Cirrus attracting pilots with 'The Wrong Stuff'?

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:49:22 -0700, "C J Campbell" wrote:

Realistically, though, I
think the Klapmeiers may be the worst thing to happen to general aviation
since Jim Bede. They took new and promising technology and made it
disreputable, probably setting general aviation back more than 20 years. I
think that is unforgivable.

I can't even process what you said there. "Worst thing to happen to
general aviation"? Huh? Comparing the K brothers to Bede? Huh?
Unforgivable? WHAT?

The PRESS is making the technology disreputable. It's an example of what
they do best.

Some thoughts:

The K Bros have made a bold attempt to correct some of the lame-ass
things that some pilots are apparently still willing to live with - e.g.
critical instruments that absolutely depend on a 70-year old technology
that MIGHT work for UP TO 500 hours, etc. etc. Hey, whatever, go buy a
$200,000 airplane that still has a vacuum system - I'm not gonna do it.

I LIKE a transponder that goes into Active mode automatically when I
exceed a certain ground speed on takeoff. I LIKE not having to
continually reset my heading indicator to the whiskey compass. I LOVE
having a decent TCAS system. There are other workload-reducing aspects
to the Cirrus, as I said in an earlier post, but I totally support this
concept - making the pilot's job easier and less life-threatening so
that he can actually *enjoy* the art of flying. This is the future of
aviation - the Cirrus is on the bleeding edge of that but I'm very
comfortable flying the aircraft.

Several lives have been saved in the last two or three weeks due to the
BRS system, and those people would've almost certainly've died in any
other airplane. I think that these incidents validate the concept of the
parachute.

The SR airplanes certainly require type-specific training due to their
significant differences with traditional GA aircraft, but what you say
is IMO nonsense. I am not trying to be confrontational but like I said,
I just can't figure out how introducing/integrating several pilot
workload-reducing technologies can be a bad thing.

Any airplane type is unfortunately going to have its share of idiots at
the wheel/stick, and I am certain that there are SR pilots and/or owners
that have more money than brains. It reminds me of the so-called
"doctor killer" Bonanza high-performance aircraft that were the Thing To
Own back in the day...

What I'm hearing here us a traditionalist crying fould because this
next-generation aircraft is DIFFERENT than the crap that we would
otherwise have to choose from in the quarter million dollar range (e.g.
C172, Archer, and especially the new Tiger). I'll take an SR20 over any
of those any day of the week.

I will treat the SR with respect as I do any aircraft, and I'll be
conservative in my flying decisions as I always am. And - FWIW - the
fact that the aircraft has a parachute doesn't even enter into my
decision process while flying. I consider it to be there primarily for a
mid-air or airframe failure situation only. I'm not going to test more
clouds or worse wx because I have a parachute to save my ass.

I'm probably rambling here a bit, but your declaration really left me
scratching my head. I Just Don't Get It. The Cirrus is one of the
reasons that encouraged me to get my pilot certificate, and I can't see
how that's a bad thing. I consider myself to be really lucky to be able
to fly one.

Dave Blevins