DULUTH, Minn. — Cirrus Aircraft reports that new aircraft shipments in 2014 were the best company performance since 2008, with the Cirrus SR22 maintaining its position as the best-selling airplane in its segment for the 12th year in a row.
New deliveries for 2014 totaled 308, a 12% increase over 2013. Cirrus Aircraft has now delivered more than 5,800 new aircraft, while the global Cirrus fleet has amassed more than 6 million flight hours.
The company also reports that as of early 2015, the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) had safely returned 104 people to their families. The latest save, on Jan. 25, captured media attention when a pilot ferrying a Cirrus over the Pacific Ocean used CAPS for a safe recovery and the entire event was captured on video by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Growth in programs across the company resulted in a 10% increase in personnel in 2014. Cirrus currently has more than 800 employees globally and plans to continue adding employees in 2015 in many areas, including production, quality, design and engineering.
In July 2014, Cirrus Aircraft also returned its parts and aftermarket logistics service to Duluth, bringing those functions back in house.
To accommodate growth driven by the Vision Jet program, Cirrus has expanded its facilities in Duluth by adding approximately 40,000 square feet of off-airport space. Initial functions are mainly machining, sub-assembly production and select research and development activities, company officials said. At full capacity, approximately 50 employees will occupy the new space.
As 2015 kicks off, the company promises a range of enhancements to the Generation 5 Cirrus aircraft, including newly introduced colors and the addition of four USB power ports that are surge-protected and strong enough to charge an iPad. Additional enhancements include updates to the Cirrus Perspective by Garmin flight deck, as well as a CAPS-activated Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT).
Good post . I am thankful for the insight , Does anyone know if my company might access a blank a form form to use ?
In reading all the remarks about the cirrus, all I can assume is that they appear to be a reasonably safe plane that many people love and some people love to hate. Probably those that dislike them are just jealous of those that have them since they seem overly aggressive in their remarks
Maybe it’s about time we accepted the fact that “high time,” means nothing in this industry. It’s about your proficiency, your knowledge, and your motor skills. If time was all that mattered, the age 65 rule would not exist. If you’re ready to fly it, you’re ready; if you’re not you’re not. Perhaps the company should be forced to advise potential buyers of the complexity of the aircraft.
It is often said that truth is the first causality of ideological wars.
Small aircraft GA safety is a hobby for me. I have analyzed the Nall reports, downloaded the entire NTSB databases and partially indexed them with the FAA hours surveys, and read many of the studies that attempt to create a level playing field for comparative safety data.
The most sound generalization you can make is that it is very difficult to make valid comparisons of the kind some people would like to make.
For what it is worth, here are a few points suggested (not fully proved) by the data.
– The Cirrus design is safe for pilots who possess the skill and discipline to fly by the numbers.
– A Cirrus design might not be a good choice for the occasional driver whose skills or personality incline him toward imperfect behavior in the pattern. I’m not condoning sloppy flying but there can be no getting around the fact that we all differ in both the precision and the frequency with which we hit the numbers dead on. Some designs are hyper-stable and forgiving; the Cirrus is not as unforgiving as the Glasair but it is nowhere as stable as some designs. Even the similar C400 (Columbia) is more stable and forgiving.
– The Cirrus design has a disproportionately high number (and rate) of low speed maneuvering accidents, many of them fatal. A BRS is of no help in these accident types. When contrasted with aircraft at the other end this accident spectrum (the DA40 has zero such accidents) the numbers look particularly bad.
– The Cirrus design is pretty but it is not particularly strong aerodynamically. The DA40 rates Utility class with 50% of one of its two main spars compromised. With no cuts, neither the SR20 or the SR22 get anywhere close to Utility. They barely make standard class. Given that Cirrus aircraft are often configured for flight in icing (and therefore possibly increased turbulence), this might explain the relatively high number of times Cirrus wings have snapped off. (Might!)
– Some of the new Cirrus safety data should be viewed with a dose of skepticism. The denominator is essentially private data. This said, Cirrus should be congratulated for their efforts to become more safe. They should have been roundly criticized for their earlier efforts to sell such a high performance aircraft to zero time pilots. I know student pilots whom Cirrus sales staff pushed into SR22s at 60 hours TT. Shame on them. In my opinion, the Cirrus is a minimum IFR and a 500 hour entry point.
