Is it a sin to buy a Cirrus?

[Marauder]

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[ZuluZulu]

3 hours ago, Marauder said:

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Not sure I agree with that guy, who seems personally invested in Cirrus and is wearing a Cirrus on his shirt, that the occupants of any other plane would certainly be dead because flying a Cirrus is the only reason they would survive.

[carusoam]

Flying in a Cirrus is one thing...

Flying like a Cirrus pilot with a chute is something else....

There is something important to remember when operating near parallel runways...

The Key Lime pilot didn’t know what hit him... or even that he got hit...

KL was straight in for the left runway...

Cirrus was in a right hand traffic pattern... for the right runway...

Control tower asks the Cirrus pilot about what he was doing...  too late.

-a-

 

[ArtVandelay]

Not sure I agree with that guy, who seems personally invested in Cirrus and is wearing a Cirrus on his shirt, that the occupants of any other plane would certainly be dead because flying a Cirrus is the only reason they would survive.

Still had both wings and tail when under parachute, tail broke off during salvaging.

[Mufflerbearing]

I was going to say something really negative about the Cirrus pilot not needing the chute if he was actively aviating, navigating and communicating.  I decided against it. 

I sold a Corvette that was a capable track car because I didn't want to have the stigma of being a waxer wannabe.  I'm afraid that I could not own a Cirrus because of the stigma that is being earned by these pilots.

[Boilermonkey]

I'm betting the Cirrus had no chance of seeing the Key Lime in time to correct.  He overshot final, was turning with his left wing up, and was unable to see the traffic over taking from the left aft position.

Lack of SA and overshooting final certainly played a major role.

Key Lime pilot...listening to the ATC...amazing calm.

 

[RJBrown]

Cirrus was a “Cirrus Training Center” airplane.

Cirrus training, do something stupid, pull chute.

Sorry, not sorry.

[LANCECASPER]

3 hours ago, RJBrown said:

Cirrus was a “Cirrus Training Center” airplane.

Cirrus training, do something stupid, pull chute.

Sorry, not sorry.

Although in this case if he hadn’t pulled the chute he had very little chance. If that was his training and he followed it, good for him.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, RJBrown said:

Cirrus was a “Cirrus Training Center” airplane.

Cirrus training, do something stupid, pull chute.

Sorry, not sorry.

At least he didn’t land gear up like so many Mooney pilots do.

Clarence

[ZuluZulu]

12 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

Still had both wings and tail when under parachute, tail broke off during salvaging.

I really don't have an axe to grind with Cirruses like some do.  I just took exception to the idea that a Cirrus is the only way you can survive if you decide to scalp a Metroliner.  Mooney airframe is pretty strong too.  And Cirrus isn't the only plane with a chute.

[RJBrown]

3 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

Although in this case if he hadn’t pulled the chute he had very little chance. If that was his training and he followed it, good for him.

If he had been properly trained as a pilot he would never have “needed” the chute. 
both sides of the coin were his “training”

Edited May 14, 2021 by RJBrown

[Guest]

Would all of those who’ve never made a mistake while flying please raise your hand?

Clarence

[zaitcev]

On 3/28/2021 at 4:49 PM, NJMac said:

One of my aviation mentors is pushing me into a Cirrus. ..  One I'm looking at has TKS and 1080 useful.

I am fond of saying that the only reason why I'm flying a Mooney is that I'm poor. However, I noticed that Cirrus is less friendly to tall pilots. I am 6'7" tall and I am comfortable in M20E. In a newer Cirrus (G5 and above), I cannot look forward. The seat is too high for me, so I am looking above the windscreen. I have to crane my neck in many airplanes and it's not great. So, make sure you like that Cirrus and you can afford it. Then go for it.

[LANCECASPER]

2 hours ago, RJBrown said:

If he had been properly trained as a pilot he would never have “needed” the chute. 
both sides of the coin were his “training”

If that argument was true, none of us would carry insurance. Why would we need it? We've all been trained. What could go wrong? Sometimes the most well-trained people make mistakes. None of us is perfect. That's why they call them "accidents" rather than "intentionals". If someone wasn't very familiar with that airport or if the last time they flew in they were only landing on 17L, I can see how this could happen. Should it have happened? No. But it did.

We all agree that what happened was bad. Accidents are bad. The fact that he's still alive to tell about it says more than everything that's been said so far.

[RJBrown]

5 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

If that argument was true, none of us would carry insurance. Why would we need it? We've all been trained. What could go wrong? Sometimes the most well-trained people make mistakes. None of us is perfect. That's why they call them "accidents" rather than "intentionals". If someone wasn't very familiar with that airport or if the last time they flew in they were only landing on 17L, I can see how this could happen. Should it have happened? No. But it did.

