Cirrus attracting pilots with 'The Wrong Stuff'?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:OiQhc.2643$aQ6.415323@attbi_s51...

Two data points that don't mean much: The only two guys I have personally
known to have bought a Cirrus PRECISELY fit this description. Both guys
have tons of money, not enough free time to stay current, and fly
complicated, long-distance flights on the rare occasions they fly at all.

What's the group-think on this one? Is Cirrus just good at attracting
crappy pilots? Or is there something else at work here?

The pilot in the Florida incident had 600 hours in type, an instrument
rating, and was a co-founder of the Cirrus Pilots Association. That hardly
sounds like someone who does not stay current or who flies only on rare
occasions.

Edr,

I refuse to read Collins, sorry. He's just too biased in all he writes.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"C J Campbell" wrote:
What's the group-think on this one? Is Cirrus just good
at attracting crappy pilots? Or is there something else at
work here?

The pilot in the Florida incident had 600 hours in type,
an instrument rating, and was a co-founder of the Cirrus
Pilots Association. That hardly sounds like someone who
does not stay current or who flies only on rare occasions.

Yet I still don't buy the idea that there is something "wrong" with the
aircraft in a technical sense. Similar events have killed similarly
notable pilots of Bonanzas.

What's wrong is the whole mindset associated with owning a Cirrus, IMO.
Remember NASA's AGATE program and the gushing Atlantic Monthly article?
Cirrus Design got a big sales boost from being associated with the whole
idea of a "revolution" in GA. Technology was going to produce a new
world where light aircraft could be flown by non experts for regular,
reliable transportation. Incredibly, it seems many people have accepted
this preposterous notion and put their money down. Perhaps the
experience of owning a Cirrus reinforces the feeling among some pilots
that they have achieved the dream, and they are surprised, fatally, to
find that nothing fundamental has changed.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Perhaps the
experience of owning a Cirrus reinforces the feeling among some pilots
that they have achieved the dream, and they are surprised, fatally, to
find that nothing fundamental has changed.

I think you've nailed it, Dan.

All that "gee whiz!" stuff in the panel, along with the nice handling and
extra speed, must make regular Spam Can pilots feel pretty much
invulnerable. After all, they've got a 3-axis autopilot, traffic avoidance,
moving map GPS, and -- if all else fails -- the 'chute to fall back on.

I know *I* would feel much safer in such a capable aircraft -- but I'd also
be tempted to push my personal flight envelope in compensation.

I also believe that many pilots who can afford the expense of a new Cirrus
are hard-driving, over-worked, successful folks, with little time for simple
things like pattern work, and little tolerance for not getting there on
time.

All of this seems to add up to a lethal concoction. Too bad -- insurance
rates on those planes were *finally* starting to come down a bit.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

Yet I still don't buy the idea that there is something "wrong" with the
aircraft in a technical sense. Similar events have killed similarly
notable pilots of Bonanzas.

What's wrong is the whole mindset associated with owning a Cirrus, IMO.
Remember NASA's AGATE program and the gushing Atlantic Monthly article?
Cirrus Design got a big sales boost from being associated with the whole
idea of a "revolution" in GA. Technology was going to produce a new
world where light aircraft could be flown by non experts for regular,
reliable transportation. Incredibly, it seems many people have accepted
this preposterous notion and put their money down. Perhaps the
experience of owning a Cirrus reinforces the feeling among some pilots
that they have achieved the dream, and they are surprised, fatally, to
find that nothing fundamental has changed.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM


But wouldn't fairly regular instrument failures and a reliability record
rivaling a Yugo be considered a fault with the aircraft? How about the fact
that it is difficult to trim? One person's workaround was to engage the
autopilot, wait for it to trim itself, then release the auto pilot. In an
emergency, something as simple as trimming for best glide would divert your
attention for an unacceptably long time.

The v-tail Bonanzas had lots of tail defects, and most (all?) have the fuel
burn weight shift quirk. And 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.

Jay,

All of this seems to add up to a lethal concoction.


