Ok, I kinda helped open this box. So let me address a few things so
that interested parties might have some understanding. Otherwise, skip
to the end ("=====") of this posting for some Cirrus related questions.

In the "mainframe" world I'm from, software vendors know they can't get
away with disclaimers that make them exempt from civil suit when their
software doesn't work for the intended purpose. Most all system level
software in the mainframe arena is "certified" to run on a certain
level of an O/S, has lots of regression tests (suites), and validation
testing. Fail a test, you don't make the GA date (that's General
Availability). And before GA there is generally at least one round of
"field" or Beta testing -- where there are specific environmental
considerations done in accepting entities into the tests.

Move up from there to the applications software and things may not be
done so rigorously. But one application can't get into conflict with
another such that the computer system is unstable. If that happens,
then the O/S vendor will be very interested in how an application made
the system unstable.

This type of programming does not accept "memory leaks" that force you
into IPLing (that's a reboot to you PC, MAC, and *nix types). Your
system "leaks" memory and when you hit the max allowed your address
space, the O/S begins the kill process. Only if you have good error
recovery will you avoid MEMTERM.

[I guess for those of you in computers you now know I do "MVS" stuff.]

This is why mainframes run and run and run. This is why mainframe
software costs so much and takes so long to develop. It is done to much
higher standards than most PC software is written.

This is why I'm a bit sensitive to the Software Engineer title - given
too easily to people who are clueless as to architectures and
rationales.

=========

Now back to A/C. What we have is a change in production matterial. This
included a change in designs from other similarly grouped A/C. So now
we have a very slick A/C with glass avionics. Does this require a new
kind of thinking in training?

Or, is the standard of a ballistic parachute causing people to make bad
decisions? If I know that I have an emergency handle I can pull to
magically get me out of trouble, will I fly the A/C beyond my
abilities? Will this thinking put me into the position of thinking that
even if I get disoriented, and have an unusual attitude, that I can
pull the handle and I'm saved?

If I don't recognize that I'm gonna pass the Vne, and I do pass it and
then pull the magic handle, is this what causes the plane to break into
pieces?

I'm asking these questions because I fly a 180HP 4 place plane that
does not have much for anti-icing. Were I to move to a Cirrus with the
weaping wing and parachute and speed and... would I start flying into
stuff I have no business flying into? I know that I've gotten into ice
once and that was after planning so that my IFR climbout would not take
me through ice.

So back to the question I asked earlier, at this time, has Cirrus
produced the new lawyer/doctor killer? Will the insurance companies
demand what is in effect a type rating when moving from steam gauges to
glass? Will they also demand the same for moving to composite type A/C?

Will this be a bad thing, or will it force people to think more about
what they are attempting to do with a nice capable machine?

Later,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument