Marketing and the Cirrus Sales Pitch

Wasn't the Airbus due to too rapid and complete rudder activation? Since it
wasn't warned against, I guess it can't be completely laid on the pilot, but
still it was a pilot input that caused the failure.

mike

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
Ron Wanttaja wrote:

Pilot stupidity is the primary causal factor of most GA accidents.

All accidents are, at the root, due to pilot error. Sometimes, though,
the
pilot's only error is in getting out of bed that day.....

Ron Wanttaja

I don't agree. The DC-10 in Sioux City IA (Capt Hays); an MD 80 ntype
crask in the Pacific, The Airbus in New York soon after 9/11, etc are
mechanical issues that I would not attribute to the pilot(s).

Ron Lee

"mike regish" wrote:

Wasn't the Airbus due to too rapid and complete rudder activation? Since it
wasn't warned against, I guess it can't be completely laid on the pilot, but
still it was a pilot input that caused the failure.


That one may be ambiguous.

Ron Lee

Recently, Thomas Borchert posted:

Neil,

The more I hear this line of reasoning, the more I wonder why a
manufacturer would NOT spin test their aircraft?

Money.

Surely, the increased
cost of testing would not offset the inuendo that the aircraft can't
recover from a spin?

It can. The certified method for that is to pull the chute.

That's "flight abandonment", not spin recovery, as "recovery" implies that
one is flying afterwards... ;-)

Why use a chute rather than certify traditional spin recovery? They
wanted the chute anyway, so they saved money. Why build in a chute?
Look at the sales numbers.

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.

Neil

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Kingfish writes:

I think the G1000 has become standard equipment on both planes now

But can you get them without the G1000, with more reliable avionics?

With enough money, you can get whatever you want. However, to go way back
to an earlier discussion, there is no evidence that suggests that a G1000
is less reliable than traditional gauges.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote

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.

Are you aware of any fatal accidents where the chute was deployed at sufficient
altitude for proper opening?
--
Jim in NC

Neil Gould writes:

With enough money, you can get whatever you want. However, to go way back
to an earlier discussion, there is no evidence that suggests that a G1000
is less reliable than traditional gauges.

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.

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

Recently, Morgans posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote

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.

Are you aware of any fatal accidents where the chute was deployed at
sufficient altitude for proper opening?

So, now you want to qualify the conditions of its use? ;-)

I almost excluded the "...deaths..." part when I wrote my opinion, but
then I figured that if the plane is capable of spin recovery, it could
possibly do so below the altitude that the 'chute would work. If so, then
those moments would be better spent trying to recover from the spin.

Neil

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 05:00:23 +0000, Dave S wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:


It gives naïve pilots the impression ...

Now we are on to something you can claim expertise in.. about time...

Not really. He's not a pilot. He's a gamer.

- Andrew

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.

- Andrew

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.