SR-20 and SR-22 accident reports

[Alex Clark]

REVISED
So far the best list I can come up with for accidents and incidents involving the Cirrus SR-22 and SR-20.
Plus I included the pilot time when I could find it.
I really need the total hours flown on that particular aircraft.,,, BUT as you can see, other than the brakes catching on fire, or going into a spin, ,,most of the accidents are caused by doing things that would get you in any plane....


SR-22 &SR-20 Accidents: NTSB REPORTS 1999 to 2006

Date:,,,,, Type Accident,,,,, Pilot Time ,,,, Time In Type
2/06/2006 Wagner S.D. SR-22, Nonfatal, VFR, lost control during climb, pulled chute UNK unk hrs
2/04/2006 Stuart FL SR-22, Fatal, (3) Unk crashed into ocean unk unk
1/22/2006 Lincoln Park, NJ SR22 Nonfatal VFR, Bounced Landing impact trees 928hrs 43hrs
1/13/2006 Childersburg, AL SR22 Nonfatal IFR, Iced up, stalled, spin, Chute Deploy ATP UNK
12/29/2005 Sylva, NC SR-22 Fatal(2) private pilot into IFR fog. Unk Unk
12/11/2005 Arco, MN SR22 Fatal(3) IFR, CFIT Priv UNK
12/9/2005 Houston, TX SR22 Nonfatal VFR, right landing gear fire during taxi 4,100 150
9/5/2005 Lincoln Park, NJ SR22 Nonfatal,VFR Landed long, hit embankment 475 45
8/10/2005 Brainerd, MN SR-20 Nonfatal, VFR, Bounced landing left runway UNK UNK
8/7/2005 Farmingdale, NJ SR20 Nonfatal , VFR, Right gear caught fire during taxi CFI UNK
8/5/2005 Orlando, FL SR22 Nonfatal VFR, Right gear caught fire on take-off. Com unk
6/30/2005 Haverstraw, NY SR-22 Nonfatal. VFR, pilot passed out, woke up pulled chute. 1125 unk
6/18/2005 Phoenix, AZ SR-22 Nonfatal,VFR, Sim power out, collided short of runway Unk UNk
4/2/2005 Atkinson, NE SR-22 Nonfatal,VFR, Crosswind, depart runway, collide 423 200
3/10/2005 Jacksonville, FL SR20 Incident, VFR, hard bounce landing, nose gear colsp. 148 79
3/7/2005 Half Moon Bay, CA SR22 Nonfatal VFR, Right Gear fire on taxi, wing melted unk unk
2/6/2005 Norden, CA SR22 G2 Fatal(1),IFR into known icing at 16K feet. Dive, crash 473hs 69hr
1/20/2005 Hood River, OR SR22 Fatal(3), Night IFR in mountainous terrain, Impact 1140 unk
1/15/2005 Coconut Creek, FL SR-22 Fatal(1), IFR, Disoriented pilot, struck house in dive 483 405
12/4/2004 Belgrade, MT SR22 Fatal(3), VFR, slow flight at high alt, over mountains, hit trees 1561 105
11/16/2004 Peachtree City, GA SR22 Incident, VFR, Engine fire on take-off, 248 17
10/29/2004 Pueblo, CO SR22 Nonfatal, VFR, wind shear, landed off runway, gear colps. 2002 250
10/16/2004 Port Austin, MI SR22 Nonfatal, VFR, wind gust, landed long, hit fence. 2200 92
9/19/2004 Peters, CA SR-22 Nonfatal, IFR, flew into level 5 thunderstorm, lost control-chute 2565 498
9/11/2004 Oxford, CT SR-22 Nonfatal,VFR Night ILS, bounced exit runway, collide w/car unk unk
9/10/2004 Park Falls, WI SR-22 Fatal(1), VFR, Impacted river during training flight unk unk
4/19/2004 Greenwood, SC SR20 Fatal(4), hot day, full load, improper take-off 847 63
4/10/2004 N. Lauderdale, FL SR22 Nonfatal, IFR, water instatic sys, pilot panicked p-chute 799 541
1/22/2004 College Park, MD SR-22 Nonfatal, VFR, Brake line hole on landing, hit VASI lights 890 420
12/27/2003 King, NC SR22 Nonfatal ,VFR, Simulated engine out, right into a power line 398 118
10/12/2003 Pamplona, Spain SR-22 Fatal(4), VFR mountain flight CFIT unk unk
8/15/2003 Teuge, Netherlands SR-20 Nonfatal, Stalled during evasive flight at low alt unk unk
7/12/2003 Fish Haven, ID SR-20 Nonfatal, VFR, low and slow, retracted flaps, hit terrain 404 394
1/23/2003 San Jose, CA SR 20 Fatal(1), IFR, hit power line wrong way on GPS apprch 460 334
1/18/2003 Hill City, MN SR-22 Fatal(2), VFR flight into IMC at low alt, struck trees 248 19
11/3/2002 Las Vegas, NM SR20 Fatal(1), VFR pilot into IFR, fog mist impact terrain 1884 unk
10/15/2002 Point Pleasant, WV SR-20 Nonfatal, VFR, hit Deer on runway while landing 109 82
10/3/2002 Lewisville, TX SR-22 Nonfatal, VFR, Aileron separated in flight, pulled chute 356 124
5/28/2002 Angel Fire, NM SR-20 Fatal(1), VFR, Hot, high alt, departure into terrain 1350 100
4/24/2002 Parish, NY SR-22 Fatal(2) entered flat spin at 5000 ft. impacted ground 337 31
3/16/2002 Lexington, KY SR-20 Nonfatal, IFR, turn indicator died, chute malfunction, 371 110
9/19/2001 St. Bonifacius, MN SR-20 Nonfatal, IFR flight, no oil in engine, emergency landing 431 16
8/19/2001 Mitchell, GA SR-22 Nonfatal, MVFR, cracked fuel tank, engine quit, mag cracks 644 172
6/16/2001 Springfield, MO SR22 Nonfatal, VFR, bounced landing, left runway, collide 256 12
4/10/2001 Sierra Vista, AZ SR20 Fatal(3),IFR, Dusk, non-IFR pilot into mountain 1567 167
3/23/1999 DULUTH, MN SR20 Fatal(1)Aileron jammed during flight testing 2053 742

