I assume it has a lot to do with the stall characteristics, but with the SR20/22 having a combined 1.6/100,000 Fatal rate and the DA40 having .35/100,000 Fatal, it seems like a very stark difference. Additionally, the SR-- has a ballistic parachute and the DA40 does not.
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
-
5$\begingroup$ Although they are new designs you aren't comparing like for like. The SR22 is a higher performance aircraft with 310hp as opposed to 180hp, and it has a longer range. It has more capability, which means it will be used differently. $\endgroup$– GdDCommented Sep 1, 2014 at 8:27
-
$\begingroup$ Do we have a source for this statistics? $\endgroup$– D1XCommented Nov 2, 2022 at 12:26
Add a comment
|
4 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
Compared to other 180 hp airplanes the DA40 handles strong cross-winds better. It also has good visibility because the canopy bow is so far aft.
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/diamond-da40
In defense of the SR20 what can be said is that the SR20 has a split-airfoil wing design that guarantees the wings will stall near the fuselage first, leaving the outer wings and ailerons unstalled. The result is very controllable performance right up to and including the stall.
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/plastic-airplanes
That being said, a majority of accidents involving the DA40,SR20/22 or any 4-seat GA airplanes is almost always caused by Pilot error. So , it is not about the DA40 being more safe than the SR20. Splitting high and low fleet hours may result in too high a number. Ergo, the math is not precise.
-
$\begingroup$ It's true that most accidents are due to pilot error. But some aircraft may be more forgiving of errors than others. So even though technically it may be put down to pilot error, the difference may still be explained by design of the aircraft. We see similar results in light aircraft where Flight Design planes have a much higher accident rate than CubCrafters even though pilots in both cases tend to be experienced. It's mostly down to stall characteristics. There was a YouTube video on this from AVWeb. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 19, 2021 at 11:15
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
Not sure how true it is, but one theory I've heard about the high accident rate of the SR22 is the parachute. Every added safety feature tends to make people more careless. Was the same when airbags were first introduced in cars, accident rates shot up for a while before slowly trending down again.
Also, the DA40 is used more often as a trainer, while the SR22 is more often used by relatively inexperienced pilots who do have a license. Might well make a difference (student pilots tend to be more aware of the limits of their skill and knowledge than cocky fresh graduates who think that now that they are certified to know it all they really do know it all). And often that student will have an experienced instructor in the cockpit with him as well.
-
$\begingroup$ Also known as risk compensation/the Peltzman effect: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3, 2014 at 13:43
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
Suggest you look at the design of the DA-40 vs the Cirrus aircraft. Also compare the number of post-crash fires in each aircraft type (DA-40 has zero). The Diamond's have dual spars in their wings, with fuel tanks between the spars (for crash protection). The Diamond's also have robust fuel lines that resist pinching and breaking in the event of a crash.
-
$\begingroup$ @David, updated URL: diamondaircraft.com/en/private-pilots/safety $\endgroup$– PeterCommented Jan 20, 2020 at 1:31
-
$\begingroup$ @Peter - Thanks for updating., I deleted mine as it no longer worked. $\endgroup$– DavidCommented Jan 20, 2020 at 16:14
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
7
If I had to place the blame on this one, it’s in the fact that the Cirrus aircraft are faster and more capable. I suggest reading The Next Hour by Richard Collins about GA accidents and safety. He talks at length about how faster, more aggressive airplanes tend to attract aggressive pilots who may lack the discipline to fly them properly or have extreme hubris in regards to their piloting abilities. Add into this Cirrus’ somewhat deceptive marketing strategies where they seemingly tout the airplane as safe, almost to the point of invulnerable, with the CAPS system. The general public’s and GA pilot pool’s ignorance of the capabilities and limitations of safety features combined with the high performance of the airplane as well as the large scope of private pilot privelages in terms of airplane performance also aggravates this. This make for a situation ripe for accidents to happen.
To be fair the Cirrus SR20 and SR22 are excellent, docile and safe airplanes IF OPERATED PROPERLY. And the SR20 has an excellent safety record, comparable with the DA40. But the fly faster and operate faster in the pattern than does the Diamond. And considering that 50% of GA accidents happen on approach and landing, at low altitudes at higher speeds with more impact energy where the chute is inefficitve as an escape system, it’s no wonder an SR-22 has a higher accident rate associated with it.
answered Oct 27, 2018 at 3:56
-
$\begingroup$ "And the SR20 has an excellent safety record, comparable with the DA40". This is not a fair statement. SR20 has about 3X the crash rate and over 5X the fatality rate. That is not what I someone would call comparable. $\endgroup$– DavidCommented Oct 27, 2018 at 21:04
-
$\begingroup$ And where exactly are you obtaining this data from? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 27, 2018 at 22:11
-
$\begingroup$ Actually current accident statistics indicate the SR20 had a fatal accident rate of 0.42/100,000 flight hours compared with the DA40 at 0.35/100,000 flight hours as of 2015. This is probably due to much improved transition training on the part of Cirrus. In the past the SR20 had much higher accident rates than the Diamond. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 27, 2018 at 22:34
-
$\begingroup$ diamondaircraft.com/about-diamond/safety-features has the graph I was quoting but there are plenty other more independent ones with similar numbers. I've never seen the SR20 quoted that low. Is that just a single year quoted that low, or is this a consistent low over many years? Is it derived from the NTSB database like the other stats? Thanks! $\endgroup$– DavidCommented Oct 28, 2018 at 0:22
-
$\begingroup$ FYI, another source with similar numbers: flygenesis.ca/flight-training-blog/… $\endgroup$– DavidCommented Oct 28, 2018 at 0:23