While we probably don't need another Cirrus parachute discussion here, THIS is what I find very encouraging:

"Cirrus also briefed reporters on the progress of the SF50 Vision jet project, which the company says is on track to deliver the first customer aircraft in 2015. Sales continue to improve, Simmons said, with 275 piston aircraft delivered in 2013 and an order backlog of about 300 airplanes."

That must beat all the rest of the piston single market combined. Good for them!

Safety is a culture and it looks like Cirrus is trying to nourish that culture. Smart people, no wonder they're doing so well!

It's true. The fractional Cirrus program at PDK has many members and they are always training with the staff. It's a good program.

Here is an odd thought I had the other day...wonder on a given week how many Cirrus were flying in the system versus any other type?

Said another way A36, 182, PA-32, etc... Have lots more "numbers" made but how many fly on a given week compared to Cirrus?

Said one other way, I have a hunch Cirri are flown more often and regularly (on average) on "trips" than any one other single.

Thoughts? Anyone have data on this?

In terms of planes in the "system". Yes.

http://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/SR22
http://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/PA46
http://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/BE36

Tim

I looked at this several years back. Bottom line Cirrus (at that point) flew a LOT more IFR. Will post data to follow.

The FAA's IFR flight data stream was sampled every 2 hours from December 20, 2006 to Jan 29, 2007. Data collected included N-Number, aircraft type, origin and destination airports and estimated time enroute. N-Number was compared to the FAA registration database to obtain the aircraft's year of manufacture. Distance between origin and destination airports was determined using the great circle mapper.

Data was collected on 27,391 flights for the types listed in the attachment. 2,167 (8%) were flights using a Part 135 callsign and were excluded from the analysis that follows. 1010 flights (4%) had important data missing, typically origin or destination.

The following graphs show utilization by type and year of manufacture. Plotted points are actual data. A linear regression line is also depicted. The x axis is the same on all graphs unless noted. The y axis runs from 0 to 500, 750 or 2000 depending on the graph.

Only thing that beat the Cirrus was the PA46. Hard to know if this was IFR filing bias for Class A airspace or actual usage.

Very interesting stuff!

Jack,

Yes they, along with COPA, are trying very hard to change the safety record of not only their own planes but also of GA. I have written elsewhere about my own transition training program which was truly extraordinary. That is followed by 90 day recurrency and then 6 month recurrence on all aspects of flying the plane. Then one is encouraged to fly more than annually and train often. There is a steady drumbeat for training and safety on COPA.

This is the same message that ABS is sending (and probably other type organizations as well) and part of the subject this week of Tom Turner's excellent blog (here:http://www.mastery-flight-training.com). In this weeks discussion he points out that his research shows that less than 5% of ABS members take annual flight training and that GA pilots as a whole do even less.

This is abysmal, embarrassing, pathetic, inexcusable and unethical in my opinion. Particularly when carrying passengers. Yet, since it's not required human beings often shift to the lowest required amount of anything. So, the GA safety record sucks as a result. I think, from my conversations and observations thus far the Cirrus community's (including the factory) focus on safety and training appears to be bearing fruit. It would be wonderful if the GA community as a whole was as committed, active and insistent. If it were CrashTalk would be less active and we'd have less dead pilots and passengers.

How many ABS members actually own an airplane?
How many ABS members fill out that silly survey? I certainly didn't.
How many ABS members (like me) get far more intense training on a semi-annual basis as part of their professional life?

Statistics like the above really don't amount to a hill of beans.



That's a bit over-the-top... especially when based on such a sketchy statistic.
I'm a big fan of initial and recurrent training (even for bug-smashers), but I would be wary of believing (or drawing conclusions about personal ethics based on) a statistic like that put out by an organization that is also selling training.

The GA safety record doesn't suck. Overall it is quite good.

The GA safety record is not MY safety record.

If I trained weekly for the last 30 years my safety record would be no better than it is.

I am in favor of training but some of us utilize techniques, such as hand flying all instrument departures and approaches, that help keep us sharp.

Much of safety has to do with judgment which is very difficult to teach. Then of course there is experience.

The goal should be to eliminate the 80% or so of accidents attributable to pilot error.

If the pilot isn't making errors recurrent training won't necessarily improve the pilot's ability to continue not making errors.