 

[flynlow]

Adding the ATP to the known pilots with 1000+ hours, I come up with 7 out of 16 accident pilots with less than 1000 hours.

Except for the one jammed aileron, it appears the others were pilots in over their heads or registering high on the stupidometer.

 

[Alex Clark]

The last one on the list was one of the company test pilots. (Not a graduate of any test pilot school according to the report) The ailerons were catching and jamming up. He had no personal parchute even though it was a test flight. And the company was not in radio contact with him.

The wheels catching on fire is a company induced problem. I think you have to steer the things with their brakes.

The nose wheel failure was identified as a bad weld. Of course the guy bounced it like a bad check to find out.

The water in the static system guy never used the alternate static source per the book. His instruments went whacky from (tap type water) in the inlet of the primary source. (SOMEBODY WASHED THE PLANE)
So he flies right off into a 400 foot ceiling. His doo-doo gets weak and he pulled the parachute.

One guy at 16,000 feet in icing conditions. Over high mountains. That speaks for itself.

Flying into ice, in a non-ice type plane seems to be a common theme for the IFR stuff. Overshooting landings looks like the clear weather event for these guys.

 

[Alex Clark]

REVISED:
There are (1700) SR-22s registered with the FAA.
And (517) SR-20s
@ 2217 total planes.
With 46 accidents and incidents between them. ...2.1%

Around 18 of them fatal..... 0.9%

Compared to 13,752 Cessna C-182s registered in the USA.
The C-182s reported a total of 538 to (600 plus if you count incidents) accidents to the NTSB during the same period.


C-182s= A 3.9 % accident rate for the total fleet. Same time period


There were a 119 fatal C-182 accidents during the same time period. = 0.87%[/b]

 

[a64pilot]

Alex,
Are you saying that company test pilots should be Pax river grads?
Would it really make sense to wear a chute when the aircraft has one?
I maintain contact with ATC on a test flight, they might can get you help if you need it, I don't know what good being in contact with the company would do.