– The BRS argument cannot be settled as a generality. There are some situations in which a BRS might be a lifesaver and other situations in which it is merely dead weight and expense. However, if you step back to look at the cumulative Cirrus accident statistics, there is no way to come to an objective conclusion that the Cirrus is as safe as Piper or Cessna and certainly not as safe as Diamond. On teh other hand, Cirrus is roughly twice as safe as Glasair.
– For those who are excessively pleased with the BRS, ask yourself, “Compared to what?” The BRS will drop an essentially destroyed and unflyable aircraft at 1200-1600 FPM. In contrast, chopping the power (or having a dead engine) with the trim fully aft descends a DA40 at 400 FPM; moreover the aircraft is still flyable if you happen to be in a situation where you break out of IMC or get the engine restarted. If you simply hit the ground at 400 FPM, the DA40 has 26G rated seats and airbags. None of this has been tested thoroughly in the real world of imperfect pilots because the type doesn’t crash often enough.
– While not strictly a safety feature, many pilots report feeling uncomfortable hand flying exclusively with one hand. Most of us prefer to swap back and forth as we fly. I have quite a few hours in an SR22 and my general feeling is that I would not want to fly it in many kinds of emergencies. A stick or a yoke seem more natural. This said, Boeing and Airbus fly similar to the Cirrus.
There is more and none of this will convince those who have made up their mind. However, based on the hard data, Cirrus drivers would be well advised to maintain above average levels of currency and always fly by the numbers. I have lost two Cirrus driver friends on base to final turns in gusting winds. Both were high time pilots.
Great post.
So you’re saying i don’t know how to spell Glassair??? 🙂
Actually, i likely confused the Lancair and Glasair types….
P.S. Again, I’m neither a strong Cirrus critic nor a strong fan. However, after I posted the above, I read this masterful beating around the bush as to why Cirrus did not pass spin tests.
http://whycirrus.com/engineering/stall-spin.aspx
In my opinion, whoever wrote this official document could be legally liable for some of the dissembling you will read there.
For example, “Modern production airplanes are, in general, not tested or certified for spins.”
True, many are not *certified* for spins but unless they can prove equivalent safety (big grey area) primarily with a BRS, they *must* not flat spin at any normal load and CG configuration and must pass spin recovery tests to be certified. Recall that the Cessna light sport (before it was taken off the market) had to be modified because of its tendency to get into flat spins. The test pilot had to deploy his personal chute. The last time I was aware of the facts, the Cirrus could not recover in the required number of turns under certain conditions. They quit trying and have turned it into a marketing response. Cirrus is certified because they convinced the FAA that the BRS was “equivalent.”
In contrast, some modern NASA designs recover in 1/2 to 3/4 turn with nothing other than chopped power and hands and feet off the controls. Of course, the recommended procedure is still power off, ailerons neutral, opposite rudder, etc. The point is that even if you panic and forget what to do, some new designs will recover anyway. in such situations, a Cirrus will kill you or will turn your aircraft into salvage value.
@Rod: “http://whycirrus.com/engineering/stall-spin.aspx”
“The last time I was aware of the facts, the Cirrus could not recover in the required number of turns under certain conditions. They quit trying and have turned it into a marketing response. ”
Rod, here’s the last paragraph of that web page on Cirrus stall/spin information:
“As a footnote, when Cirrus applied for European certification, the authorities there(initially JAA, later EASA), when first evaluating the Cirrus SR20 agreed with the principles of the FAA/ELOS approach but had further questions. A series of spins were performed on their initiative. While not a complete program they reported no unusual characteristics.”
To my knowledge, you can’t have any facts about Cirrus spins because a) the Cirrus SR2X was never tested for spins for FAA certification and hence was never found to not recover, and b) when it was tested for spin recovery to satisfy the Europeans it recovered conventionally with no unusual characteristics.
I don’t know you and I certainly don’t understand your vitriol posted in these comments. But for most of your criticisms, there are factual bases for a different conclusion.
Cheers
Rick
@Rod: “It is often said that truth is the first causality of ideological wars.”
Seems to me that several of your following points were casualties of an ideological war. Odd.
“The Cirrus design is pretty but it is not particularly strong aerodynamically. The DA40 rates Utility class with 50% of one of its two main spars compromised. With no cuts, neither the SR20 or the SR22 get anywhere close to Utility. They barely make standard class.”