We all agree that what happened was bad. Accidents are bad. The fact that he's still alive to tell about it says more than everything that's been said so far.

This was not an “accident” it was an expected result.

The plane was based at Centennial. It was a Cirrus Training Center airplane. It shows a glaring shortcoming in how Cirrus pilots are trained and chosen. This pilot was a threat to everyone who took the time to learn. Cirrus will use this example to glorify their product. 
 

This picture shows another “Cirrus trained” pilot from Colorado. 
When there is a distinct pattern it’s not really an accident.

The pilot who caused the crash at Centennial showed a pattern of poor decision making in just this flight. There was not one mistake that snuck up and “got” him. He was an “accident” waiting to happen.
 

Lazy people who would never have otherwise picked up flying are suckered in by the sexy flying car with a “safety” chute.

Darwin is the only one sifting out the bad Cirrus pilots. When money is the only criteria to become a Cirrus pilot expected patterns develope.

 

[RJBrown]

How about this “Cirrus Save” https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/89747

Another Cirrus Trained pilot. Practicing IFR approaches at night without a safety pilot lost control and pulled the chute.

Was this almost crash caused by attitudes surrounding having the chute or was it as Cirrus brags another “save”

These three Colorado examples appear to be part of the pattern.

I would like to see real statistics. I expect that a Cirrus pilot is significantly more likely to be saved by the chute than other pilots were lost because they didn’t have one.
Cirrus own statistics seem to bear out my expectation. According to Cirrus:

Cirrus fatalities per 100000 hours are marginally better than the whole fleet. (.84 to .93) But if each save was added to the fatal list then Cirrus would be significantly worse. Currently Cirrus own data shows there are more saves than fatals by about 2.5 saves per 1 fatal accident. What this seems to say is Cirrus pilots get into situations that “would” have created fatal accidents at a rate 3.4 times higher than the general fleet.
What is it about Cirrus pilots that is causing this?  
 Is it an airplane design issue? I believe not per se. All high performance planes demand high performance pilots.

Is it an issue related to the type of pilot this marketing appeals to?

I believe that most Cirrus pilots are “real pilots” I don’t want to disparage the whole contingent.

I also believe that there is a smaller group that become pilots because of the perceived safety of the chute. Trading real pilot judgment and skills for that perceived safety. These pilots are the ones that make the news. They fly 169 knot downwind legs that don’t parallel the runway. They fly without a distinct downwind to base or base to final turns. They fly outside outside the lines. They fly into others. They are unsafe. 

 

 

[LANCECASPER]

14 hours ago, RJBrown said:

This was not an “accident” it was an expected result.

accident: an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage or loss

Yes, we all understand cause and effect but he did not wake up with the intention of this happening. 

The result is that two insurance companies will write checks. Both pilots lived. Unfortunately accidents happen, on the average, everyday, but it's nice to pick out one or two things that we can learn and not do. Learning from other people, and not having to make the same mistakes ourselves is a great training aid. But then, the most important thing I learn when reading about any of these things when the pilot survived is: what did they do right that helped them reach the ground safely and live another day?

Aviation accidents have been happening for well over 100 years now. If we vilify every mistake made, we are missing the point. Humility - realizing that we are just as imperfect as any other human that has ever lived, keeps us in the right frame of mind. A bad day can happen to any of us, yes even you.

You truly do not know what you are talking about when it comes to Cirrus pilots. I like to learn from everyone. I've been a paying member of COPA (Cirrus Owners and Pilot's Association) for over 7 years. As a group, they put more emphasis on training than any current group that I am aware of, and the manufacturer is on the same page as the owners. What manufacturer do you know of that will provide initial training to someone who buys a used airplane of their brand? Cirrus does. You may or not like their airplane. I don't particularly like it, but I respect that everyone has the right to buy what they like. As a group however they have done more in the past twenty years to improve their safety record than any other current group. People see two Mooney accidents in one week and determine that Mooneys are unsafe. We hear of a chute pulled and we say he took the easy way out. It's funny, minds are a lot like parachutes, they only work when they are open. We can learn a lot from the  Cirrus group. The last I heard we Mooney pilots have an average of three reported gear-up accidents every week, just in the U. S., not to mention all of the other ways to bend up an airplane.

There was some bad decision making in what the Cirrus pilot did, but hopefully he will learn from that and be a better pilot as a result.  In my opinion, your condescending judgmental, "I'm better than everyone else" attitude is much more dangerous. I have made a personal decision to ignore you on Mooneyspace,

[CoffeeCan]

3 hours ago, RJBrown said:

How about this “Cirrus Save” https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/89747

Another Cirrus Trained pilot. Practicing IFR approaches at night without a safety pilot lost control and pulled the chute.

