Marketing and the Cirrus Sales Pitch

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 15:39:34 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

I'll wait 15 years or so for the evidence to accumulate, and then we'll
see. In the meantime, someone else can be the pioneer and take the
risks.

You'll be sure to let us know when you're willing to take the risk of
actually flying an airplane.

We should live so long.

In article ,
Andrew Gideon wrote:

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:37:17 +0200, Thomas Borchert wrote:

Oh, FWIW, Dick Collins compared the accident rates of NEW 182s with those
of Cirrus. They are very similar.

I think he recently wrote something that considered mapping accident rate
as a function of the time a pilot had in a particular aircraft. The idea
was that a pilot new to the XXX was more at risk flying the XXX than
either that same pilot in the YYY he/she knows well or another pilot in
the XXX with more XXX time.
It makes sense that a fair number of new airplanes are flown by pilots new
to that airplane.

Thirty years ago, one of my flight instructors told me the reason for
the insurance companies checkout requirement of ten hours of dual in an
airplane the pilot has not flown is based on the accident statistics.

Andrew Gideon writes:

You'll be sure to let us know when you're willing to take the risk of
actually flying an airplane.

Probably when I can buy one of my own and see to it that it is
perfectly maintained.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Neil,

I don't think that the sales numbers would suffer from the inclusion of
traditional spin recovery techniques. Perhaps I'm a real oddball type of
pilot, but I am not impressed by the 'chute, given the injuries and deaths
that have resulted from its use.


As some others have posted here, traditional spin recovery was tested for
European certification. I have not been able to verify that yet, however.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Recently, Thomas Borchert posted:

Neil,

I don't think that the sales numbers would suffer from the inclusion
of traditional spin recovery techniques. Perhaps I'm a real oddball
type of pilot, but I am not impressed by the 'chute, given the
injuries and deaths that have resulted from its use.


As some others have posted here, traditional spin recovery was tested
for European certification. I have not been able to verify that yet,
however.

Yes, I've read that here many times, and like you have seen no real
evidence of it. One would think that such an accomplishment would be
"broadcast", at least through European aviation magazines. I also suspect
that the process would somewhat offset the costs involved in US
certification, as the requirements shouldn't be all that different. So,
it's a curious ommission.

Neil

No such animal.

mike

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

perfectly maintained.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Ron Lee" wrote in message That one may be ambiguous.

Ambiguous how? In that the pilot mistakingly believed that full flight
control travel was safe because he was below manuevering speed and American
Airline's training program reinforced that flawed premise?

That airplane didn't break without the pilot's help.

D.

"Capt.Doug" wrote:

"Ron Lee" wrote in message That one may be ambiguous.

Ambiguous how? In that the pilot mistakingly believed that full flight
control travel was safe because he was below manuevering speed and American
Airline's training program reinforced that flawed premise?

That airplane didn't break without the pilot's help.

D.

Ambiguous because I do not recall if it was a design issue or pilot
problem.

The point remains is that aircraft problems have led to crashes.

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
Ambiguous because I do not recall if it was a design issue or pilot
problem.

I would put that particular example in the training category.

The point remains is that aircraft problems have led to crashes.

As I know personally, but it wouldn't be r.a.p. if we didn't nitpick. :-)

D.