Got any data for this claim? I presume “standard class” refers to Normal category. Since I fly my Cirrus a lot, I’d like to know what you know.
“Given that Cirrus aircraft are often configured for flight in icing (and therefore possibly increased turbulence), this might explain the relatively high number of times Cirrus wings have snapped off. (Might!)”
Can you point me to an investigation report of a Cirrus wing snapping off? And how many is a relatively high number? I’ve studied every Cirrus accident report and do not find any in-flight breakups. Did you?
“The BRS will drop an essentially destroyed and unflyable aircraft at 1200-1600 FPM.”
Were you aware that almost a dozen Cirrus aircraft that have landed under parachute canopy were repaired and flew again?
Cheers
Rick
Rick; Sorry. I’ve run out of urine – if you get my drift?”
@Rod: “I’ve run out of urine” — interesting admission of what you have had to offer in posting your comments.
Cheers
Rick
I have plenty of Kanye to go around……
Mr. Rick’; since you didn’t “get’ my(satire) comment to YOU – “I’m run out of urine”, allow to be more direct or blunt: I don’t care nor do I have the time to engage in a “-issing contest” with you or any other “guru” or self appointed Cirrus expert. Oh, just curious; are you under 5’5″ tail? ps Also; I think a few of your prior reference(s) were to a “Rob”; you confused with Rod (me) – surprised how a man of your knowledge and statistical prowess could error?
Why in the hell are you comparing the tame “trainer” DA40 to a Cirrus SR22. 180hp vr 310hp… You might as well compare low speed handling and accident numbers between the C172 and a V -tail Bonanza while you’re touting this outdate argument…
While the Diamond is indeed a suitable trainer, the performance and the composite technology is similar enough to to the Cirrus to warrant discussion on the same thread.
The fact that the sleek Diamond can do it using less power and fuel, and while having far fewer quirky flying characteristics make it worthy of consideration for those who operate conservatively.
I’ll concede the parachute and Avidyne system are a good match, though…
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/avidyne-versus-garmin
Breathe Kevin . . . For the most part, no reasonable person would compare a DA40XLS with a SR22. I would not. The comparison in fuselage designs is appropriate, however, as are more direct comparisons between the DA40 and the SR20, where the DA40 scores higher on almost every attribute. As you already noted, the Diamond design makes an excellent trainer and is employed by a growing number of flight schools, replacing Warriors, although generally they use the DA20 or the DA40F for training. I am not aware of any flight schools that would take the risk or pay the high insurance prices for training in SR20’s. I’m not sure they could even get an underwriter to insure SR20’s for PVT training.
When it comes to safety, there is no contest. One design has killed quite a few people, the other has not. My insurer tells me they have dropped Cirrus aircraft altogether because of its poor safety record. Other companies just jack up the rates. Diamonds on the other hand have the lowest rates in the industry.
When you set aside the training Diamonds and look at the DA40XLS with tuned exhaust, you get around 200 hp., cruise at 155 kts @ 75% and 9.2 GPH. The one I fly most does a little better than that and also does well LOP around 145 kts. and 6.9-7.2 GPH. You also get G1000. TCAS, digital autopilot, 26 G seats, and air bags.
I can speak first hand about the stability also mentioned by the other response to your post. It takes a lot of aggressive cross-control effort to get a Diamond to spin. Normal spin entry procedures fail. If you can get a spin, it recovers automatically, hands off (NB: I would advise standard recovery procedures anyway, just to be safe.) I have already mentioned that it descends stable, power-off at less than half the descent speed of a Cirrus BRS.
Again, the Cirrus has many nice features. Its stability record recommends it for experienced pilots who have reasons to want to trade some safety margin for features they find attractive in the Cirrus.
.
@ Rob “I am not aware of any flight schools that would take the risk or pay the high insurance prices for training in SR20’s. I’m not sure they could even get an underwriter to insure SR20’s for PVT training”.
It seems like you haven’t really done a lot of research.
