Is it a sin to buy a Cirrus?

[RJBrown]

I’ve been fairly vocal about not being a Cirrus fan. 
As a flying machine. Apples to Apples Mooney is a better piece of equipment. 
I am not a fan of plastic. Aluminum is a better medium.
Relatively new equipment, the Cirrus, is barely “safer” than the entire fleet of planes that had their numbers peak in 1977. The ravages of age should make a new plane with younger everything safer. The difference is small.

The chute is a perceived safety improvement. It is not a real safety improvement. The safety improvement in Cirrus aircraft is marginal. Factors such as newer equipment and the intense type specific training offered by the factory to even secondary buyers should make a significant difference. I believe that the perceived safety advantage is in fact a real impairment to safety. Because of the “fail safe” perception Cirrus pilots have engaged in unsafe behaviors. As such the chute added to the apparent pilot attitude that it engenders is a net loss for safety. 
 
Real safety is an attitude. Unsafe activities that are treated with respect and care can show a statistically safer outcome that what should be a safer activity that is treated casually.

It has been statistically shown that as experience is gained flying the level of safety goes up. To a point. That point is when flight begins to be treated casually by the more experienced the safety level drops. 
 

The casual acceptance of risk caused by the mere presence of the chute appears to have erased any real safety advantage the chute may have.
 

I believe that the safety value of the value of the Cirrus with a chute is less than the safety value of the Mooney.

‘Equally new and up to date with equally appropriate training I would expect the Mooney to be safer statistically.

I believe the chute to be a significant sales advantage. We as a culture often buy a product of lower quality over a higher quality simply because of sales glitz and trendiness. Nothing breeds success like success. People often think “It is the best selling one, it must be the best one” People Follow the Crowd. 

I see the cost of the chute, both initially and even more so as a reoccurring expense, to be a significant negative.

From a marketing perspective Mooney should have added a chute. 
From my perspective I would rather have the second door.

It is unfortunate that Mooney thought like a pilot when they chose not to add a chute. Cirrus is successful because they “Thought like a scared spouse” Appeasing irrational thought sells planes. Cirrus is successful because they pander to that irrational behavior. The Cirrus never had to meet some safety certification requirements because they had the chute. 
 I would like to have seen the Cirrus fully certified without the chute. Had it been certified without the chute it could remain flyable once the chute timed out. Then we could see if it really made a difference. Cirrus knew better than to provide such an experiment with such a control, it could have proven their chute safety theorem wrong.

If Mooney could add a chute to their plane as an option who would chose it?

 

[Schllc]

8 hours ago, RJBrown said:

Because of the “fail safe” perception Cirrus pilots have engaged in unsafe behaviors. As such the chute added to the apparent pilot attitude that it engenders is a net loss for safety. 

Exactly!

Very well said. 

[Davidv]

10 hours ago, RJBrown said:

The casual acceptance of risk caused by the mere presence of the chute appears to have erased any real safety advantage the chute may have.

There may be statistics on the number of lives saved by the chute, but the one piece of data that's missing are the number of chute pulls that never should have occurred.  It's impossible to quantify since there's no way to determine what the pilot would have done if he/she didn't have a chute.  Would they have still taken off in low visibility in the mountains? Was there a place to land after an engine failure that didn't require a chute pull? Maybe or maybe not.  In any case, there is no denying that the chute provides some incremental (however small) amount of risk mitigation but I've always questioned the statistics on lives saved.

[Schllc]

3 hours ago, Davidv said:

There may be statistics on the number of lives saved by the chute, but the one piece of data that's missing are the number of chute pulls that never should have occurred.  It's impossible to quantify since there's no way to determine what the pilot would have done if he/she didn't have a chute.  Would they have still taken off in low visibility in the mountains? Was there a place to land after an engine failure that didn't require a chute pull? Maybe or maybe not.  In any case, there is no denying that the chute provides some incremental (however small) amount of risk mitigation but I've always questioned the statistics on lives saved.