 

[Alex Clark]

I don't think that plane had a chute. Maybe that is why they added them later....

They were going up to do unusual attitude recovery. The NTSB report mentioned the parachute thing so I included it.
They had intensionally changed some to the control linkage for this flight.

As far as contact with the techs on the ground, if it had happend,, they may have gathered more info regarding the aircrafts behavior from the test pilot. Since he is dead, he can't tell you much.

It was another thing specifically mentioned in the report so I included it. I am not passing judgement either way.

 

[freestone]

That is interesting data.

I would have sworn that the Cirrus had a higher accident rate, at least because I hear about them more often. Maybe the news reports just say a small Cessna?

Is the data complete? For example, I could have sworn there was a full panel failure in an incident out of Florida in IMC - a year or two ago. I didn't see that here.

Maybe all GA is more dangerous than I thought.

 

[Alex Clark]

I suspect that some reports are missing. I ran fatals and it came up with a few more that I did not originally see in the first list.

So the NTSB program is subject to question.

I would have thought they had a much higher accident rate myself.
Maybe the parachute things makes the press home in on them....

 

[freestone]

sounds like it is the more advanced airplanes - and that people that buy new use them differently than an older generation:

The FAA defines a TAA as having at least a GPS, a multifunction display, and an autopilot. AOPA says many pilots currently own or rent TAA, and the numbers are increasing. For 2004, 92 percent of newly manufactured general aviation (GA) airplanes were in this category.

"Pilots of light GA aircraft are now undergoing the transition that the airlines and corporate pilot did in prior decades," according to Bruce Landsberg, ASF's executive director.

Although ASF's accident database includes all GA accidents from 1983 to the present, NTSB reports don't distinguish between accidents involving TAA and those of traditional aircraft. For this report, ASF compared the accidents of the Cirrus SR20 and SR22 versus Cessna 182 models 182S, 182T, and T182T. Based on typical equipment lists provided by the manufacturers, ASF determined them all to be TAA. The study revealed a total of 21 fatal accidents (12 Cirrus and 9 Cessna), or a fatal accident rate of 7.1 and 5.7, respectively, per 1,000 aircraft produced.

ASF also studied the differences between pilots who fly TAA and those who don't. Although TAA pilots had a higher average total time (2,413 hours vs. 2,030 hours), they had a lower average time in type (305 vs. 451 hours). ASF then studied the accident rates, comparing total time in type between pilots of TAA and non-TAA. The numbers show that a higher percentage of low-time pilots are having accidents in TAA. A more in-depth study may be conducted as more TAA are introduced into the GA fleet.

As with most accidents involving traditional aircraft, those involving TAA are mostly pilot-related. Pilot error such as poor judgment, misinterpretations, misprogramming, and poor flight-control handling has always been an issue and is no different with TAA. "Poor judgment will always be poor judgment, regardless of the aircraft being flown," said ASF's Landsberg.

 

[mvivion]

"Technologically advanced aircraft"

Hmmm, a starter AND a portable GPS?



MTV

 

[Alex Clark]

I found a few more accidents. Mostly more of the same. Flying into known icing or taking off heavy, at high altitude, on a hot day, into a mountain.
Lemmings off the cliff....

 

[Swanstedt]

When calculating accident rates, etc. you need to keep in mind that very few Cirrus's were in existence prior to 1999. Serial No. 4 was manufactured in 1998. The majority of the Cirrus fleet was produced only in the last few years...as opposed to the 182 where there are probably as many being removed from the registry as being added over the same period.

Off the cuff, I would guess you could triple the calculated Cirrus accident rate and still be conservative. If someone had the annual production numbers for Cirrus it would be easier to prorate the accident rate for a better comparison.

 

[dpearce]

Curious how you did the database query Alex. I come up with 45 accidents, 17 fatal, 1998 to current.