Cirrus was selected by the US Air Force Academy as part of it’s cadet training program. They changed from Diamonds to Cirrus aircraft.
http://www.flyingmag.com/news/air-force-academy-buying-25-cirrus-sr20-trainers
Cirrus Aircraft Chosen for French Air Force
Cassidian Aviation Has Chosen Fleet of SR20s and SR22s for Training France’s Air Force Pilots Le Plessis-Belleville, France.
http://www.cirrusaircraft.com/news/cirrus-aircraft-chosen-for-french-air-force/
There are many flight schools across the USA which have SR20’s as part of their training fleet and they did not have a problem getting them insured. These are just a few of the schools:
http://flyadvanced.com/
http://www.sierraskyport.com/
https://www.naples-air-center.com/
http://www.rexair.net/english.htm
http://performanceflight.com/
http://www.montgomeryaviation.net/
http://www.allianceflightschools.com/index.html
http://www.cardinalwingsaviation.com/
http://epicblue.co/Flight_Training.html
Perhaps you should post the name of your insurance carrier so we can ask him some questions…………
Anthony,
Thank you for pointing out the Cirrus training sites. I appreciate it.
You are correct in observing that I have not done representative research, nor do I know if your links reflect a representative sample. However, I clicked through a few of the links you provided and see that I would have no difficulty securing first-time training in a Cirrus for my PVT in some areas. I do note that some of the few links you provided appear to be Cirrus dealers. One could make a case, could they not, for sampling commercial flight schools not selling a particular brand of aircraft and not receiving financial incentives from any aircraft manufacturer. Since you appear to be well acquainted with Cirrus, can you comment on whether or not they are providing insurance-related financial incentives to affiliated flight schools?
In the two areas that I live — one of them adjacent to one of the nation’s busiest GA training airports (DVT), flight schools have not selected Cirrus as aircraft for training new pilots. When you fly in the DVT airspace, you always see a few dozen Warriors in the close pattern, or taking off or landing. It is a real TCAS experience! The Former GM of one of the two flight schools there told me that they looked into Cirrus but decided against them, insurance costs being one of the principal reasons. I’m sure, though, that you can train in a Cirrus someplace in Phoenix metro. In the other area that I live, there are no flight schools using Cirrus aircraft.
This is not in any way to diminish the importance of your point Anthony (I opened the door to the insurance discussion when, in fact, that strand of my argument would have been better served by simply noting that Cirrus insurance is high for empirical reasons) but the insurance issue was not central. My central points remain.
One of the aircraft I fly — an early 1930’s vintage — is considerably less stable than the Cirrus design. It is a lot of fun . . . just not for inexperienced pilots. Perhaps we can agree that there are lots of good small GA aircraft out there and that some of them are much more forgiving than others.
@Marty Smith: sorry, but your comments refer to rather out-dated information.
Spins: Cirrus never failed a spin recovery certification. Instead, the FAA encouraged Cirrus Design to incorporate the leading edge cuff and proposed an Equivalent Level of Safety for Part 23 spin requirements. The parachute was always going to be on the airplane because a co-founder survived a mid-air collision during his instrument training. The Europeans required spin tests for type certification there and Cirrus recovered from 60 spins. Sorry, Marty, the Cirrus can recover from a spin but use of the parachute works better.
Phillip Greenspun article: Old news. Up to 2011, the Cirrus fatal accident rate got up to 1.79 per 100,000 flying hours. At the time the GA rate was 1.30, which includes jets and professional pilots flying Part 135. The personal and business flying rate, as determined by the NTSB, was 2.38. So, the Cirrus fleet was never the most dangerous aircraft in the skies.
Fast forward… The current Cirrus fatal accident rate is 0.42 for the past 12 months and 0.85 for the past 36 months. Last year, there were 3 fatal accidents with 5 fatalities. And the Cirrus fleet has 5,900+ aircraft. Lots of them show up in active use on FlightAware.
Seems that the Cirrus community has responded and pilots are now having way fewer fatal accidents.
Cheers
Rick
Then why does the POH state the only approved spin recovery method is the chute?
The airplane can’t meet the basic part 23 spin requirement, and it never did.
I have no problem flying the Diamond DA 40. The DA 20 has a history of in flight engine failure, traceable to maintenance providers who don’t own the factory manuals and don’t set up the injection properly.
Marty, the only approved recovery for a spin in a Cirrus is to use the CAPS parachute system. That’s a different statement than the Cirrus cannot recover from a spin. It can.
Since Cirrus and the FAA never required a complete spin test matrix for Part 23 spin requirements, you can say that it has not been tested to meet those requirements. When never tested, you cannot say it never recovers. No one knows.