Mark Twain said there are “Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics”.....

[MikeOH]

I have been reading the typical Cirrus cynical diatribes above with some mixture of amusement, disgust, and confusion.  Here we are, as an ever diminishing GA population, bemoaning the lack of progress, stoic technology, and unwillingness for manufacturers to take a risk and better serve their markets.  Yet, along comes Cirrus which has been successful beyond what any reasonable estimation would have been when they launched; they've bested all of their competitors...combined!  But, rather than even a drip of praise we are regaled with denigrating comments such as, "thought like a scared spouse," and "pander to that irrational behavior". Maybe, just maybe, Cirrus actually analyzed, in an actual business sense (as opposed to wanton irrational speculation) as to what product would sell and grow the GA market...NAH, that couldn't be it <sarcasm>

Then there's the barely veiled "no real pilot needs a chute (or now, the apparently popular slight, shute), and/or blaming bad decisions on the chute's presence.  So, how many military pilots have one of these terrible devices strapped to their backs when they go flying (and, I'm not talking missions into battle)?  It seems to me that common sense would say that if highly trained pilots, flying very well maintained aircraft, find that chutes provide a way to mitigate risk, then GA pilots in their machines might benefit as well.  Ah, but THAT chute is strapped to their backs, not the plane's..and that makes all the difference, I guess <more sarcasm>. Let's throw in autopilots, GPS, and all glass for the ultimate in situational awareness and risk mitigation.  Sure would think pilots with all that stuff may be making bad decisions because of having those items on board.  Where's the Garmin bashing?  But, that logic falls by the wayside, it would appear.

Then we come to the plethora of 'statistics' where random unsupported numbers and speculative premises are tossed out as 'data', but only in the worst possible light; the unsupported nature of that speculation could just as easily be spun to support the use of chutes...but, you never are going to see that when Cirrus bashing is in full bloom!

For equal hull values and pilot experience, I'd be curious how insurance rates for Cirrus weigh in.

Oh, well.  Cirrus keeps making money...and haters keep hating.

[carusoam]

4 hours ago, MikeOH said:

I have been reading the typical Cirrus cynical diatribes above with some mixture of amusement, disgust, and confusion.  Here we are, as an ever diminishing GA population, bemoaning the lack of progress, stoic technology, and unwillingness for manufacturers to take a risk and better serve their markets.  Yet, along comes Cirrus which has been successful beyond what any reasonable estimation would have been when they launched; they've bested all of their competitors...combined!  But, rather than even a drip of praise we are regaled with denigrating comments such as, "thought like a scared spouse," and "pander to that irrational behavior". Maybe, just maybe, Cirrus actually analyzed, in an actual business sense (as opposed to wanton irrational speculation) as to what product would sell and grow the GA market...NAH, that couldn't be it <sarcasm>

Then there's the barely veiled "no real pilot needs a chute (or now, the apparently popular slight, shute), and/or blaming bad decisions on the chute's presence.  So, how many military pilots have one of these terrible devices strapped to their backs when they go flying (and, I'm not talking missions into battle)?  It seems to me that common sense would say that if highly trained pilots, flying very well maintained aircraft, find that chutes provide a way to mitigate risk, then GA pilots in their machines might benefit as well.  Ah, but THAT chute is strapped to their backs, not the plane's..and that makes all the difference, I guess <more sarcasm>. Let's throw in autopilots, GPS, and all glass for the ultimate in situational awareness and risk mitigation.  Sure would think pilots with all that stuff may be making bad decisions because of having those items on board.  Where's the Garmin bashing?  But, that logic falls by the wayside, it would appear.

Then we come to the plethora of 'statistics' where random unsupported numbers and speculative premises are tossed out as 'data', but only in the worst possible light; the unsupported nature of that speculation could just as easily be spun to support the use of chutes...but, you never are going to see that when Cirrus bashing is in full bloom!

