Again, Cirrus Proves More Fatal in 2010
The 2010 Cessna and Cirrus single engine aircraft accident statistics to date:
| Number Aircraft Manufactured | 2010 NTSB-Reported Accidents | 2010 Fatal Accidents | 2010 Fatalities | |
| Cessna* 172/182/206/350/400 | 9,149 | 41 | 5 | 8 |
| Cirrus SR20/SR22 | 4,517 | 24 | 8 |
18 |
There exist twice as many new-production (1997 and newer) Cessnas as there are Cirrus Design aircraft. Yet Cessna airplanes do not account for twice as many accidents. Cirrus with half the number of total aircraft accounted for double the fatalities so far in 2010.
Look up the NTSB reports here: Cessna List, Cirrus List.
The Cessna Skyhawk is largely used in pilot training and accounted for thirty of the accidents including three fatalities. To date, there has not been an NTSB-reported accident of a Cessna-manufactured Corvalis of which there are about one hundred seventy-two flying.
| Number Aircraft Manufactured | NTSB-Reported Accidents | Fatal Accidents | Fatalities | |
| 172 Skyhawk | 4,541 | 30 | 2 | 3 |
| 182 Skylane | 3,180 | 8 | 2 |
4 |
| 206 Stationair | 1,256 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| 350/400 Corvalis | 172 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
A better analysis of aircraft safety is not measured per the number of aircraft manufactured, but rather in fatalities per hours flown. See post, Dead Pilots Don't Lie, which shows in long hand analysis that Cirrus aircraft are three times more deadly than their aluminum rival. I, myself, blame Cirrus sales and marketing tactics, not the plane. See posts, I Blame Sales and Marketing and Bold Pilot Poster Child.
Indeed, the Cirrus is safer than it would be without its own parachute. Yet, with all the bells and whistles touted on aircraft demonstration, Cirrus Design continues to lure customers into far more difficult situations than which they ever bargained for when they bought their planes.
* There was one non-fatal accident of a 2006-manufactured Columbia 350, N1321C, on August 26, 2010. Cessna purchased the assets of Columbia on November 27, 2007, and moved production to Independence, Kansas, beginning April 29, 2009.
I like your thoughtful analysis Steve. It is interesting especially with respect to the current wing AD that affects 8 Corvalis aircraft. As you know the Corvalis is built with two wing spars and what was an annoyance with the wing surface separation on the Corvalis (the other spar retained the wing surface while the forward spar delaminated) could have been fatal in a single-spar composite airplane (i.e. Cirrus). Food for thought....
Great article!
-Eric
Reply to this
Steve:
You say that the Cirrus is safer than it would be without its own parachute. And, in fact, there have been lots of successful ‘chute deployments. Cirrus proponents say that the CAPS system has “saved” more than 40 lives to date.
If that’s so, one could argue that, but for the ‘chute, the Cirrus fatal accident rate would be completely off the charts.
That brings us to nub of it: Is the aircraft so much more dangerous than its competition that it needs a 'chute to more or less stay even? Or is that the aircraft is no more dangerous, but that the chute is a self-canceling safety feature, saving pilots from situations that, but for the 'chute being there, they would have otherwise avoided?
If it's the latter, it's possible that the Cirrus would be safer without the 'chute.
Mike
Reply to this
I was single pilot hand flying trough a night time front, IMC, over Sacramento, in my Mooney E model when ATC asked if I was getting any ice at 8000 feet. I said no, that it was 65 degrees, and why he asked. He said that a Cirrus pilot was getting ice at 6000 feet and had to descend immediately. I said that he probably was freaked out to be IMC in the rain at night and that he was trying to descend to VMC. He agreed. Decision making in these high risk environments takes a skill set not taught in any class I have had. The best has been the videos by Richard Collins. I tell people about the videos but few take the time to study them making their first high risk encounter without any real preparation. Most instrument instructors don't have much real time experience either. It is too bad that these people don't even know the risk that they are taking. Unfortunately, these skill sets can't be obtained by some new acronym. Thanks for this website maybe it can help people at least to understand that there is no "SAFE" just degrees of risk. If you are going to be a high risk pilot you have to be a fanatic about learning everything you can. To do any less and not take the time and not understand the risk is guaranteed to bite you.
Reply to this
To date, COPA reports 28 'chute pulls. A list of CAPS system deployments is found here: http://www.cirruspilots.org/Content/CAPSHistory.aspx
Cirrus ad: Here.
Reply to this
I fly a 2010 Cirrus SR22T myself, and considered the Corvalis 400 as well. Steve, are you being paid by Cessna to continue throwing dirt at the Cirrus product. What is your problem? It is very easy to play with statistics and bring forward skewed results.
Fact is that the Cirrus product is NOT for inexperienced pilots. It is a fast plane with a high stol speed and you need to keep one eye on the airspeed at all times when in slow flight. I need to remind myself of this fact all the time. A Cirrus is like a sports car. Highly desirable looks, the most beautiful avionics etc, etc. It is also cheaper than the Corvalis and Mooney. So which one will Yuppies with low hours most likely buy? (I am not a Yuppie by the way...).
Flying IFR over the Rockies is always scary, and the reasons why I chose the Cirrus over the Corvalis was because in case of emergency over the rocks, it is safer to pull the shute and have a slow controlled vertical descent onto the rocks than to fly into the rocks. You cant argue on this one Steve... Also if you ever need to ditch in water you will be safer with the shute Steve...
Flying in icing conditions - I have flight into known icing factory approved as part of my purchase price. It is not an expensive add-on later.
Will the shute save me in the circuit if I bank to steep to align myself for final approach, stola and go into a spin? No it wont because of the low altitude. Will you be better of in the Corvalis? No again...
The only reason C172's and C182's are so safe is because of their much lower stol speeds and the chances of slowing down to dangerously slow speeds are less when you turn for base leg. I am a great fan of the C172 and C182 and have the majority of my hours on them.
Make no two bones about it: The Corvalis is nice... very nice. I almost bought it... But do I think it is a safer plane comparing the typical pilot buying a Cirrus vs a Corvalis? Definitely not. The chances for a 500hour plus pilot to get into an accident will be similar for both planes, but the outcome (fatalities for very specific type of accidents) WILL be less. For common accidents, the fatality rate will be the same.
Reply to this
Johann Van Der Merwe:
Thank you for the comment. The fact is, there are too few Cessna-manufactured Corvalis aircraft to offer useful safety analysis. Therefore, I concede that my statement, there has not been an NTSB-reported Corvalis accident, could be misleading.
I agree with you, neither the Corvalis nor Cirrus aircraft are best for beginners. Both have similar high performance and NASA AGATE-designed NLF airfoils.
I also agree with your analysis of stall speed. Aircraft with low stall speeds have fewer fatal accidents.
The substantial safety difference between the Cirrus and Corvalis is in flight control design. The Corvalis offers stick force gradient, a stick force that resists inadvertent pilot over-control. The spring centered system of the Cirrus offers very little, if any, aerodynamic feel. And, small wrist movement results in substantial control input. That makes the Cirrus prone to loss of control.
Surprisingly, it's not the low-time pilot losing control of the Cirrus aircraft. The NTSB reports only two Cirrus pilots with less than 250 hours lost control in serious accidents. FIFTY-ONE pilots with more than 250 hours total time did lose control of Cirrus planes. Nineteen of those had more than 1,000 hours total time.
It seems you do not dispute the facts presented, more so that I make them known.
Regards,
Steve
Reply to this