![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:08:45 -0600, "Dan Luke"
wrote: "Tom S." wrote: They're not; they have atrocious safety records due to their spin characteristics. Baloney. There has been one fatal accident attributed to a spin, and in that one the pilots failed to deplot the recovery chute. They might have if the chute worked. As a result of a number of failures of the chute the entire deployment mechanism was replaced (after the fatal accident just mentioned). The insurance companies seem to think that the Cirrus accident rate is high and they are charging a lot for insurance. They are also reluctant to insure pilots for an SR22 with less that 500 hours and an instrument rating. Just what about their safety record do you find so encouraging? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"ArtP" wrote:
Just what about their safety record do you find so encouraging? Nothing. The OP said they have atrocious safety records due to their spin characteristics. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dan Luke" wrote in message ... "ArtP" wrote: Just what about their safety record do you find so encouraging? Nothing. The OP said they have atrocious safety records due to their spin characteristics. Which is why the insurance is so high. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Tom S." wrote:
Just what about their safety record do you find so encouraging? Nothing. The OP said they have atrocious safety records due to their spin characteristics. Which is why the insurance is so high. Baloney. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dan Luke" wrote in message ... "Tom S." wrote: Just what about their safety record do you find so encouraging? Nothing. The OP said they have atrocious safety records due to their spin characteristics. Which is why the insurance is so high. Baloney. That's nice, but that wasn't my comment, so please be a bit more careful in snipping previous comments. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Tom S." wrote:
Just what about their safety record do you find so encouraging? Nothing. The OP said they have atrocious safety records due to their spin characteristics. Which is why the insurance is so high. Baloney. That's nice, but that wasn't my comment, so please be a bit more careful in snipping previous comments. Pardon me if I misunderstood. It seemed reasonable to conclude that you were affirming that Cirrus insurance rates are high because "they have atrocious safety records due to their spin characteristics," which is baloney. Perhaps you meant something else. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dan Luke" wrote in message ... "Tom S." wrote: Just what about their safety record do you find so encouraging? Nothing. The OP said they have atrocious safety records due to their spin characteristics. Which is why the insurance is so high. Baloney. That's nice, but that wasn't my comment, so please be a bit more careful in snipping previous comments. Pardon me if I misunderstood. It seemed reasonable to conclude that you were affirming that Cirrus insurance rates are high because "they have atrocious safety records due to their spin characteristics," which is baloney. Perhaps you meant something else. The whole PIECE wasn't me; I have no idea what Cirrus insurance rates are. You snipped my response to which someone else added the comment about insurance rates. Since I don't fly my own plane, I don't know what either insurance rate would be. I fly only our company planes and would have to ask the controller what the insurance costs were. :~) I'm looking to buy my own (first time) right after New Years, so it would be interesting as my first choice right now is a F33A. However, if I was going to go _new_, I'm thinking more Lancair rather than Cirrus. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:33:25 GMT, ArtP
wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:08:45 -0600, "Dan Luke" wrote: "Tom S." wrote: They're not; they have atrocious safety records due to their spin characteristics. Baloney. There has been one fatal accident attributed to a spin, and in that one the pilots failed to deplot the recovery chute. They might have if the chute worked. As a result of a number of failures of the chute the entire deployment mechanism was replaced (after the fatal accident just mentioned). The insurance companies seem to think that the Cirrus accident rate is high and they are charging a lot for insurance. They are also reluctant to insure pilots for an SR22 with less that 500 hours and an instrument rating. Just what about their safety record do you find so encouraging? The high insurance cost is attributed to the inability to properly repair any damage. Almost any "bend" is a break and the thing is a total. Sooner or later someone will come up with a way to fix them as easily as they do Corvettes. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Stu Gotts wrote: The high insurance cost is attributed to the inability to properly repair any damage. Almost any "bend" is a break and the thing is a total. Sooner or later someone will come up with a way to fix them as easily as they do Corvettes. They can be fixed very easily today. Any mechanic who has worked with both will tell you that the metal airplane is harder to fix and takes longer. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Newps" wrote in message news:zhWsb.140377$mZ5.969124@attbi_s54... Stu Gotts wrote: The high insurance cost is attributed to the inability to properly repair any damage. Almost any "bend" is a break and the thing is a total. Sooner or later someone will come up with a way to fix them as easily as they do Corvettes. They can be fixed very easily today. Any mechanic who has worked with both will tell you that the metal airplane is harder to fix and takes longer. Cosmetic damage, yes. Structural damage no way. Even the Cirrus web site alludes to that. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|