On Jul 16, 12:53*am, VOR-DME wrote:
In article ,
says...



If you want to see an example of how Cirrus deliberately misleads its
customers, check out this page:

http://www.cirrusaircraft.com/perspective/fiki.aspx

It is clearly written to create the false and dangerous impression that
certification for flight into known icing conditions allows a pilot to fly
indefinitely in icing conditions of any kind with impunity, when the reality
is almost diametrically opposed to that impression. Naive, low-time pilots
reading this ad may be led astray in ways that will lead to their early
demise.

I do not agree that this advertisement _deliberately misleads_ anyone about
the capabilities of the aircraft, and I wonder if you really understand the
FIKI packages on Cirrus and Mooney to make the statements you do. *I do agree
that the video portion of the ad glorifies flight with reduced margins, and
this is probably irresponsible advertising.

There is considerable discussion as to whether Cirrus is over-represented in
accident and fatality statistics, some of it quite well formulated, unlike
your comparisons with wildly different airplane populations (C172/Diamond)
which are quite meaningless. It will take more analysis to determine if, and *
the extent to which Cirrus’ wide popularity has put too many inexperienced
pilots at the commands of too fast and too demanding an aircraft, with
resultant degradation of accident statistics. Today, such a statement is at
best an oversimplification, and your assertion that this is due to an
advertising campaign luring inexperienced pilots to their graves *is hasty
and irresponsible.

It is surprising to me that someone with your demonstrated intelligence is so
consistently drawn to simplistic and fatuous arguments. Have you really no
interest or ability to discuss anything seriously?

Has anyone heard of a Cirrus going down because it flew into icing
conditions?

Icing conditions are most often found in IMC -- does any pilot among
us rated for IFR take his SEL into known icing conditions?
We have here someone with no known real world training in the art
offering his insights: humor him if you like, but there is no
evidence, at least none that I remember, that when confronted with
factual information that is in opposition to his views that he changed
his views.