Event Location Make / Model Event
Date Severity
1/22/2006   Lincoln Park, NJ   SR22   Nonfatal  
1/13/2006   Childersburg, AL   SR22   Nonfatal  
1/9/2006   Lancaster, CA   SR20   Fatal(2)  
12/29/2005   Sylva, NC   SR-22   Fatal(2)  
12/11/2005   Arco, MN   SR22   Fatal(3)  
12/9/2005   Houston, TX   SR22   Nonfatal  
9/5/2005   Lincoln Park, NJ   SR22   Nonfatal  
8/10/2005   Brainerd, MN   SR20   Nonfatal  
8/7/2005   Farmingdale, NJ   SR20   Nonfatal  
8/5/2005   Orlando, FL   SR22   Nonfatal  
6/30/2005   Haverstraw, NY   SR-22   Nonfatal  
6/18/2005   Phoenix, AZ   SR-22   Nonfatal  
4/2/2005   Atkinson, NE   SR-22   Nonfatal  
3/10/2005   Jacksonville, FL   SR20   Incident  
3/7/2005   Half Moon Bay, CA   SR22   Nonfatal  
2/6/2005   Norden, CA   SR22 G2   Fatal(1)
1/20/2005   Hood River, OR   SR22   Fatal(3)  
1/15/2005   Coconut Creek, FL   SR-22   Fatal(1)  
12/4/2004   Belgrade, MT   SR22   Fatal(3)  
11/16/2004   Peachtree City, GA   SR22   Incident  
10/29/2004   Pueblo, CO   SR22   Nonfatal  
10/16/2004   Port Austin, MI   SR22   Nonfatal  
9/19/2004   Peters, CA   SR-22   Nonfatal  
9/11/2004   Oxford, CT   SR-22   Nonfatal  
9/10/2004   Park Falls, WI   SR-22   Fatal(1)  
4/19/2004   Greenwood, SC   SR20   Fatal(4)  
4/10/2004   N. Lauderdale, FL   SR22   Nonfatal  
1/22/2004   College Park, MD   SR-22   Nonfatal  
12/27/2003   King, NC   SR22   Nonfatal  
10/12/2003   Pamplona, Spain   SR-22   Fatal(4)  
8/15/2003   Teuge, Netherlands   SR-20   Nonfatal  
7/12/2003   Fish Haven, ID   SR-20   Nonfatal  
1/23/2003   San Jose, CA   SR 20   Fatal(1)  
1/18/2003   Hill City, MN   SR-22   Fatal(2)  
11/3/2002   Las Vegas, NM   SR20   Fatal(1)  
10/15/2002   Point Pleasant, WV   SR-20   Nonfatal  
10/3/2002   Lewisville, TX   SR-22   Nonfatal  
5/28/2002   Angel Fire, NM   SR-20   Fatal(1)  
4/24/2002   Parish, NY   SR-22   Fatal(2)  
3/16/2002   Lexington, KY   SR-20   Nonfatal
9/19/2001   St. Bonifacius, MN   SR-20   Nonfatal  
8/19/2001   Mitchell, GA   SR-22   Nonfatal  
6/16/2001   Springfield, MO   SR22   Nonfatal  
4/10/2001   Sierra Vista, AZ   SR20   Fatal(3)  
3/23/1999   DULUTH, MN   SR20   Fatal(1)  

 

[a64pilot]

I don't think that plane had a chute. Maybe that is why they added them later....

They were going up to do unusual attitude recovery. The NTSB report mentioned the parachute thing so I included it.
They had intensionally changed some to the control linkage for this flight.

As far as contact with the techs on the ground, if it had happend,, they may have gathered more info regarding the aircrafts behavior from the test pilot. Since he is dead, he can't tell you much.

It was another thing specifically mentioned in the report so I included it. I am not passing judgement either way.

Sorry, I assumed that it was just a regular production test flight of an already certified design. I.E. new airplane.
If they were doing a "high" risk certification test flight, then I believe it should have been done with a flight test DER, wearing a helment and a parachute. When we do such a thing we also have a chase plane that is in constant visual and radio contact.

