothing will convince you otherwise.

Tim

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

Since everyone is mixing statistics with opinion. Take a look at the hours on a used Cirrus vs. Anything on controller. It is not uncommon to see 2005-06 Cirri on their second engine. Compare that to the typical older bird, engines 20-30 years old with 500 hours. So I'll have to agree with Mike on this one, a Mooney sitting in a hanger covered by 3 inches of dust is far less likely to break up in a thunderstorm than a Cirrus.