I liked the blog and am interested in the accident rates between Cessna and Cirrus. I recently sold a 2006 T182T and am purchasing a 2003 Cirrus. I read Mr. Taylors blog at the request of a Cessan dealer friend of mine. He wanted me to buy a Cessna 400 from him. I have to agree with some of the comments to Mr. Taylor at the end of his blog. I do not think you can just dismiss the flights where the pilot pulled the chute as Mr. Taylor does which helps his case. Additionally I looked at the NTSB summaries and for what ever reason, the Cirrus fatel accident planes carried more people on average also affecting the stats. I liked my 182 for short flights, the switch to the Cirrus is for Cross Country capability. While I am sure that I will recieve howls from 182 fans, it was just too slow for me and too range limited. The Cirrus is better on both counts. The reason I bring this up is the use of the planes may be different which may also make a difference. Flying in a local area that you know well is very different from flying cross country to an airport you have never seen.

If you read the NTSB reports it is clear that like most GA accidents pilot error was the cause. Controlled flight into terrain, landing short, etc. Few appear to be plane related and the ones that were, were not airframe related, but engine related. Lastly, I would be interested in a direct comparison to the Cessna 400 since it seems to be much closer to the Cirrus.

At the end of the day I think more training in all planes is required. That drives up the cost of owning a plane and would surely draw objection from many pilots. Consider that most days that I flew this winter I was the only pilot flying from my airport. How current could the rest of the pilots that are summer pilots be.

By the way I live in Buffalo, I did not know your friend, but I hated to see the news and I feel awful for both families and friends like yourself. Buffalo has had a bad year for both GA and Commercial Accidents (The crash of the Contintental flight.) Let's hope that both accident rates change this year and forever more.

I also hope that my comments are not looked back on in the future as being ironic. My only concern in flying has been the piston engine. If my pocket book can ever afford a turbine engine, I am moving up immediately. While engine failures are infrequent it is my biggest fear when flying.

First of all, I would like to pass along my condolences for the loss of your friend. I lost several friends last year in crashes and it is not an easy thing to deal with.

I conduct aviation safety research for Saginaw Valley State University looking at injury patterns stemming from aircraft crashes and believe you hit the nail on the head with many of your comments, but you missed a couple of other issues playing a major role here- the structural integrity of the cockpit, the excessive tendency for post crash fire and the marketing practices presenting the Cirrus line as great training aircraft when crash after crash have revealed that they are a handful to fly even with an experienced pilot at the controls. The psychological "comfort margin" provided by all the bells and whistles geared towards safety may also play a role by putting pilots in a mindset that they can push their luck (which general aviation pilots already have a nasty tendency to do) and the aircraft has an out in the form of the ballistic recovery system (BRS; the proprietary name for the parachute system), but this is not my area of expertise and just a hypothesis that I have as a result of reading over crashes and talking to Cirrus pilots.

The main problem that leads to the survival disadvantage in the fact that the composite design- that a Cirrus factory representative described as "21st century technology as opposed to the 19th century metals used in Cessnas and Pipers" (foregoing the fact that the person who spoke those words apparently did not bother to do any research before opening their mouths)- which the company likes to tote as making the aircraft safer because composite is "stronger than steel, pound for pound". So are some aluminum alloys, titanium and many other metals that tend to bend when force is applied rather the catastrophic shattering that is seen with composites used in aircraft. If the structure of the aircraft is compromised, the occupants are less likely to be able to walk, crawl or be carried from the wreckage in anything but body bags.

This structural integrity issue is also tied into the second issue that Cirrus has failed to address in its design- the tendency of the aircraft to burn like a Styrofoam cup full of gasoline in anything but a hard landing, water landing or a situation where the aircraft has run out of fuel prior to impact. The best example I can compare this to that most people are well aware of is the Pinto of the 1970s which has become a classic example of what happens when engineers do not think the design all the way through. Now imagine if the Pinto had a big model rocket attached to the chassis just above the fuel tank. That is effectively the situation in the Cirrus series with the BRS having the tendency to deploy on impact ("like something out of a Wile E. Coyote cartoon" to quote one NTSB investigator I spoke with) and providing an excellent ignition source for any spilled fuel.

The final issue that needs to be touched on here is the marketing of Cirrus aircraft as trainers. In doing so, Cirrus failed to learn from the mistakes of Beech Aircraft (now Raytheon Beech) in the 1960s when the V-tail Bonanza became known as the "scissor-tailed doctor killer" because of the fact that significant numbers were sold to doctors, lawyers, and other professionals with large amounts of disposable income. That reads a lot like the sales records for Cirrus doesn't it? The fact that some aviation psychologists question whether certain personality types that are favored in highly competitive fields (medicine, law, dentistry, etc) may actually be of detriment when they are found in pilots because of a possible decreased willingness to admit when they are in over their heads and a possible tendency to overestimate their own abilities.

