In article ,
"C J Campbell" wrote:

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
The more of these Cirrus accidents I read about, the more I'm convinced
that Cirrus has a serious marketing/training problem:

Actually, this is not just Cirrus, but any high performance aircraft.

Actually, it's not even just aircraft. Studies have shown that antilock
breaks don't decrease the accident rate in cars because drivers drive
faster in worse conditions thinking that the ABS will keep them out of
trouble.

"the most chicken pilot wins." I like that rule.

Well, you have to draw the line somewhere and decide what is an
acceptable risk, otherwise you'll never get out of your house, let alone
off the ground. After all, you can get killed by a Tsunami just sitting
on the beach. Sometimes **** happens, and the whole point of spending
money on fancy avionics and getting your instrument ticket is so you
don't have to wait for CAVU conditions to fly.

This is not to say that launching into known icing in the mountains at
night is a good idea under any circumstances, but "the most chicken
pilot wins" is, I think, going a little too far towards the opposite
extreme.

I tell my passengers that flying is as safe as one cares to make it,
that most people who die in planes die because the pilot did something
stupid, like run out of fuel, or fly beyond his or her capabilities, and
that I am very, very careful to avoid the stupid things. And yes,
there's the parachute (I fly a Cirrus). But none of these things are
absolute guarantees. Still, statistically the drive to the airport is
the most dangerous part of any flight (particularly given the way I
drive). The number of people killed in planes is nothing compared to
the continual carnage on the roads. But for some reason very few people
ever give that a second thought.

rg