What I didn't like in the video portion of the advertisement was the fact he
said "weather was bad, so we needed to get off quickly" and later "we had to
get in". I have been in both situations, but I consider them learning
experiences, and I certainly wouldn't advertise them.

All the stuff they say about ice protection with these systems is true, not
that you would know that.



In article ,
says...


The advertisement fails to make any mention of the fact that flight in icing
conditions is dangerous, even if the aircraft is certified for flight into
known icing conditions. The latter certification gives you an extra margin
for
escape from the icing conditions; it is not a blank check that allows you to
flying through icing conditions whenever and wherever you wish with impunity.

I notice that "flight into" is even omitted at certain points, as if to hide
the fact that FIKI isn't designed for continuous arbitrary icing conditions.

FIKI allows you to enter icing conditions within certain narrow limits and
continue flying indefinitely within those narrow limits. That doesn't mean
that it's a good idea to fly in icing conditions. And icing conditions can
change within seconds from something your aircraft can tolerate to something
that will bring your aircraft down in just a few minutes.

The only prudent way to deal with icing is to avoid it. FIKI gives you less
reason to panic if you find yourself in icing conditions, but no more.

The article makes it sound like you can just sail through any type of icing
conditions without a care in the world. It doesn't explicitly say this, it
just does just about everything _but_ explicitly say it.

I do agree
that the video portion of the ad glorifies flight with reduced margins, and
this is probably irresponsible advertising.

I haven't seen the video part. I'll have to take a look at it, although that
will probably only worry me more.

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.

No more hasty and irresponsible than asserting that any Cessna 172
manufactured before Cirrus starting building airplanes can be ignored in
statistics because it's probably no longer flying.