Thank you for your outstanding article on a subject very close to my own interests. If I can ever be of service to you or any of your colleagues, please feel free to contact me.

Dear Stephen and Kelly:
Thanks for your thoughtful comments on the cirrus vs. Cessna safety and death statistics.
Rick Shapiro

You missed an important point in tabulating your accident statistics. You forgot to take into account the occupation and educational levels of the pilots.

I have a degree in aviation and have worked as a commercial pilot for 41 years. In that time, I have reviewed hundreds of accident reviews resulting in pilot deaths and one factor tends to skew the totals. Doctors and lawyers tend to be involved in fatal aircraft accidents more than any other work group.

The Cirrus line of aircraft are relatively high performance. They may be small, but their composite fuselages allow for very precise aerodynamic characteristics, something that cannot be easily done in all metal airplanes. High performance aircraft tend to be very costly, so the people that can afford them are usually those in fields with high income potential. Doctors and lawyers tend to be highly educated, highly "driven" so called "Type A" personalities. Many have egos that cause them to think, "I'm pretty smart and get things the first time they're presented, so I don't need to waste my time on repetitive training." These individuals also tend to maintain very tight schedules with no room for back-up, and as a result make errors in judgment regarding weather issues, "Yeah, it's pretty bad out there, but I've got to get to this next meeting, I'm pretty sure I can make it." There's an old adage that states, "Fly on a crummy day, be buried on a sunny day."

You don't tend to see many crashes of professionally flown, corporate aircraft. (I'm not speaking of company aircraft flown by the owner of the company, as many small companies do.)
Why do corporate pilots have a safety record nearly indentical to the airlines? Simple, repetitive training. As people, they are no different than any other pilot or doctor or lawyer, but their job is to safely get the airplane from point A to point B. They receive comprehensive training in each type of aircraft the fly at least every six months. This training usually centers around what to do in a worst case scenario, and it's practiced until it becomes second nature. The second big factor is "just fly the airplane." Your there as a pilot to carry your passengers safely to their destination. Your mind isn't filled with outside influences like, "I'm going to be late for this meeting, my patient/client is depending on me, if I don't win this case, I won't be offered the partnership," etc.

Just because your smart, well educated and fairly well off doesn't automatically make you a good pilot. The "Oh, that won't happen to me" attitude is normal when your a teenager, but aviation can be an "equal opportunity killer." Don't ever lull yourself into believing that because you are good at what you do for a living you'll also be a good pilot, because the instant you let your guard down, that airplane will take you for a ride you don't really want to be on!

Cirrus vs. Cessna aircraft safety article:
Chuck: Interesting points about lawyer and doctor pilots. Mike Doran had 1500 hours in, though about a year with the Cirrus. He was a very careful guy and there are no definite indications weather played a role, but I do understand your points and appreciate them.
Rick Shapiro

Every time a pilot dies in a tragic accident, his family and friends defend his/her judgement and ability. It could not possibly have been his/her fault.
90% of the time the NTSB comes to the same conclusion. Pilot error. Bad Judgement.
Of course that usually does not make personal injury attorneys any money when sueing manufacturers.
So I am sure that theory would not apply here.
As a 2300 hour instrument rated pilot with experience in Cirrus as well as about 30 other aircraft, I believe pilots are taking risks that they should not take because of the parachute.
Trials related to aircraft and specialized industrial accidents should require 70% or more of the jurists be experienced in that field. It is to easy for a good salesman to misrepresent the facts. Sorry, I ment to say "great persuader" not salesman.

According to the book "The Killing Zone - Why Pilots Die" the first 50 hours of a pilot's flying career are the safest. He is almost always with an instructor in closely supervised training. The number one aircraft used for such training is the Cessna 172. The statistics you cite include the 172 and hence the data is very distorted. Admittedly the 182 is one of the safest non-trainer aircraft in all of general aviation. Even Cirrus' own website, More ... , shows it to have better safety statistics in terms of fatal accidents as a percentage of fleet size. However, the planes closest to the Cirrus, the Beech 36 and Cessna 350/400, don't fair as well. Safety tracks surprising well with cruise speed and stall speed. I find it disappointing that the Cirrus safety record isn't dramatically better than the rest of GA. However, it is unfair to then demonize Cirrus when their record is no worse than the GA average either.