Uh, just ONE of the THREE recent accidents ended with fatalities?

But we have to rationalize those 40 year old spam cans we own
somehow...


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"fuji" wrote in message
...



But wouldn't fairly regular instrument failures and a reliability record
rivaling a Yugo be considered a fault with the aircraft? How about the
fact
that it is difficult to trim?
snip
Cirrus salesmen, on the other hand, advertise their craft as safe and
easy
to fly.

I think it is a fault with the aircraft if it is beyond the capabilities of
pilots flying it, which may well be the case. However, I have seen nothing
that proves to me that the pilots are poorly trained or incapable. I, like
many others, have a suspicion that this may be the case, but no proof. In
fact, some of the pilots involved seem to me to be people who fly a lot.

The Cirrus has poor stall/spin recovery capabilities. It is difficult to get
the Cirrus to enter a stall, but not impossible, as some of these accidents
have demonstrated. Given that the parachute will not deploy if the airplane
is too close to the ground, the airplane itself is a slippery design that
can easily get away from the pilot, the flaps are too small, and the
airplane cannot recover from even an incipient spin, I would say that low
level flight in the Cirrus must be far more dangerous than it is in most
other aircraft. The Cirrus has a death zone in its normal operating
envelope. This aircraft cannot be safely operated below 900' AGL. What would
the Florida pilot, for example, have done if he had lost his instruments
and/or become spatially disoriented (whichever happened) at 600' AGL instead
of 1000' AGL? He would have died, that's what.

Furthermore, the odd trim button, unfamiliarity with the instruments which
also keep the pilots' eyes more focused in the cockpit than they probably
should be, high speed and slippery design contribute to create more
opportunities for CFIT accidents.

Add to these the demonstrably poor quality control at the factory and the
fact that few maintenance people have any experience whatsoever working on
these airplanes. You are going to get a lot of maintenance problems. A pilot
who is distracted by something going wrong -- perhaps it is only minor, but
a distraction nonetheless, in the soup or at night, over mountainous
terrain, or maybe coming in for a landing where the field is at IMC
minimums, etc., and he may be somewhat behind the airplane anyway after a
long and tiring flight (anyone disagree here that you easily get behind the
airplane in a Cirrus?), and you start to get a serious chain of events that
can lead to a fatal accident. He is too low to deploy the chute safely,
trying to slow the airplane down to get back control, maybe climb steeply to
avoid a sudden obstacle, and now you have four dead people.

Cirrus is not that big of a company. In a litigation environment where
Cessna can pay an award of $480 million for a bogus claim about the seat
tracks failing, I think Cirrus stock would be a high risk investment, to say
the least. Perhaps someone else will pick up the type certificate and
continue manufacturing, but the history is not that good.

You are an FAA guy, seeing these accidents. Comes now Cirrus with its
petition to increase the airframe life limit of the SR22 beyond the
ridiculous 4030 hours it now has. All your life you have been told to err on
the conservative side. Meanwhile you have people in your own organization
suggesting that you ground the entire fleet until Cirrus figures out what is
going wrong. What is your decision likely to be?

Personally, I enjoyed the one Cirrus flight I took. 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.

"C J Campbell" wrote:

The Cirrus has poor stall/spin recovery capabilities. It is difficult to get
the Cirrus to enter a stall, but not impossible, as some of these accidents
have demonstrated. Given that the parachute will not deploy if the airplane
is too close to the ground, the airplane itself is a slippery design that
can easily get away from the pilot, the flaps are too small, and the
airplane cannot recover from even an incipient spin, I would say that low
level flight in the Cirrus must be far more dangerous than it is in most
other aircraft. The Cirrus has a death zone in its normal operating
envelope. This aircraft cannot be safely operated below 900' AGL.

I am not sure that the last sentence makes sense. Even if all the
other attributes are correct (I have never flown a Cirrus), what is
unsafe about flying an approach at proper airspeeds.

I doubt that I could recover from a low level stall/spin (base to
final). That does not make it unsafe. I just don't get into that
flight mode.

Ron Lee

"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.)