 

[Alex Clark]

Dan,
I later said I found a few more. For some reason the NTSB computer list them in an odd way. First I ran the question as SR-22 then SR-20. That is how the first numbers I came up.

Later I ran a search for "Cirrus" and came up with more. Including a couple of glider accidents that were thrown into the mix. Who knows why they did not come up under the model number......

I needed to change the list, but Iron Inge was calling and wondering if I was doing all the chores for the day that I promised to do... SO I fled the house....
I only asked back to Jan 1999 for the 182 and Cirrus accidents.

Plus we would have to add the last two accidents, the corn field parachute drop and the tragedy mentioned in another thread. If I can sit down today and read through thsoe other reports I will edit the list in the first part of this thread. I don't know how much it will change the final percentages.

xx

 

[dpearce]

Alex,

When I ran the query there were SR-22, SR22, SR-20 and SR20. Data entry differences I would guess. If a query was run with all four variations one should be able to get all the Cirrus accidents w/o the glider I would think. Was just curious if I was doing something odd.

 

[Alex Clark]

I don't think they enter the information in a uniform manner.

I just ran Cirrus (non-fatal) again and came up with 28 accidents, two of which were gliders.So really 26 And ( Fatal) 19 accidents with two being gliders. So really 17.

The last two accidents of the last week not being in there yet. One of each type.

So it is not showing me the two other accidents that you found.

It makes me wonder how they might have goofed up the C-182 entry numbers too....

Reading through all of those would be a big pain in the butt.

 

[dpearce]

Ran a query with "Cessna" and "182" to capture both the "182P", C-182 etc. variations. Comes up with 608 accidents. Just typing in Cessna gives over 5000 accidents and, like you, 'taint no way I'm digging through that mess to see the variations on 182.

 

[duckhunter]

cirrus

seems like many of these pilots are not exactly low time pilots, maybe it's their first fast single but i doubt it, most or them were probably instrument rated, if not , they should have been, other than the faster speeds and need to stay in front of the plane it shouldn't be that much harder to control than a 182 or 210 as long as the autopilot works and you know how to run it, if the auto pilot failed then that would be a different story, for my money if i wanted to go fast i would stick with one of the proven airframes ie 210, bonanza, mooney. i have owned a 210, bonanza, and barron and they all require close attention if the auto pilot fails, i presently fly a j-3 and a 185, (almost alway vfr) and like to fly with the big ball theory(keep the big ball in sight and you probably won't run into it)

 

[Alex Clark]

My eyes are still stinging from reading all of the Cirrus reports yesterday.

I guess one thing seems clear, other than the occasional spin and the wheels/brakes bursting into flames, the Cirrus accidents are not much different than any other plane.
Most of them are caused by doing dumb things.

Of course I have hardly ever seen an NTSB report that said an accident was caused by a bad design or by goofy FAA procedures.

And the dead folks from the fatal accidents are all likely to be victims of who-ever types up the report.

Now I remember why I hated (statistics) in college.

What was the old saying? Statistics never lie, but you, can lie with Statistics....

 

[duckhunter]

cirrus

i thought it was lies, damned lies, and statistics

 

[aalexander]

Alex,

One thing to consider about your statistics is that accidents per airframe is not a particularly revealing figure. WHat is probably the most relevant is accidents per hour (or 10,000 hours) of operation. Of course this number is much harder to get ahold of.

If I were to guess, I'd guess that there's quite a few more hours of operation per airframe on Cirruses than on 182s.

Cirruses are new and the owners just spent 1/4- 1/3 of a million dollars to buy it, I'd imagine they're probably out flying them quite a bit. On the other side of the coin, I'd bet there's plenty of guys who bought a ratty 182 for $25K, 15 years ago, and it sits in the weeds, not doing much flying, probably out of annual. I think if you were to compare the accident rate per 10K hours of operation for the 182 and cirrus, you'd see a bigger difference.

 

[Alex Clark]

With the large percentage being pilot induced, they would probably do the same thing in any plane.


Then again there is the old myth about money and pilots.

"You must have money, since you own a plane!"

"No,,, because I own a plane, I no longer have any money!"

xx