For equal hull values and pilot experience, I'd be curious how insurance rates for Cirrus weigh in.

Oh, well.  Cirrus keeps making money...and haters keep hating.

Mike, I was with you up to the point where you went on the attack of my M20C friend from Europe...

Not everyone’s spelling is perfect....

Sometimes a misspelling is just that...

What explains the Cirrus pilot entering a traffic pattern at full cruise speed?

The chute isn’t going to help keep the plane in the pattern...

So...

If everyone was making fun of this situation...

Everyone survived...

Nobody is going to repeat this horrible airmanship, knowingly...

Wait for the Cirrus community response....

They spend so many dollars trying to instill confidence in their planes... Their training systems are top notch....

The plane didn’t cause this accident...  and the accident surely didn’t have to happen...

There is one guy at the center of it... and three people that are lucky to be alive...

I wonder how that conversation is going today..? 
 

Do you think the SIC is saying anything to the Cirrus pilot?

MS is a small community... Try to not throw darts around... it doesn’t help with what we are trying to achieve...

Best regards,

-a-

[Ibra]

10 hours ago, Davidv said:

It's impossible to quantify since there's no way to determine what the pilot would have done if he/she didn't have a chute.  Would they have still taken off in low visibility in the mountains? Was there a place to land after an engine failure that didn't require a chute pull? Maybe or maybe not.  In any case, there is no denying that the chute provides some incremental (however small) amount of risk mitigation but I've always questioned the statistics on lives saved.

Indeed, it's hard to measure that conditional bit for planning & execution, there is moral hazards in planning and not much data in flying, maybe one can get the data on some simulator?

At least all chute pulls I know about in the UK, all happened in very benign weather & terrain conditions: sunny day burger run over flat terrain, so a bit far away from the mountains fling with 800m RVR and 200ft ceiling at night, anyway no one flies this scenario regularly...   

I tend to rent SR22 & DA42 for the FIKI option, as M20J is pretty naked, the strategy is the same as M20J: avoid icing like plague, climb through in 5min or go back and land or left/right, de-ice is bloody expensive to cruise on all the time, the same about the draggy chute or the greedy twin

It will be interesting to know about the extreme environments where chute & twin are required and look at the logbook to see how many flights are done in these? I doubt people who claim a huge benefit of chute & twin for regular flying in UK (or in sunny flat Florida) actually cross North Atlantic on every day in winter or fly the Rockies every night? so the incremental amount is very small 

Outside the extreme environment scenarios, the main benefit some pilot friends have from chute+twin is it keeps them flying with their families (wife & kids) & pax who are skeptical, it's very good that they have an aircraft to keep GA flying going, that would not have been possible in a Cessna, Piper or Mooney   

One has to keep in mind that there are some residual risks, I make no joke that EFATO at 250ft is flown the same way in Astir Glider, M20J, SR22, DA42, this risk is present on every takeoff I accept from unfamiliar places, only at 300ft where I would notice that it's a "reckless decision to takeoff", the only choice is wing level on slow speed to trees & built up areas ahead, one has to be happy with that or fly in 9000ft runways !

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Ibra

[RJBrown]

Once again a rude reply that quoted me twice but totally ignores my premise.

In reality the Cirrus is not a better, safer aircraft. It is an aircraft that is well marketed.

Yes, Cirrus business model works.

As in all sales situations what gets sold is PERCIEVED value.

Real value is often ignored. Actual statistical data is not as important to sales as feelings.

‘Just as in the case of the Scion XB vs the Kia Soul. The best product lost to the best marketing plan.

Oscar Meyer may not have the best product in the segment but you all can sing their song.

American consumers buy what their told to. Even when spending a million dollars on a toy.

And no, the pilot of N416DJ was not a real pilot. He was an example of Cirrus training and marketing.

The training just can’t seem to overcome the marketing. Damned if you do damned if you don’t.