However, the FAA agreed that pilots would benefit from the use of the parachute. In their research, the FAA determined that aircraft certified to meet the spin requirements still had too many fatal accidents because the loss of altitude to recover was greater than the altitude of most stall/spin accidents. The deployment of CAPS could recover from a spin in less altitude than spin recovery. Consequently, the FAA used an Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) memorandum to satisfy Part 23 spin requirements. BTW, the certification of the Columbia 350/400 also uses an ELOS to satisfy some other Part 23 certification requirements. It’s a workable system for certification.
So, the Cirrus SR2X has a type certificate that requires the parachute and the POH states the only approved recovery from a spin is to pull the CAPS handle. But your statements are misleading and omit critical information.
Cheers
Rick
You spin yours and tell us how it ends!
(I prefer to simulate spins with tequila…) 🙂
(a) Normal category airplanes. A single-engine, normal category airplane must be able to recover
from a one-turn spin or a three-second spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one
additional turn after initiation of the first control action for recovery, or demonstrate compliance
with the optional spin resistant requirements of this section .
(1) The following apply to one turn or three second spins:
(i) For both the flaps-retracted and flaps-extended conditions, the applicable airspeed limit and
positive limit maneuvering load factor must not be exceeded;
(ii) No control forces or characteristic encountered during the spin or recovery may adversely
affect prompt recovery;
(iii) It must be impossible to obtain unrecoverable spins with any use of the flight or engine
power controls either at the entry into or during the spin; and
(iv) For the flaps-extended condition, the flaps may be retracted during the recovery but not
before rotation has ceased.
Yes, there are “alternatives” to this requirement, but the ‘requirement’ is part of the regs, so I stand by my comment.
I understand there are many who like the bird, and will continue to fly it. I’m not the ‘risk management’ cop, unless you’re a student flying under my sign off.
Hey, if it’s safe enough for the ‘Airplane repo’ crew, then why not. After all, those guys can continue flight with total darkness over the ocean after the ‘master caution’ on a PA28 alerted them to total electrical failure.. (Of course, the ‘master caution’ was actually the gear in-transit indicator, and it was a little odd that a guy displaying a nice hood flashlight for preflight wouldn’t have access to it for a 90-mile over ocean flight…)
Very well put Rod. With all their improvements I wonder why they haven’t addressed some of it’s short falls. IE: More flaps to slow it down, speed brakes and larger brakes to help slow down with out setting the wheel pants on fire. And talk about depreciation!!! OMG. Also they would be in huge trouble if Beech, Cessna, and Piper start including Parachutes on their birds.
Yes, you’re right. They would be in huge trouble if Beech, Cessna and Piper had parachutes, decent fit and finish, decent paint jobs, good seats , good avionics , fast airplanes known icing, synthetic vision, and good value.
And if my mother had wheels, she’d be a bus.
If she had a license… 🙂
The folks at Cirrus are about PROFITABILITY – and survivability – in the order. That said, however, I think a VERY stringent training program (including) with emphasis on “stick & rudder skills”; slow flight, steep turns, short field approaches (REAL airports) and landing. The “student/customer” only passes their check-out when he/she can slow fly (control 10 knts over partial power stall, short field approach/landing at a 2,500 ft airport, and 45 degree 360 bank, +or- 50 ft change in altitude consistently. Then Mr. Esq or Ms. Dr. is qualified. And the “chute” is never deployed in the process!
Rod, are you familiar with the Cirrus transition training syllabus? Your criteria match closely, yet you don’t acknowledge that this syllabus has been in use for about ten years.
Sadly, the non-use of the Cirrus parachute system has killed about 121 people — people who died when Cirrus pilots experienced scenarios in which other Cirrus pilots pulled the red handle and everyone survived. If an instructor omits that part of the training, then more Cirrus pilots are likely to die with a perfectly good parachute behind them.
A conundrum, eh?
Cheers
Rick
Hi Rick; Not active in the “CFI” realm any longer; that said, however, ANY syllabus is only as good as the instructor who USES it, AND the “student” who’s humble and willing enough to absorb it!
I have owned three Cirrus airplanes. I have flown between 150 to 400 hours per year. I currently have a 2006 SR22. I would never consider any other plane than a Cirrus. In all situations the parachute system brings great comfort to me and my non-pilot passengers. I have had a lot of pilots who fly something other than a Cirrus fly with me and every single one of them without exception was awed by the performance and safety of the plane. Perhaps you should ask the 104 whose lives where saved by the parachute (and I know some of them personally) which airplane they would chose.
