With all the discussion on the Cirrus crashes, I think that this article does a better job then any of the forum postings… It’s in this month Aviation Consumer. I think he nailed it.
Except you have to pay to read it.
Dittydog, please copy it if you want us read it.
Perhaps we could get the authors’ general idea here? I stopped paying for that paper when I found out about their ownership. There is simply no group out there that isn’t somehow financially tied to the success of Cirrus. Period.
Not to be a pain in the ass, but why couldn’t this link simply have been added to one of the OTHER *Cirrus Crash *discussions? Maybe Daniel should consider adding an entire “Cirrus” forum for all of these?
“Another Cirrus Crash”
“Cirrus Crashes, bad pilots or crappy plane?”
“Great Article Discussing Cirrus Crashes” <–(this discussion)
No “linkies” required, since they’re all on Page 1 of the GenAv forum!
Might as well just close this thread since nobody can read the article.
But he got his point across without showing us the article. “No, Cirrus planes don’t crash as much as the others do!” This thread should be locked. It made a controversial statement and didn’t back it up with evidence. It didn’t show itself and therefore couldn’t be proven wrong.
The gist of the article is that he is wondering out loud if the Cirrus, particularly the parachute, is attracting some pilots with poor judgement who have a higher chance of getting in over their heads. Here is the crux of it:
“Part of the Cirrus mission, he said, was to disabuse the world of the notion that you need some special DNA to fly an airplane. Im beginning to wonder if Cirrus has proved just the reverse. Pilots who survive the rigors of general aviation out there on the margins in bad weather, demanding airspace, long flights from home, high density altitude need a keen sense of survival to understand when to say no, Im not able to do this. Call it DNA or sixth sense or just common sense, but I submit that not everyone has it. Maybe it can be taught to most would-be pilots who really want to learn it, but I believe that some small portion of people who wish to fly cant or wont learn it. And some number of them are attracted to the Cirrus because of its core selling point: the parachute. Im not suggesting Cirrus shouldnt sell the parachute, just that progress sometimes comes with a harsh price tag.”
He goes on to ask how we might be able to determine whether a pilot has appropriate judgement and how this is going to become even more important as less expensive jets come on line.
So they buy this nifty airplane that gives them an extra measure of safety. And when it comes to the point of decision to use the chute, they decide against it because using it means certain write-off of the plane. “I’ll just fly through the ice a little while longer and see if an inch or two of it melts…”
Unfortunately, the dead pilots can’t refute your speculation. But experienced Cirrus instructors have found that they too fail to activate the Cirrus parachute in the full-motion simulator! Tunnel vision and prior training got in their way. IMHO, it’s unlikely that a Cirrus pilot facing a life-threatening situation makes a conscious choice not to use the parachute. More likely they are not even aware!
I read it as saying something different. For example, that certain pilots might make a decision to launch into known icing conditions without any deicing gear because the chute would give them a safety net if it didn’t work out. I didn’t read anything in his statements that suggested that those pilots weren’t pulling the chute when the stuff hit the fan.
Where in the world did you come up with that??? Thanks CAFlier for bailing me out here and passing on the information on the editorial. Since that aviationconsumer link is stored in my Cookies, I forgot that all of you would need a login to get to the article. The article is definitely not pro-Cirrus. Like CAFlier said in his post, it questions the flying ability and decision making process of the people who may be attracted to their planes.
Sorry about that. My bad. In reading through some of the past postings on this site, there’s a little bit of brand rivalry going on on these forums. I didn’t mean to stir the pot. I’ll refrain from further postings here.
I hope you don’t mean that, nor have I noted any “brand rivalry” among the aircraft owners who visit here.
I would suggest updating your personal filters to reflect the fact that many, many of the posts you’ll read here in the Forums are from youthful non-pilot wannabes.
No hard feelings. I didn’t understand you.
No, I used to be enthusiastic about Cirrus aircraft. 155 knots at 11 gph for only $200,000! That’s unbelievable! Cessna, Piper, and Beechcraft can’t match that, and sales are showing it at Cirrus. But after a few of them started crashing, I began having doubts about their safety. I just like Cessna because they make good airplanes.
JHEM is right.
Explain this statement – I though Aviation Consumer carried no advertising.
The company that publishes *Aviation Consumer *is privately owned by CEO Robert Englander, COO Phil Penny, editorial director Timothy Cole, and circulation director Greg King. I couldn’t find a relationship between this company and Cirrus.
But that is what I was saying. Thanks for the enlightening perspective, Rick! Whatever’s going through their minds, they’re not pulling the rip-cord when they need to. I just can’t fathom that they’re not pulling the cord because they’re forgetting that it’s there! WOW!
First, to clarify, a Cirrus pilot activates the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) with a handle, which is located in the headliner between the two front seats but accessible to any passenger in any seat. The act is two stage – pull the handle forward out of the retainer and then pull down with both hands to pull the cable that activates an igniter that fires off the rocket that punches out a cover and pulls the packed parachute out of the plane and well above and behind. Cool effect when watching the videos of test firings.
Second, forgetting might not be the right word, because I believe there are brain science explanations that revolve around our “lizard” brain. Those brain functions are largely unthinking, repeating the things that have become routine through training. Cirrus pilots now often practice a training routine – Bang! – a simulated emergency, followed by a head touch (to locate your hand relative to your head relative to the headlinerr) and CAPS handle touch. With these repetative motions, perhaps the awareness of the parachute will be more likely and pilots will not be trapped in lizard brain reactions.
They’re not forgetting Nose, it’s a case of OBE (Overcome By Events) and, as Rick pointed out, pulling the ripcord isn’t part of their ingrained training or prior experience.
The folks that publish AC also publish other aviation media that accept advertising dollars. Cirrus has got to be the number one spender of any plane company (based on my seeing the ads, no real data here).
I noted also that through some other publications they seem to have not too loose of relationships with some companies that sell products. They are definitely no Consumer Reports type of group.
Let’s suppose that this is all not true. If they got a reputation as a Cirrus bashing paper, how many subscribers would they lose? Cirrus is now like Cessna (or Microsoft or IBM), like or not you have to live with it.
That being said, I don’t think ANYONE knows for sure what causes the accident rate for Cirrus to be higher. Certainly not the folks in charge at Cirrus. My only criticism is that I do not believe enough effort has been made to find out, and I may be ill informed on that point.
Still, I think Mooney is the best, and when I don’t, I will sell it and buy something else and then say it’s the best. Spend that kind of money and you know you are going to be prejudiced