How do you assess risk?

Pilot_DAR wrote:

owners with lots of money will “buy the best”

The Cirrus is by no means the most expensive GA plane out there, in fact it is $100k cheaper than it’s nearest competitor the Cessna TTx. And there are many ways to spend far more money as a low time pilot on more dangerous aircraft like a Lancair Evolution, a Pilatus or a TBM (if the definition of danger is speed and capability).

A general criticism of low time pilots (what arbitrary quantification defines ‘low’ or ‘high’ time) and higher accident rates is also not supported by evidence. High time pilots are having just as many accidents as low time pilots (inexperience versus complacency). And the generalization that most or all Cirrus owners are wealthy, low time pilots is also not in evidence.

The contention that higher more complex avionics and more advanced safety features (like CAPS, the split wing, airbag seat belts, glass panel, FIKI) leads to higher risk taking is also not proven and is a kind of reverse logic. The ocean bottoms and land masses are littered with aircraft flown by pilots using pilotage and dead-reckoning.

Here is a Cirrus chute pull from today: http://fox6now.com/2015/12/27/developing-small-plane-crashes-in-ixonia/

Well, some pilots make six successful forced landings, other die on the first attempt. But all cases in which Cirrus pilots used the parachute withing the airplanes envelope after an engine failure resulted in everybody walking away. And that’s all that counts. I regularly land the SR22 on 5-600 m grass strips, even “bad” ones, but if I was away from a runway I’d use CAPS for the emergency landing, because statistically it’s the safest method. If it happens over suitable terrain there’s a big chance the plane will fly again (about 15 CAPS planes were repaired to fly again, some were almost undamaged)

But as I said before: Nobody HAS to pull the red handle!

And the generalization that most or all Cirrus owners are wealthy, low time pilots is also not in evidence.

It’s just another clichee. Many SR22s are owned by a group, clubs and professional charter companies, and many SR22 pilots buy the airplane used for about the same money, or less, a used 182, Mooney or Bonanza costs.

It’s just the image many have. Cirrus Pilot = rich. And if somebody is rich, or richer, then of course other clichées come up … All in all these discussions become very boring very quickly, and they remind me of the discussions i had with my parents in the 70s when the seatbelt laws werde introduced. The arguments were almost the same too.

But nobody can ignore one fact: While it is true that the chute will not save you in all deadly scenarios, it does provide additional safety. I can well accpet that many pilots do not want to give up 60 lbs payload or don’t want to spend € 15.000 for the overhaul every 10 years. But I can afford it, and I don’t care if it is more expenisive. It gives me a good feeling, especially when I fly with the kids. No, it is no voucher for doing stupid things, enough pilots got killed in Cirrus planes too, but it is one step towards more safety. And none of the 104 people who landed under the canopy unharmed commplained about the cost of the system …

I think that is more or less obvious that they will. Lots of times in this forum people have called CAPS a substitute for a second engine. With CAPS you will consider and often carry out flights you otherwise wouldn’t do in a single. That doesn’t mean Cirrus pilots are reckless. It means that they include CAPS as part of their risk assessment.

Yes, if you put it this way, I probably have to agree. But that’s a thin line. I do know ONE guy who flew/flies his Cirrus at nigh in IMC over the Alps – something i will not do – and he argues openly that “he had CAPS”. To me that means throwing away the safety advantage CAPS can offer.

But of course when I fly over mountains where an emergency landing would be next to impossible (big parts of the Pyrenees, and many parts of the Alps too) … I do think about CAPS. But I have done flights to Crete, the Bahamas, over the Pyrenees in my old Piper aswell. I do think they feel better in the Cirrus. But I am not a good example, because my tolerance for dangerous flights is very low. I do fly through Alpine valleys, land on short grass strips and I do fly in IMC … but all with large safety margins and never to the limit.

Let’s make this thread a bit less religious… it is awfully boring to many people to read the same stuff over and over and over and over, in many consecutive posts.

Get it back on topic otherwise I will have to yet again delete a lot of stuff.

This is a good thread but it is getting cluttered with too much off topic material.

Retractable gear in GA are the biggest insurance risk and cause the most payouts. That’s why insuring a retractable gear aircraft is so much more than fixed gear.

That is also complete bullsh1t but I am too tired to yet again post links to the many threads here with actual figures.

Pilot_DAR wrote:

Do drivers take more risks when they believe that the car is “safer” because it is equipped with seat belts/air bags/anti lock brakes?

Yes, absolutely. I just have to observe myself driving my classic (50 year old convertible) and a modern car. I am MUCH more cautious and attuned to what’s going on around me in the classic that of course has no modern systems whatsoever.

172Driver using a pushbike in London traffic for the work commute, makes my 72 VW 1300 be the height of safety technology, it has been upgraded to include inertial shoulder straps, though.

Peter wrote:

That is also complete bullsh1t

It’s a fact. I just did a comprehensive insurance audit connected to the selection and purchase of a new aircraft. The Diamond DA42-VI was prohibitively expensive due to the high insurance premium. The reason given was the retractable gear. The insurance companies dictate what is ‘risky’ based on their payout history.

What did you compare the DA42 with?

Did you compare similar fixed-wing and retractables? Note there are no (?) fixed wing twins so how could anyone say the high premium for the DA42 is due to it being a retract?

The DA42 is probably an unusual plane from the US POV. I know a US pilot who pays $12000 for his DA42 insurance, which is outrageous in European terms. Insurers don’t like unusual stuff.

If you compare similar stuff e.g. TB20 and SR22 you see almost identical figures. A survey I recall from a few years ago, in the USA, showed higher premiums for the SR22, but that could have included additional factors such as different pilot experience.

A Saratoga and a Lance are also similar, for an appropriately experienced pilot and obviously comparing similar hull values etc. If your experience is very low, say PPL+50hrs, the disparity can be more pronounced because the insurer will be scared.

What is your TT and your ratings?