Cirrus attracting pilots with 'The Wrong Stuff'?

"fuji" wrote:
But wouldn't fairly regular instrument failures and a
reliability record rivaling a Yugo be considered a
fault with the aircraft?

I've seen these charges thrown around a bit. Got a source of statistics
to back them up?

How about the fact that it is difficult to trim? ...
In an emergency, something as simple as trimming for best
glide would divert your attention for an unacceptably long time.

This seems to be a fact and I agree it is a fault.

I'm sure almost everybody will agree, even
Beech, that stepping up from a 172 or Cherokee
is a major step requiring extra training and respect.

Cirrus salesmen, on the other hand, advertise their craft
as safe and easy to fly. Tri-gear and no prop controls, so
no complex needed. The displays walk you through
everything. Everything the new pilot needs. Yet the
common thread on the groups here, puts the Cirrus in the
same class as the Bo (a true complex) as far as pilot skill
required.

My point exactly.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 12:50:34 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote:

"fuji" wrote:
But wouldn't fairly regular instrument failures and a
reliability record rivaling a Yugo be considered a
fault with the aircraft?

I've seen these charges thrown around a bit. Got a source of statistics
to back them up?

Join COPA and search the archive for the incidence of vacuum failures,
HSI failures, and turn coordinator failures. One plane had 7 vacuum
pumps fail, another had 5 HSI's. That suggest to me that the problem
is with the plane (design or construction) rather than the instrument.
(I had 7 autopilots fail before the fault was found in the Cirrus trim
motor.)