Steve Wilson: "The Cirrus Airplane Has Serious Problems"
Steve Wilson argues that there are safety issues with Cirrus airplanes. First, Wilson feels that the Cirrus is more prone than your typical Beechcraft to crashes in which the pilot loses control of the aircraft while maneuvering. Second, Wilson feels that the Cirrus is more susceptible to crashes involving inadvertent encounters with icing conditions.
Of course, the NTSB chalks up both of these types of accidents to pilot error, not to a fault in the
aircraft. But as far as I’m concerned, the NTSB finds pilot error too often, frequently overlooking how the machine may have contributed to an accident. Certainly, not everyone agrees with me. But Wilson seems to.
A former NTSB-trained accident investigator myself, I assure you, prejudice during investigation is always to blame a pilot. There is inadequate focus on the aircraft. Investigation parties of small aircraft consist of an NTSB investigator, possibly an FAA Flight Standards Inspector (there to violate the pilot), manufacturer reps (there to defend the product); there is never a human factors expert.
Prone to Loss of Control Accidents
So what is it about the machine that may contribute to loss of control accidents? According to Wilson, it’s the
design of the Cirrus' flight controls.
The Cirrus control system offers no “feel”, very little aerodynamic resistance because its control mechanism is centered by springs, not by aerodynamic pressure. A Cirrus control in flight feels the same to a pilot at any airspeed. Furthermore, small hand movements command full flight control deflection. The Cirrus joystick is so touchy that Cirrus instructors teach pilots to squeeze the control handle instead of pull back to rotate at takeoff.
Wilson notes the industry recognizes unusual flight control response as a hazard in other aircraft such as the Zodiac. But while the NTSB has zeroed in on the troubled Zodiac, it has not looked into the Cirrus' design at all. In fact, except for Wilson, few have linked Cirrus' accident record to its flight control system. But Wilson doesn't stand completely alone. Another flight instructor and Cirrus owner, Philip Greenspun, has made similar observations. According to Greenspun:
One problem with the Cirrus is its unforgiving handling compared to other basic four-seaters. For pilots accustomed to learning about an impending stall by feeling reduced airloads on the flight controls, the Cirrus provides much less stall warning. This is due to spring cartridges that continue to resist flight control movement even when the airplane is not moving.
Pilots refer to some aircraft as “honest airplanes.” A change in the "feel" of an honest airplane warns the pilot that he is approaching the edge of an envelope. If you ask me, the Cirrus’ spring cartridges mask much of that feedback, just as Wilson and Greenspun suggest. According to Wilson, the lack of control "feel" may account for the string of loss of control accidents involving highly experienced Cirrus pilots.
Especially Dangerous in Icing Conditions
Next, Wilson says the Cirrus is particularly dangerous when it encounters icing conditions. The Cirrus' "laminar flow" wing is built for speed, not safety. Compared to other wings, it is more vulnerable to stalling when it is contaminated with ice. According to Wilson, while ice can bring down any aircraft, the Cirrus' margin of safety is very small.
The design of Cirrus' tail is also problematic, according to Wilson, because the elevator is susceptible to “ice bridging." In short, the elevator control can lock-up due to ice, making the airplane uncontrollable.
True, the aircraft isn’t certified for flight in icing conditions, and pilots are supposed to stay out of ice. But, Wilson says, if you inadvertently find yourself in icing conditions, the Cirrus' design characteristics won't afford you much of a chance to escape.
Cirrus Design will continue to lure pilots into situations that are beyond what reasonable skill level and human attention can be expected to handle. . . Be warned Cirrus pilots. You are at more risk than you may know.
Blame the pilot, blame the airplane. I don't think that argument will ever end. I'm an incurable cynic, and I know there's a lot more money to be had blaming the aircraft. Pilots are typically terribly underinsured.
Mr. Steve Wilson might just be a teeny bit biased against Cirrus, given that he's in the business of selling Cessna aircraft in Sioux Falls, SD. No doubt he would like to see the Cessna 400/Corvalis TT sell as well as the Cirrus line. Let's hope their recent wing delamination problems were an isolated production hiccup. It looks like a good airplane. If it starts selling enough, though, I fear it will begin to develop the same history of undertrained pilots killing themselves in it.
Cloudesley-
While you'd expect Wilson to be biased against Cirrus, you'd expect Greenspun to be biased in Cirrus' favor. Yet Greenspun sees the same isssue with the Cirrus flight controls that Wilson sees. So I'm not sure Wilson's point can be easily dismissed.
Also, Wilson points out that many of the Cirrus loss of control accidents involve high-time pilots. That makes it harder to chalk up the accidents to lack of training.
-Mike
I won't waste a lot of time here refuting the comments contained in this article. I will say that after over 1200 hours in a Cirrus '22 I find it to be a very capable and honest airplane. I dislike the bungee on the aileron rudder inter-connect but it is at most an annoyance. In my opinion anyone who considers this airplane difficult to fly or exhibiting any surprising characteristics in a stall must be a ham-fisted pilot regardless of their ratings. Many of the accidents that have happened can be attributed to CFI's perpetuating old wives tales about landing speeds. It acts like the very capable aircraft that it is. Treat her with respect and she'll honor you with great performance, think that you can disregard the rules or aerodynamics and chances are you'll get bitten. Pretty much true in any airplane. It flies like the high apsect ratio, high horsepower bird that it is. I am not a Cirrus elitist, there are many great airplanes, usually better at some missions than others. Ther are things I can't do in a Cirrus that were easy in my C182 and vice versa.
