In article ,
Montblack wrote:
("Dave Stadt" wrote)
Wasn't it Robinson (R22 /R44) Helicopters that decided their design was
good, but owners needed more/better training?

I wonder if Cirrus is getting nearer that PR reality?

I thought they had allready done that.

If this keeps up:
2,000 Cirrus built - one of those owners (+ pas) is going to die in the next
two months.

I don't think it's just PR thou. I mean the jump from a C152/C172 to a
SR22 is no small step. And given that most accidents are due to pilot
error it's not unreasonable to suspect that pilot error more than plan
design affects the stats.
In the case of the Robinson I also think that since they are the
'defacto standard' trainer/renter they are going to have more accidents.
The Cirrus is a high performance plane aimed at a 'low performance market'
and I think that combination can bite new owners.
I think people buy the plane for a different mission than the average
C172 renter/owner and push the envelope to far to fast. But is that
really the planes fault. How many treads have there been about doctors
(or other people 'with money') earning their PPL then buying a used V35
and going out and killing themselves. Is that the planes fault? It's an
old design, some with non-standard (ie. not T) instrument layouts, a flip
over yoke, etc. etc. But if I said, the V35 series is poorly designed,
you can tell by the number of people that the plane kills, no one would
support that.
Sure there are multiple design defects that can come into play. The
Grumman AA1 is a very slippery trainer, that should NEVER be spun. Is
that a design defect?
Bottomline is none of us know what happened, and yes Cirrus does have a
higher number of incidents/accidents that others, but that does not
necessarily mean the design is bad. It very well could be, but the FAA
and NTSB don't seem to think so (at least not yet).