Was this almost crash caused by attitudes surrounding having the chute or was it as Cirrus brags another “save”

These three Colorado examples appear to be part of the pattern.

I would like to see real statistics. I expect that a Cirrus pilot is significantly more likely to be saved by the chute than other pilots were lost because they didn’t have one.
Cirrus own statistics seem to bear out my expectation. According to Cirrus:

Cirrus fatalities per 100000 hours are marginally better than the whole fleet. (.84 to .93) But if each save was added to the fatal list then Cirrus would be significantly worse. Currently Cirrus own data shows there are more saves than fatals by about 2.5 saves per 1 fatal accident. What this seems to say is Cirrus pilots get into situations that “would” have created fatal accidents at a rate 3.4 times higher than the general fleet.
What is it about Cirrus pilots that is causing this?  
 Is it an airplane design issue? I believe not per se. All high performance planes demand high performance pilots.

Is it an issue related to the type of pilot this marketing appeals to?

I believe that most Cirrus pilots are “real pilots” I don’t want to disparage the whole contingent.

I also believe that there is a smaller group that become pilots because of the perceived safety of the chute. Trading real pilot judgment and skills for that perceived safety. These pilots are the ones that make the news. They fly 169 knot downwind legs that don’t parallel the runway. They fly without a distinct downwind to base or base to final turns. They fly outside outside the lines. They fly into others. They are unsafe. 

 

 

I agree. I know a couple Cirrus owners who are truly disciplined pilots who do good work. But I have long suspected that there is a subset of Cirrus owners who are, as you say, unsafe. 

I have often wondered what the Cirrus fatality rate would be if you added all the chute deployments (or even just 75% of them for argument's sake!) to the fatality rate... and the number you've come up with, a relative risk rate of 3.4 compared to the rest of the GA fleet, is damned scary. 

[RJBrown]

1 hour ago, LANCECASPER said:

 

You truly do not know what you are talking about when it comes to Cirrus pilots. I like to learn from everyone. I've been a paying member of COPA (Cirrus Owners and Pilot's Association) for over 7 years. As a group, they put more emphasis on training than any current group that I am aware of, and the manufacturer is on the same page as the owners. What manufacturer do you know of that will provide initial training to someone who buys a used airplane of their brand? Cirrus does. 
 

And: with this greater emphasis on training they get into a situation where they either pull the handle or die.

3.4 times as often as the norm. This number was pulled off the Cirrus website. 
They spin every pull as a save, BUT

Yes the fatality rate is almost the same.

‘If the chute was a great idea why are the numbers about the same. 
 

I am asking you then. What variable causes so many more “emergencies” 

What is causing the need for all these “saves” if the fatality rate is not significantly impacted.

 

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

This is the only Cirrus that interests me:  https://cirrusaircraft.com/aircraft/vision-jet/

If you want something eye-opening, read the story about the first Cirrus chute user.  I am convinced the guy just wanted to go down in history as the first to use the chute.  Many others use the chute without full effort to try alternatives.  That also goes to show Mooneys are pilots' airplanes; if you prefer Cirrus over Mooney, then...

[jaylw314]

2 hours ago, CoffeeCan said:

I agree. I know a couple Cirrus owners who are truly disciplined pilots who do good work. But I have long suspected that there is a subset of Cirrus owners who are, as you say, unsafe. 

I have often wondered what the Cirrus fatality rate would be if you added all the chute deployments (or even just 75% of them for argument's sake!) to the fatality rate... and the number you've come up with, a relative risk rate of 3.4 compared to the rest of the GA fleet, is damned scary. 

That's not a particularly useful measurement, since it's confounded by the probability that not all the chute pulls would have resulted in fatal accidents in the first place.  How many other incidents in other aircraft would have resulted in recoveries and "holy s--t!" moments instead of chute pulls?  Given the fact that Cirrus is ostensibly trying to engender a "pull first, ask questions later" mentality, another more likely conclusion from that relative risk increase is that Cirrus pilots, indeed, are behaving that way.  

[ZuluZulu]

2 hours ago, AH-1 Cobra Pilot said:

That also goes to show Mooneys are pilots' airplanes; if you prefer Cirrus over Mooney, then...

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but New Mooney says we are officially not pilots.  Own it!

[RJBrown]

1 hour ago, ZuluZulu said:

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but New Mooney says we are officially not pilots.  Own it!

I guess I live at the right place!

[Guest]

12 hours ago, RJBrown said:

How about this “Cirrus Save” https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/89747

Another Cirrus Trained pilot. Practicing IFR approaches at night without a safety pilot lost control and pulled the chute.

Was this almost crash caused by attitudes surrounding having the chute or was it as Cirrus brags another “save”

These three Colorado examples appear to be part of the pattern.

I would like to see real statistics. I expect that a Cirrus pilot is significantly more likely to be saved by the chute than other pilots were lost because they didn’t have one.
Cirrus own statistics seem to bear out my expectation. According to Cirrus:

Cirrus fatalities per 100000 hours are marginally better than the whole fleet. (.84 to .93) But if each save was added to the fatal list then Cirrus would be significantly worse. Currently Cirrus own data shows there are more saves than fatals by about 2.5 saves per 1 fatal accident. What this seems to say is Cirrus pilots get into situations that “would” have created fatal accidents at a rate 3.4 times higher than the general fleet.
What is it about Cirrus pilots that is causing this?  
 Is it an airplane design issue? I believe not per se. All high performance planes demand high performance pilots.

Is it an issue related to the type of pilot this marketing appeals to?

I believe that most Cirrus pilots are “real pilots” I don’t want to disparage the whole contingent.

I also believe that there is a smaller group that become pilots because of the perceived safety of the chute. Trading real pilot judgment and skills for that perceived safety. These pilots are the ones that make the news. They fly 169 knot downwind legs that don’t parallel the runway. They fly without a distinct downwind to base or base to final turns. They fly outside outside the lines. They fly into others. They are unsafe. 

 

 

There is also a cohort of Mooney pilots who made stupid mistakes as well. Remember the Navy pilot who took off from the mid field turn off on a short strip and ended up parking his Mooney in someone’s house?

Or the Mooney pilot who attempted a take off from a short strip when the engine in his 231 wasn’t making full power, he killed a passenger when they flew into a large dirt berm at the end of the runway.

A Cirrus guy might say that the Mooney steel cage makes Mooney pilots believe they can survive anything.

Clarence

 

[Bob - S50]

9 hours ago, CoffeeCan said:

I agree. I know a couple Cirrus owners who are truly disciplined pilots who do good work. But I have long suspected that there is a subset of Cirrus owners who are, as you say, unsafe. 

I have often wondered what the Cirrus fatality rate would be if you added all the chute deployments (or even just 75% of them for argument's sake!) to the fatality rate... and the number you've come up with, a relative risk rate of 3.4 compared to the rest of the GA fleet, is damned scary. 

I'll start by paraphrasing Ron White.  "If you need a new hip, you can go to an orthopedic surgeon and they can fix that.  If you have a bad valve in your heart  you can go to a cardiac surgeon and they can fix that.  If you have problems with a sinus, you can go to an ENT and they can fix that.  But you can't fix stupid."

There are good pilots and bad pilots in all makes and models.  I will say though that I've already noticed, at least on the COPA forum, that Cirrus and the band of merry CSIP's have done a good job of brainwashing their followers.

Someone on the forum brought up a case when he was flying with a friend, on a windy day, who asked what he would do if the engine quit with 30 MPH winds on the ground.  Almost every one of them said they would pull the chute.  I tried to point out, that with 30 MPH winds, that's about half the stall speed.  If they pulled the chute, they would hit the ground not vertically, but wherever the wind took them with a horizontal velocity of 30 MPH.  And when they did land, the chute would likely flip the plane over and drag them for awhile.  I tried to point out that if they simply turned and flew the plane into the wind over a nice field, they would hit the ground with the same horizontal velocity, but they could steer the plane to avoid obstacles, the chute would not drag them, and they would hit with a vertical velocity of zero instead of 1700 FPM.  I think there was ONE pilot who got it.  The others all still insisted that pulling the chute was the safest option.

There are also many who fly approaches IAW the FOM which calls for 50% flaps and 100 KIAS on final.  If they break out below 500' AGL they are supposed to land with 50% flaps.  I pointed out that book speed for VFR flight and 50% flaps is 85 KIAS and that 100 KIAS makes them a category B aircraft.  Still no answer as to why they recommend 100 KIAS, but I suspect it's the lawyers... if 85 is good, 100 is better.  The airplane is a runway pig even at full flaps because it has about 50% more energy at touchdown than the J.  That means 50% more runway.  Depending on my weight, if I configure for full flaps I might fly final at 72 to 80 KIAS.  Flying at 85 on final with 50% flaps would mean another 13 - 40% more energy.  Not what I want to do on a short wet runway.  Some got it, some did not.  Many ignore the FOM and reconfigure to full flaps, many do not.

A superior pilot uses their superior judgement to avoid needing their superior skills to save their superior ass.

There, but for the grace of God go I.