Yeah, kinda figured you were a Cirrus owner, and as such I can understand being a bit defensive of the marque. However, if you go back and read everything I've posted in it's entirety, I bet you will find we are on the same page for the most part. ;)
I think so far that is the consensus here. Unless I missed it, I don't think anyone has given more weight to the possibility of a mechanical failure at this point. Still, we can't be sure until the investigation is finished.
OK, this made me wince a little, lol.

I am sure it's a relatively well-mannered aircraft. While it technically may not be more "difficult" to fly than say a 172, the margin for error is a lot smaller. The Vso is what, like 20kts faster? The Vmc speeds are also much higher. You also need nearly double the runway to land one.

So, if you take someone who is right at the edge of competence (and proficiency) in a 172, and put them in a SR22, it will most likely bite them sooner than later. Some may get lucky with the severity of that "bite" while others won't. YMMV...

Sorry Eric, but using a Google search result as fact or evidence does not do it for me. I try to look at real factual evidence. Your statement of a lot of low time pilots with money sounds a bit biased too; not really based on fact. There is negative stigma, it seems, to some who don't take that extra time to get beyond the Google auto complete or to look at actual safety data that is available. I have heard it before from the Beech, Cessna and Piper owners forums...nothing new there. I guess many still take the time though to weed through the BS, as Cirrus is still the number one seller I believe for that type. Not the plane for everyone I understand...either for the cost or mismatch in mission profile.

The Cirrus isn't a hand full or a hot airplane...it just isn't. It is a numbers plane like most are. It is a well engineered, comfortable, efficient and safe traveling machine; one that has served me well for my mission (and many many others as well - take a gander at the fleet utilization numbers).

I feel for the families of the ones who perished. In time the facts will come out and the cause(s) understood. In the meantime, I personally will not speculate. That fascination following aviation tragedy has always eluded me. I just don't get it (my quirk I guess).

Changing the subject slightly, what are you flying these days? For pleasure or business?


Back at you - SmileWavy

This sounds about right. Definitely should be additional training and a 709, minimum.

I am not a pilot and know nothing about the "art" of it all, but WOW, that was a scary video! Very tragic! And of course, it could have been so much worse with actual casualties to those on the ground (good thing the car was empty). I am surprised by the lack of hollywood effects (fire, explosion, etc.) from that impact. The video is short, so maybe that comes later? I guess I've seen too many damn movies and expected mayhem (not that what was in the video wasn't devastating in and of itself to watch).

It's been very interesting to read all of the input from those with flying experience...

That is a wild ground track.

Here i show the chute works.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N9F5jlWSx8k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Interesting for a personal blog...

Interesting but he needs to do some more thorough research. Metals wings have twist/washout as well. I think the 172/182 is 3* root to tip. Not sure on the Piper with the tapered wing but the hershey bar doesn't have much.

Not sure you are understanding what he is trying to say. It would be no different than a newer pilot flying a Bonanza or 182T or something like that. The fact that it was a Cirrus isn't the point. The point is, she was a low time pilot in a high performance airplane which has less room for error. The original doctor killer name was handed out to the early V-Tail Bonanzas for that very reason. Pilots with a lot of money, (doctors) could afford to buy these high performance machines but were not proficient in flying them so there were many accidents. Same point trying to be made here. This person apparently had some money, as we know these planes are not cheap, and was in over her head. If she would have been in a 172 or Warrior etc., there might have been a different outcome.

Yes, but I'm also not a jerk SmileWavy

oh, okay. Sorry you feel I am coming across that way. Honestly, I was asking so that I could better understand your viewpoint. Your indirect answer lead me to a conclusion. Sorry if I was a bit abrupt. Not really my intention.

Different subject. Having been an aviation enthusiast for more year of my life than not, I wonder what it is about aviation tragedy that pulls people into the discussion. Surely there are morbid car accidents, but I don't see people engage like they do with aircraft accidents. I wonder why.

