Aviation Law Monitor : Aviation Lawyer & Attorney : Michael Danko Law Firm : California Airplane & Helicopter Crashes : Aviation Law Monitor

Cirrus aircraft are now available with "flight into known icing" (FIKI) capability.  That's a great feature. I've written before, however, that Cirrus is asking for trouble with its marketing.  Cirrus sells the feature as one that both enhances safety and increases the aircraft's utility.  But Cirrus can't have it both ways.  If a pilot uses the FIKI capability by, for example, flying in conditions that would otherwise keep him on the ground, he necessarily undermines that feature's safety benefits.  I discuss why Cirrus' marketing is a problem here.

Steve Wilson, who is an air safety investigator (among other things), now slams Cirrus' marketing even harder.  According to Wilson, some aspects of Cirrus' marketing encourage pilots to use the FIKI capability to take risks that are simply foolish.

Some say that Wilson's criticisms should be discounted because he sells Cessna aircraft and Cessna competes with Cirrus.  But Wilson isn't criticizing Cirrus' product, just its marketing.  It seems hard to argue with him. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Updated February 12:

A Cirrus SR-20 single engine aircraft collided with a Pawnee tow plane that was pulling a glider. The Cirrus reportedly ran into the Pawnee's tow line. The Pawnee crashed and the pilot was killed.  The occupants of the Cirrus were also killed.  The glider pilot, however, recognized the impending collision, released his aircraft from the tow line, and landed without injury to himself or his two passengers.

Each Cirrus aircraft is equipped with a rocket-propelled parachute.  One purpose of the parachute is to safely return the aircraft to earth if it is damaged in a mid-air collision.  Unfortunately, the parachute didn't help in this case. Video of the Cirrus wreckage, on fire, descending beneath its canopy is here.

Some questions:

Who had the right of way?

Gliders and tow planes have the right of way over other aircraft.

Why couldn’t the Cirrus pilot see and avoid the Pawnee's tow line?

The tow lines are nearly invisible in the air. But despite the news reports, the Cirrus most likely collided with the Pawnee tow plane itself, not with the tow line.  [The glider pilot has now confirmed to the NTSB that the Cirrus collided with the Pawnee’s fuselage, not the towline.] That explains the tremendous damage to the Cirrus and the Pawnee, and the immediate fireball that resulted, as reported by the glider pilot.

Doesn’t the Cirrus have radar to help avoid other aircraft?

No radar, but some Cirrus aircraft are equipped with other devices to detect and help avoid other traffic.  That equipment is optional, however, and may not have been installed in this particular Cirrus. [Reports are that the Cirrus was not so equipped when it left the factory.]  Even if it was installed, it only detects aircraft that have an operating transponder. Most gliders don’t have transponders. We don’t know whether the Pawnee’s transponder was on.

What good is the Cirrus parachute if the aircraft burns after a mid-air collision?

Some argue that the Cirrus is not crashworthy because it is prone to post-impact fires.  That's because it is made largely of fiberglass rather than aluminum.

It is true that aircraft should be designed so as not to burn after an accident.  However, that standard applies only when the crash is otherwise survivable. The impact forces in this accident appear to have been so great that the accident was not survivable. That makes it hard to blame the design of the aircraft for the post impact fire.  In fact, the occupants were likely killed on impact, making the fire irrelevant to the tragic outcome. (The parachute was likely deployed as a result of impact forces acting on the parachute's igniter cable, not by the aircraft's occupants.)   

Was this a freak accident?

Maybe, maybe not. Here is a video of a remarkably similar accident. The camera plane hit a tow plane's cable, rather than the tow plane itself.  The camera plane was equipped with a parachute, like the Cirrus was in this case.  The pilot deployed the parachute and ultimately walked away from the crash. 
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Corey Lidle's wife and Tyler Stanger's family are suing Cirrus Design, alleging that a problem with the plane's flight controls caused Lidle and Stanger's plane to crash into a Manhattan hi-rise.

Miles O'Brien, a former CNN correspondent, calls the lawsuit frivolous, because the NTSB concluded the cause was pilot error.  According to O'Brien, "in our litigious society, the facts don't matter for much."

O'Brien is missing the fact that the NTSB's conclusion is marred by a built-in conflict of interest. That’s because the NTSB allowed Cirrus to participate in the investigation, but not the families or the families’ experts. Is it any surprise that the NTSB’s final conclusions favored the manufacturer?