I wholeheartedly support the freedom you enjoy, both to own and fly a Cirrus, and to sound off about your personal experiences. I’m glad you like it and enjoy it.
Having said that, the type continues to dominate the NTSB files. This is for a number of reasons.
The price and performance of this bird make it attractive to the type of pilot who previously dominated the “forked tail doctor killer” and “Let’s pull the wings off my P210!” aircraft accident categories. That is to say: Those who have more means to acquire such a pricy asset than time to properly train to handle it.
The low speed handling characteristics are quirky at best, and the type cannot recover from a one-turn spin, as required for certification. This was the obstacle for the original Lancair experimental type to obtain normal category certification, so the manufacturer used the alternative of the ballistic recovery chute when the technology came on line.
The type continues to lead the pack for fatalities among certified aircraft: its fatal accident rate is 1.6 per 100,000 flight hours, placing it higher than the United States general aviation rate of 1.2.
Agree with Alan, Chuck and Marty. I’ve always asked myself is maybe the left joy stick has something to do with all the accidents…beside the ones who went into IMC when they shouldn’t have. Having flown an older Bonanza A36 and the Cirrus, I go for the Bonanza any time.
Hi Gino; Ditto – with you “all the way” on the A-36 or any Beech Bonanza product for that matter!
63 yrs old, 7200 hrs, multi, instrument. I recently reviewed and flew a Cirrus prior to buying another Older Bonanza A36. I agree with the why the 104 deploys or saves? But I was not impresses after learning that they get that 180 kts running the engine at an astounding 2600 rpm?? If i ran my F33 with a 550 that hard I could get better than 184. It has little baggage space, small cavity’s for back seat passengers feet. Great avionics and it climbs really good but why do they depreciate so much. I could have bought a 20 year newer Cirrus than the Bonanza for the same money. I commend then for constantly making improvements tho. But with a early Bonanza I have 6 seats, 1300 lbs useful load and the old girl can do 172 kts on 17.5 gph or 165 kts on 16gph. But your right I don’t have a parachute Yet!! Just my 2 cents worth.
3,000 hours, instrument rated, 2,000 in a Cirrus: My first airplane was an A36. loved it, especially those wide cargo doors. But a 25 year old airframe bothered me; I moved to a Cirrus Sr22 in 2005, then a 22T in 2009 and never looked back. i get an honest 20 knot improvement in speed over my A36 and can do significant Xcountry trips without refueling. Flown it to Juneau, Montreal, and this year to Grand Cayman. Just knowing the chute is there is wonderful when you have grandchildren flying with you.
The only reason it has the chute is because the type can’t perform the spin recovery required for certification. This was the obstical to the certification of the original Lancair experimental type.
Dig into the low altitude maneuvering accidents where the BRS is useless. Cirrus handles very poorly low and slow. The DA40 has zero maneuvering accidents and comparable numbers.
Did anyone else notice that a 172 ditched in the same area about the same time. No injuries. No BRS. No media!
I personally disagree with the statement above by Marty smith stating “most dangerous production plane ever”. I have over a thousand hours in a cirrus and they are great little planes and very safe. I would buy another one and obviously there are a lot of people who also agree that they are great planes. Let’s be realistic, rarely do planes cause crashes, it is the pilot that causes crashes most of the time. Cirrus makes a great product and probably a lot of those “saves” weren’t really saves per se but pilots that got in over their heads and decided to pull the chute. Nothing wrong with that since I am sure that they would rather be alive then the alternative. Nonetheless, mr. Smith, don’t trash cirrus when they are perfectly fine planes.
The low speed handling characteristics are quirky at best, and the type cannot recover from a one-turn spin, as required for certification. This was the obstacle for the original Lancair experimental type to obtain normal category certification, so the manufacturer used the alternative of the ballistic recovery chute when the technology came on line.
The type continues to lead the pack for fatalities among certified aircraft: its fatal accident rate is 1.6 per 100,000 flight hours, placing it higher than the United States general aviation rate of 1.2.
Cirrus has marketed its airplanes to generic rich guys (i.e., nonpilots) with ads in generic rich guy magazines, a strategy that Beech, Cessna, and Piper pursued in the 1970s but gave up when airplanes went out of mass production and yuppies decided that flying themselves around was too dangerous. Cirrus’s advertising stresses the enhanced safety provided by the airframe parachute and the computer screens showing the airplane’s position relative to airports, mountains, weather, etc. The combination of novice pilots and a fast airplane resulted in a mournful accident record that was reflected in high insurance rates and recurrent training requirements similar to what you’d find on a twin-engine plane or pressurized single.