If his point is the same as you are stating, then I was understanding it and taking issue with it. My issue is with the unfounded generalization that "Pilots with a lot of money, (doctors) could afford to buy these high performance machines but were not proficient in flying them so there were many accidents. Same point trying to be made here. This person apparently had some money, as we know these planes are not cheap, and was in over her head. If she would have been in a 172 or Warrior etc., there might have been a different outcome."

I don't know how one can come to that conclusion. That generalization is not new though. It has been around for many years. It is pure speculation when we do not yet know the facts in the case.

Let me see if I can relate it to something more near and dear to this forum's members: "rich people who buy Porsches might not be proficient in driving them and have many accidents. I mean they have money but are in over their head. Maybe if they drove a Ford or Chevy there would be a different outcome." Does that play out? I am not so sure. Is that relatable? Is it a reasonable generalization?

I saw serious photos post-crash of a young girl who borrowed her father's porsche, misjudged the clearance and smashed into a toll booth at over 90 miles per hour. Her brains were out. It was sick. I can still see the images in my mind. She was in way over her head. Was it the Porsche, or would she have missed the toll booth in a lower performance car? I personally think the issue here is the person.

Anyway, we are not getting anywhere. She is dead and so are the passengers. None of this really matters. It is just armchair quarterbacking at this point.

Doctor Killer finally tamed - Porsche 911

The facts in the case are pretty simple: She got too slow in a turn and entered a stall/spin. That's pretty obvious. But let's take the money out of it. She was in a high performance airplane that was above her skill level. 'Most' new pilots can't afford to fly high performance airplanes for initial training and they tend to work their way up building seat time and gaining exp. along the way before making the jump. I do get the fact that every person is different and has different skill sets, etc. but I remember the first time I flew a 182. That thing was a monster. There would have been no way I could have flown that thing without having a few hundred hours of 152/172 time first, but I also understand it's a new generation of technology and pilots starting out today have many different options.

And yes, I have seen MANY high performance cars crash at the track because their drivers had less skill than their cars. Don't see near as many Miata's going off track.

But you're right, it is what it is at this point and prayers sent to all involved..

http://airfactsjournal.com/2012/05/dicks-blog-whats-wrong-with-cirrus-pilots/
http://www.stevewilsonblog.com/the-cirrus-airplane-has-serious-problems/

Oh my. I guess at this point, I have the fact that I am not a doctor going for me....

Next, someone will tell me hang gliding is dangerous...

Luckily I like beer and am proficient in its consumption. I am happy to have that to fall back on.

I remember those from years ago. The stats have changed - being tracked by the owners group. There was a wave of the aforementioned sentiment that still carries over. A resurgence of a segment of flying due to serious sales increase in a particular brand of aircraft - some 5,000 plus sold (which is huge in that industry). A disproportionate increase in accidents. A stigma established. The plane didn't create new types of accidents, just increased existing ones. The technology, the engineering behind the design and the chute were intended to curb accidents, but they didn't take the human out of the equation.

Have you seen the increase in Bonanza accidents lately?

The aging population of pilots doesn't bode well for the future of safety in aviation...

Sweet.

I have read some of the links and recommended searches (e.g., Dr killer C). "Stats" say the pilot who has 800 hours will lose control of the Cirrus more than the pilot who has under 100 hours. Now, how worthless is that?

I have to think that when you are warned of 747 turbulence for landing at Hobby, your skill set has been eclipsed.

What do you think may have happened from what you have read?

I am not a pilot. I have trouble working my George Foreman grill, to be honest.

On that we can agree http://forums.pelicanparts.com/suppo...s/beerchug.gif

I am not a pilot I have never been in a Cirus let alone fly one... that said

Do you have kids - If not would you like to be on the road if every parent gave their hormonal teen with a fresh license a high horsepower high performance car or would you rather them get the low horsepower car that is a bit more forgiving of the poor choices teens always seem to make.

Will the teen still make those poor choices even though they may be in a cheaper car... yep they will. That said less power in a lower performance vehicle that tends to be slower reacting and they have a better chance of recovering before it gets away from them.