There is a known problem with the Cirrus ailerons jamming at full deflection. After this accident, Cirrus published a number of service bulletins in an attempt to correct the problem and, ultimately, the FAA issued an Airworthiness Directive against the aircraft. That doesn't necessarily mean that the aileron problem caused the Lidle crash. But the families are entitled to use the power of subpoena that comes with filing a lawsuit to investigate what happened. They don’t have to simply accept the NTSB’s conclusion — a conclusion the NTSB reached after closed-door meetings with Cirrus’ experts. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Cirrus is a “new generation” aircraft loaded with safety features. For example, if a pilot flying after dark gets too close to a ridge line, the Cirrus' on-board Terrain Awareness Warning System generates a voice urging him to “Pull Up! Pull Up!”  The plane’s wings secrete fluid that helps prevent them from icing up in poor weather. The cockpit has airbags, and its seats protect the passengers in a crash by absorbing 26 times the force of gravity.  The Cirrus is the only aircraft of its kind that comes with a rocket propelled parachute that can shoot out of the back of the plane in an emergency. Partly as a result of all its safety features, the Cirrus has become the most popular general aviation aircraft, with sales surpassing long-time industry leaders Cessna, Beechcraft, and Piper.

Critics, however, say that the aircraft has a lousy safety record, with a fatal accident rate significantly higher than the “old style” Cessnas and Beechcrafts. They say that the Cirrus, made mostly of fiberglass rather than the traditional aluminum, is not crashworthy. Not only does the fiberglass splinter instead crushing to absorb impact forces like aluminum, but they say the fiberglass and the parachute are prone to catching fire after impact with the ground.  They point out that, unlike other aircraft, the Cirrus is not recoverable if the pilot enters an inadvertent spin.  

Cirrus owners say their aircraft is well-designed and that its safety record is not bad when compared to aircraft performing the same mission, rather than to the population of general aviation aircraft as a whole.  Some Cirrus owners argue that the critics should be disbelieved because they are either salesmen trying to sell Cessnas or, worse yet, plaintiffs' lawyers.

So, where does an owner who is also a plaintiffs' lawyer weigh in on the debate?

The Safety Record:  

Cirrus fans who parse the statistics miss the point.  Cirrus markets itself as a company dedicated to providing “unprecedented levels of safety.”   Spend some time with the statistics and you have to conclude that the Cirrus is, at best, only marginally safer than other aircraft.  But no matter how you look at it, Cirrus' safety record is nothing to brag about.  The aircraft may have been designed to provide “unprecedented levels of safety” but, in practice, it really doesn’t.

Why the Record Fails to Live Up to the Design’s Promise: 

My bet is that “Risk Homeostasis” is at work.  Risk Homeostasis theory suggests that, when given the opportunity, pilots will use a safety feature to enhance the aircraft's utility rather than enjoy the increased level of safety the feature could provide.  For example, a pilot without on-board weather equipment will go many miles out of his way to avoid a deadly thunderstorm, regardless of how inconvenient, because he is uncertain where the storm begins or ends.  If given weather depiction equipment, the pilot will use it to get closer to the thunderstorm than he otherwise would.  Because the equipment provides better information concerning the storms contours, the pilot will not give the storm the same wide berth and will instead cut his safety margins and shorten his trip.  

Similarly, a pilot who would not otherwise fly over inhospitable terrain due to fear of engine failure might make the flight if his plane has a built-in parachute, because the parachute improves the odds of surviving should the engine quit.  By choosing to make the flight, the pilot has used a safety feature (the parachute) to increase the plane's utility, but he takes a risk he would not otherwise have exposed himself to. 

The Marketing Should Be Changed:  

A feature should be marketed as either a safety feature or a feature that increases an aircraft's utility.  To blur the distinction is to invite trouble.  And that's what Cirrus' marketing does.  For example, Cirrus now sells an improved anti-icing system for its aircraft.  Should the system be used to increase safety?  Or to increase the aircraft's utility?  It can't do both.  But according to Cirrus' website: 

Cirrus again delivers increased aircraft safety and utility. With Known Ice Protection. . .pilots can now launch or continue flight with the peace of mind . . .that they're both legal and safe. . .

This type of marketing only invites trouble.   

The Training Should Be Changed: 

Pilots who fly Cirrus aircraft need to be trained on the differences between using a feature to enhance safety and to increase the aircraft's utility.  Using a feature to increase the aircraft's utility necessarily undermines the feature's safety benefits.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link