I must say I disagree with you.
I have been flying for over 25 years, I have accumulated 2500 hours in all types of airplanes , including but not limited to the Piper Cheyenne ,Piper Navajo, Cessna 421C, Cessna 185 amphibious, not to mention the usual Training Cessnas and pipers.
In all of those airplanes, I have never flown an airplane that in my opinion is as impressive as the Cirrus. It is fast, economical, but most important of all, PREDICTABLE. The systems work , (deicing, autopilot, avionics) in a way that a 30 to 40 year old airplane can never hope to.
Yes, the Bonanza may go almost as fast and carry ,more load, but of all the airplanes I have flown , including the high performance turbine like the Cheyenne or the high performance Cessna 421, if I had to shoot an approach to minimums on a lousy day, there is no other airplane that I would like to be in than the cirrus.
Returning 104 people to their families is awesome. The number of failures that let to parachute deployments is concerning.
Most dangerous production airplane ever!
Marty, do you get out much?
No, I’m still in the closet (as a lesbian trapped in a mans body!)
But I don’t fly airbus, and I don’t fly Cirrus.
8,000 hour CFII/MEI
ERAU grad ’90
600+ Alaska….
I’ve flown a few different Ciruss airplanes over the last few years and found them very nice. They just don’t want to slow down when you pull the power back. Just give your self some extra time to slow down and you will be fine.
please explain that statement… I am quite curious to know why you think they are unsafe airplanes.
thanks
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-accident-investigation/
Let’s look at the previous commentator’s link from Dr. Greenspun:
1. The link from Dr. Greenspun is a “methodology” report for investigating accidents in a Cirrus aircraft. Dr. Greenspun himself is an aviation expert witness and provides this report as a basis for what to look for in an accident.
In paragraph 9, Dr. Greenspun states the folowing:
“The authors do not intend to suggest that Cirrus aircraft are inherently unsafe. With an appropriate program of initial and recurrent training, and continuing good judgement by the pilot, the SR20 and SR22 certainly can be operated safely. The authors fly Cirrus aircraft regularly on training, maintenance, and business flights.”
2. Dr. Greenspun also wrote a “methodology” report for investigating accidents in Robinson R22 and R44 helicopters. Is he saying that these helicopters are unsafe and should not be trusted? Of course not
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/helicopter-accident-investigation/
3. On the 21st paragraph of the following article Dr. Greenspun states the following:
“Safety conclusion: The basic Cirrus is very safe if flown like a jet, with one eye on the airspeed indicator at all times.”
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20
4. On the 18th paragraph of the following article Dr. Greenspun states the following:
“If cost were no object I would buy a new SR22-G5”.
On the same article on the last paragraph Dr. Greenspun states the following:
“Cirrus continues to be the world’s only manufacturer of family/personal airplanes that is investing in innovation and improving its already-certified products”.
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr22
5. The author previously owned a DA40 but now owns a Cirrus SR20. When asked if he had a choice would he buy again a DA40 or a Cirrus he replied yes and made the following comments:
“People often email me asking “Would I buy the Diamond [or Cirrus] again if I had to do it over?” So I’ll answer the question here in the article…
Sure.
I bought the Diamond in order to learn to fly. I bought the Cirrus in order so that I would get a reclining seat, and so that my dog would have a comfortable quiet back seat.” – Dr. Greenspun
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/plastic-airplanes#future
6. So there you have it ! The same link used to describe the methodology for investigating Cirrus aircraft accidents also shows many articles written by the same author praising the Cirrus aircraft. Dr. Greenspun currently owns a Cirrus SR20 and “if cost was no object he would buy a new SR22-G5” as mentioned in another article.
This is the reason why it’s so important to really do proper research when quoting an article or an author about a particular subject. The previous commentator was quick at quoting a report from Dr. Greenspun to support his theory but it shows that he did very little research about the author nor other articles he has written supporting the Cirrus aircraft.
Did you expect everyone in the world to agree with me?
My comments represent my opinion.
Should I edit out good information if it doesn’t fully support my own conclusion? Sounds more like something a liberal would do…:)