Steve Wilson's criticism is classic commercial competitor badmouthing, nothing more. This is old news. He has a vested interest in spreading "concern" about Cirrus.
The Cirrus has accident rates comparable with other high performance single engine aircraft.
I have over 1000 hours in a Cirrus and no commercial interest in any particular aircraft. The Cirrus primary flight control is not a "joystick" it a "side yoke" - an ordinary yoke moved to the side of the aircraft, with a single grip instead of two as on most aircraft. It is no more sensitive than most high performance aircraft.
The older Cirrus with spring-centering controls does not differ much in "feel" from newer ones without the springs. The Cirrus wing is much more forgiving in a near-stall airspeeds than most aircraft. The icing comments are just silly, the aircraft, like nearly all small aircraft, cannot be safely or legally flown in icing conditions.
Nothing going on here other than an unsuccessful competitor taking pot shots at the company with the most sales; pick apart any differences between your product and theirs, and come up with a story to make the differences sound bad.
Peter.
Peter-
Thanks for the comment. But don't the new Cirri have spring cartridges as well? (I knew they did away with the rudder-aileron interconnect, but I thought the spring cartridges remain.)
-Mike
Cirrus owners say they are interested in promoting safety but they are not. They are only interested in promoting the idea that their airplanes are safe. If they are interested in promoting safety, they should welcome the deep dive. But instead they deflect by attacking the messenger, who in this case is a Cessna salesman. They think that any criticism of thier aricraft will either devalue their planes, or make them look stupid since they own one.
Everyone has an ax to grind, including Cirrus pilots. Cirrus pilots are elitist because they are the only ones who refuse to recognize that.
Some CIrrus pilots are interested in safety, some are looking primarily for reassurance that their aircraft is safe. Quite a few, however, are distrustful of any information or dialogue about the plane that didn't originate from one of their own. That distrust, or defensiveness, can come across as elitism.
Anyway, I always appreciate input from Cirrus owners and pilots here.
First off, there is so much bad info in this article and it is completely bias. People don't like change, this is human nature, so when something comes along that is new - people say its bad. I have owned Pipers and now a Cirrus, flown many Cessnas, and the Cirrus is hands down a better and safer aircraft. Pilots are also finatical about their "brand", this takes it a bit far. The side yoke is just that a yoke, not a joystick (Cessna 400 is more of a joystick). I would say that most PILOTS are concerned about safety, and so far I would say that Cirrus owners (as a whole) are even more safety conscious because they train probably more than any other GA pilot out there. This is a great thing! Last point since in general this blog is a bias waste of time - ALL planes can be dangerous. There is nothing wrong with Cirrus, but pilots are more the issue, not the aircraft! I think if you compare apples to apples prorated to the number of aircraft produced, you will see that Cirrus is no more dangerous than Cessna, Piper, or Beechcraft.
As Cloudlesley Shovell points out, Steve Wilson is a Cessna Salesman. Everything he says is to be disregarded.
Mike S-
Thanks for the comment.
I wouldn't be surprised if Cirrus pilots do train more than other GA pilots. Because of that, shouldn't the Cirrus safety record be *better* than the competition, rather than being, as you say, no worse? And since they are training more than others, how can the pilots "be more the issue"?
I'm not saying that the Cirrus is more dangerous than another plane, or that the plane is "bad." But perhaps some of the plane's attributes are worth talking about. In the end, a hard look can only make the safety record better.
Unfortunately, the article appears to be a simple bashing of the cirrus without any comment about the competitor, corvalis. Why do people prefer the cirrus over the cessna? There are several reasons. The Cirrus has a parachute, yes I said it. The cirrus is roomier in the back. The cirrus has better service than the cessna (in fact in brazil, the cirrus sells 20:1 mainly due to poor service). The cirrus always has the most advanced avionics while cessna is five years behind. And finally, there is price, where the cirrus is significantly cheaper. As for safety. I have flown the cirrus for 500 plus hours and only an idiot pilot couldn't fly the plane. I find it as easy to fly as a 172. Cessna has a nice plane in the corvalis but the pluses are few and not that significant. The corvalis is spin rated (rather have the chute), is utility rated (who cares), and is faster (the only plus, but since non pressurized plane rarely fly over 12,000 ft, big deal). Overall they are both great planes but the Cirrus is the better buy and I really doubt that there is a large significant difference in accident rates. Given the low sales and poor service, I am not surprised that cessna has eliminated the 350 and they now only offer the turbocharged version. As a potential buyer, the cirrus is the better buy and that is why there are so many of them. Now that the chinese own cirrus, I find the company much more stable. But in my final statement, stop bad-mouthing the cirrus, it's a great plane.
I have purchased a plane three years ago, and the Cirrus was on my short list for its performance and powerful avionics. I have finally decided not to buy one because it lacked a key feature in my view, which is tolerance to pilot error in a low speed/ low altitude situation. Furthermore, NTSB records show a clear tendency for post impact fire. I bought a Diamond DA40 and am very grateful for this plane's tolerance to pilot errors.
Additional data on SR22 safety record:
http://sr22.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/general-aviation-safety-and-the-cirrus-sr22/
@Antoine-
More on Cirrus and post-impact fire here => http://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/2011/12/articles/cirrus-aircraft/cirrus-crash-at-scottsdale-raises-questions-about-fuel-system-design-safety/