 

[GeeBee]

The three P's of marketing. Product-Price-Promotion. A fair product, well promoted can fetch a good price. A poor product, cheaply sold may need no promotion. A mediocre product, well promoted may in fact common a high price. It's not the bait on the hook, it is how you bait the hook.

[MikeOH]

10 hours ago, RJBrown said:

Once again a rude reply that quoted me twice ..

Yeah, 'cause "thought like a scared spouse" and "appeasing irrational thought" is such polite prose.  Apparently, bashing a company you appear to have zero respect for is perfectly okay

[bradp]

On 5/17/2021 at 8:40 AM, RJBrown said:

Real safety is an attitude. Unsafe activities that are treated with respect and care can show a statistically safer outcome that what should be a safer activity that is treated casually.

So the combination of human factors and equipment factors (ie chute) should be an optimal path to improved safety outcomes 

[GeeBee]

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/just-days-after-centennial-miracle-another-midair-and-another-caps-pull/

 

[N9201A]

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/just-days-after-centennial-miracle-another-midair-and-another-caps-pull/
 

Witnesses reported fog and very low vis when they heard the engine stop...did the chute affect the decision to fly above/in zero/zero weather in which a safe emergency landing was unlikely?

The fire department took five hours to extract to plane’s occupants. The plane came to rest seventy-five (!) feet AGL, in the trees.

How terrifying would that be, to survive a chute pull descent from cruise, to end up suspended seven stories above the ground? Maybe they need to equip the cabin with an escape rope to enable a rappel to the ground?

[NJMac]

If I could add a BRS to a Bonanza, I probably would.  That would be a nice setup, IMO.

[Bob - S50]

9 hours ago, N9201A said:

Witnesses reported fog and very low vis when they heard the engine stop...did the chute affect the decision to fly above/in zero/zero weather in which a safe emergency landing was unlikely?

The fire department took five hours to extract to plane’s occupants. The plane came to rest seventy-five (!) feet AGL, in the trees.

How terrifying would that be, to survive a chute pull descent from cruise, to end up suspended seven stories above the ground? Maybe they need to equip the cabin with an escape rope to enable a rappel to the ground?

My guess is that the pilot made the decision to deploy the chute and once it was successful, shut down the engine.

[NJMac]

2 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said:

My guess is that the pilot made the decision to deploy the chute and once it was successful, shut down the engine.

The pre flight briefing for my test flight included:. If Im incapacitated, push the straight and level button on the autopilot, pull these two levers back, and pull this handle under whatever airspeed.  

[MikeOH]

11 hours ago, N9201A said:

Witnesses reported fog and very low vis when they heard the engine stop...did the chute affect the decision to fly above/in zero/zero weather in which a safe emergency landing was unlikely?

1) Single engine pilot launches into low weather

2) Single engine piston pilot launches into low weather with a chute.

3) Multi-engine piston pilot launches into low weather.

4) Multi-engine jet pilot launches into low weather.

When do we get to denigrate the risk that an individual pilot deems acceptable risk?

For gawd's sake, most of the general public thinks ALL of us GA pilots are risk taking nut jobs! And, statistically, they are correct.  Hell, we should all be taking the airlines to work rather than our cars

[carusoam]

 “It took crews approximately five hours, utilizing rope systems, to safely extract three occupants from the single-engine aircraft.” No one was injured and the pilot and passengers “were quickly reunited with their families.”
 

hmmmm....

When did the beatings begin..?

1) While stuck in the plane for hours....

2) After all of the feet were safely on the ground...

3) Once the PIC got home late for dinner....

4) The Ear witnesses heard the plane go silent....

 

Sounds like a story being used to draw attention away from last week’s story....

Hey look this happens to professionally trained Air Force people....

Hey look this happens to Cirrus pilots all the time....

Hey look everyone lived...

 

Crazy media...  

Best regards,

-a-