Is there data to support that assertion?
Fuel exhaustion/misfuelling should not be called “engine failure” for statistical purposes.
entirely voluntary for a Cirrus pilot unless he has a fuel leak upstream of the sensor that feeds the fuel totaliser
But, an SR22 also has direct-reading fuel level sensors, I am sure. So you would have to not be watching them.
I can’t for the life of me see why we shouldn’t have electronic ignition or more modern designs generally on our engines but I don’t think that that is the only answer by any means.
I am not convinced electronic ignition would be more reliable. There is very little precedent for competent electronic design in GA, and engine failures due to a loss of the ignition system are very rare.
Are the Cirrus engine failures more frequent than on other types? Engine failures on the certified engines are extremely rare. I have read some stuff suggesting the IO550 they use did have a run of some specific issue but can’t remember the details.
But, an SR22 also has direct-reading fuel level sensors, I am sure. So you would have to not be watching them.
Newer Cirrus aircraft have very accurate fuel gauges but older ones such as my G2 have notoriously poor gauges to the point where I actually never look at mine.
As I said in my earlier post, the totaliser IS very accurate and I rely on that having verified the amount of fuel in the tanks before departure by checking that the tanks are full, to tabs or above tabs.
I have a spreadsheet on my ipad that tracks consumption and balance between the two tanks and calculates range and safety margin. There is also a free iPhone app called Tank 2 that calculates balance between the tanks.
The potential problem I mentioned in my earlier post could arise if there was a leak upstream of the totaliser sensor such that fuel is lost without having passed the sensor. That said, I am not aware of this ever having happened so it remains a theoretical risk.
I am aware of one fuel exhaustion forced landing on a road by an instructor (!) who hadn’t checked take off fuel properly.
Maybe CAPS is more useful for engine failures than spin recovery now?
Who cares about engine failures when you have “CAPS” and insurance ? When an engine failure changes character from something that is life threatening to a lucurative and “nice and different experience”, of course “engine failures” will increase.
Fuel exhaustion/misfuelling should not be called “engine failure” for statistical purposes.
I agree, but typically fuel related accidents are included in the “loss of power” category that was referenced in the initial post.
@LeSving: if I see much more of that kind of cynism I’ll think twice before taking to the skies again. Can only hope you are the exception with that kind of thinking.
if I see much more of that kind of cynism I’ll think twice before taking to the skies again. Can only hope you are the exception with that kind of thinking.
I don’t have a Cirrus. I just think it is very strange that suddenly engines in Cirruses stops for no apparent reason when they don’t in no other aircraft. And when an engine stop in a Cirrus is guarantied survivable combined with the fact that the aircraft is totalled, this is a perfect opportunity for insurance fraud. It is done with boats, cars, houses, why not aircraft? I find such an explanation much more plausible than some exotic technical bug in the Cirrus engine that exist nowhere else.
I can’t see anybody (who is not completely stupid) pulling the chute on a Cirrus to get the insurance payout.
There is a significant possibility of the chute failing (there are pics elsewhere here of such a failure, where the chute came out partly) and then you could kill yourself. Also there is a good chance of a back injury, which could be a low level chronic one even if you walk away like most/all seem to, or worse if you end up landing on something pointed.
Also in the USA the insurance will give you only the market value, AFAIK. Here in the UK you can insure for “agreed value” which can be higher than the current MV but that just gives the insurer a huge incentive to repair the plane no matter how long it takes, so you might merely get your wrecked but repaired Cirrus back 6 months later 
The only time you will get the agreed value in cash is if the plane is totally wrecked e.g. ditching or a fire and that is an awfully risky way to get an insurance payout.
I have spoken to some UK insurers about Cirrus insurance and it’s obvious they don’t exactly like the type and the circumstances in which the chutes have sometimes been pulled. I know that is a very different picture from the public face put on in the USA, but there we are. The first UK chute pull (2010) resulted in an increase in the deductible from 3500 quid to 15000 quid for the owner (a syndicate) which was clearly meant as a disincentive to use it again (whatever you think of that).
Peter wrote:
The first UK chute pull (2010) resulted in an increase in the deductible from 3500 quid to 15000 quid for the owner (a syndicate) which was clearly meant as a disincentive to use it again (whatever you think of that).
Not only for that syndicate; I was renting a Cirrus from a private owner around that time. The choice was to pay a higher premium or accept a higher deductible.
This looks more than the insurance company hiking the price after the accident (which is happening right now across the board) and somehow keeping it affordable (and, because it was a good excuse, increase their margin a bit..); not a deliberate disincentive to use the chute, where paying 10k less on a 300-500k loss is a drop in the ocean…