Weather conditions at CGF taken at 1616 were: Wind 080 degrees at 8 knots; visibility 4 miles in light rain and mist; overcast clouds at 200 feet agl; temperature 7 degrees Celsius; dew point 6 degrees Celsius; and altimeter 30.38 inches of mercury.

These conditions severely limit options in the event that anything goes wrong. Single engine operations for an amateur pilot into 200' overcast is taking a huge chance. PIC Doran had to have known the risk he was taking. Unfortunately, Shnirel became part of the tragedy and he probably wasn't in a position to question the judgement of his boss. I would think that Shnirel's family has a lot of potential with a wrongful death case against Doran's estate. Ironic

Matt:
Thanks for your opinions..I saw the preliminary report and the NTSB has not stated anything material to the cause yet.
Rick

I'm very sorry for the loss of your friend.
I am a flight instructor who is trained to instruct in Cirrus aircraft and many others. I see many types of pilots in the course of a year. Good weather only pilots ( VFR) all weather pilots (IFR) and I have a problem with our general aviation system which I feel needs a change. Profesionally flown aircraft for hire (FAR 121 or 135) are required to be flight and knowledge checked every six months. The general aviation pilots, including the all weather pilots, are not required to have a flight check but every two years. With the changes in tech. and regs every year this accident rate will continue or increase. These pilots are up in the poor weather with the airline pilots with no recurrent checks, that is wrong. The amount of time a pilot has does not reflect his ablity to handle issues unless the pilot has a continuing education and flight check as the pro's do. I would like to see at least a annual flight check for all weather ( IFR ) pilots to practice emergencies in poor weather. Flying in low visability and low overcasts in rain is not like riding a bike, it must be practiced and practiced in good weather.
The pro's fly many days a week, many days in low weather, the general aviation pilot may fly in low weather a few times a year. It takes a much higher skill set to fly in poor weather and work a problem at the same time.
I see this first hand every week.
The figures need to be put into perspective with type of weather being flown. That fact can be a challenge.

My brother was just killed while flying his Cirrus during what appeared to be a relatively normal landing at Crystal airport in Minneapolis. (June 16, 2009) While relatively low time he had completed significant and recent flight training in the airplane. The point that most people seem to miss about the Cirrus is that the parachute was deemed necessary by the FAA during the certfication process because the airplane won't recover from a spin. They turned a vice into a marketing feature. I fly tail draggers and have flown a Cirrus and find it to be a very twitchy airplane especially in terms of pitch sensitivity. Most Cirrus pilots turn on the autopilot as soon as possible because of the airplanes flight charactistics. We may never know exactly the cause of my brothers death but I have always felt the airplane has marginal flight characteristics.

Bruce,

The SR22 WILL recover form a spin and this was demonstrated for European certification. Since the chute was being included anyway, the SR22 was certified in the US using ELOS (equivalent level of safety) provision. The SR22 is indeed quick in pitch but I guess how you feel about that is a personal thing. I find it great for VFR fun flying but IFR off the autopilot requires careful trimming. I agree that most Cirrus pilots are heavy autopilot users. Every Cirrus has an autopilot that is great compared to what was available pre-1998 in most planes.

I am sorry about the loss of your brother but spin recovery is a non issue in such a low level accident. Relative to landing accidents, the SR22 is heavier than a 172 trainer (3400 lbs. vs. 2450) and the stall speed is higher (60 vs. 40 kts). If the planes are at max gross weight then the SR22 is carrying 3.12 times the kinetic energy. That is a huge difference and must be respected. The use of steering by differential braking is also a factor. I'm not saying there aren't other factors. I am saying that it is easier to lose control of a heavy, fast plane be it SR22, Bonanza or some other. Since you fly a tail dragger, you are well aware that different skills are needed for different planes. Porpoising in the SR22 due to carrying excess speed over the threshold can require adjustment to handle if transitioning from something like a 172. Otherwise PIO can result. Again, this is a similar issue to ones found on other planes of this weight-speed class and not Cirrus specific.

Rick,

I guess no one will be happy until Cirrus is put under and the only planes available are 40 year old planes covered under GARA. The Hill City award proves that. That award alone will add something like $30K per plane if covered by one year of sales. I use that case as an example of poor decision making when I teach a class on critical decision making for pilots. The thing people can't get through there heads is that the statistics are that Cirrus is like any other high performance single when it comes to safety stats. I wish it was better but it isn't. It is not as safe as a trainer like a 172. However, it isn't statistically worse than a Bonanza or a Mooney or a C210 either. Maybe it is the math major in me that gets annoyed at headlines rather than hard data driving what people perceive as "facts." This is a plane that is being flown on a LOT of long missions with the resulting accident rate. If a plane is flown more on more challenging missions then there are more accidents.