Cirrus attracting pilots with 'The Wrong Stuff'?

Jim Fisher wrote:

I rest comfortably knowing that both have very goof life insurance policies
so that their wives will be taken care of.

Don't rest too comfortably. Most life insurance policies will not pay off if you die
piloting an aircraft. They should check to make sure there's no exclusionary clause
that contains language about serving as an aircraft crewmember.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

Please...

I hope your assessment that: "One is certifiably nuts" is based on more than
just his affliction with bipolar disorder.

Bipolar disorder, formerly known as "manic depression", is characterized by
cycling between two extremes: a high, manic state, and a low depressive
state. And these highs and lows are far more extreme than what the average
person experiences as "mood swings".

Bipolar is closer in character to a chemical imbalance that to a mental
disease. It is treated with lithium, which corrects the chemical imbalance.
And treatment with lithium is very effective as the side effects are
extremely mild; more of an annoyance than anything else. One example of the
side effects is increased frequency of urination; that's the sort of thing
we are talking about.

As so frequently occurs, when Mother Nature hands out an adversity, she also
hands out a compensation. And that's true in this case: most bipolar
sufferers have extremely high I.Q.'s.

I think it's safe to assume that most of you have figured out that I suffer
from bipolar disorder. Which means I will never (unless the Sport Pilot
license goes into effect), be able to fulfill a dream I've had my all of my
life: being able to fly an airplane. Both of my parents flew; I guess you'd
say flying is in my blood. But the FAA deems it inadvisable for me to fly an
airplane because of my bipolar disorder.

And I agree with the FAA. When I am medicated, which I have been almost
continuously since I was diagnosed, I'm fine. But when I'm not medicated,
I'm sometimes suicidal as hell. The FAA has no way of knowing whether or not
I've taken my pills every day. Therefore, the FAA's fear that I might cycle
into a depressive state and deliberately crash an airplane is quite
reasonable.

Sorry to wander off-topic; let me get back to the original observation. The
person described as "nuts" may well be so. But it's probably not a result of
his bipolar disorder. The two are very rarely connected...



"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
.. .
"John Galban" wrote in message
om...
"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
...

A good friend of mine has sold his Cherokee and is getting "training"
in
a
Bo almost as I speak. He intends to buy into a partnership with his
buddy
who is the current owner and "acting CFI."

Your friend is giving up a Cherokee in order to buy in to a
partnership with an unlicensed, bipolar partner? Does he realize the
kind of liability he's setting himself up for? There's no way the Bo
owner can get insurance to fly that plane. I think they're both nuts.

No, John, I don't think he has any idea. The bipolar guy is a dear friend
to him. They both have more money than sense.

One is certifiably nuts. The other simply does not appreciate the
magnitude
of what he is getting into.

I rest comfortably knowing that both have very goof life insurance
policies
so that their wives will be taken care of.

--
Jim Fisher

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
Sorry to wander off-topic; let me get back to the original observation.
The
person described as "nuts" may well be so. But it's probably not a result
of
his bipolar disorder. The two are very rarely connected...

You're right, Bill. Sorry for the insensitivity.

Actually, the bipolar guy is pretty cool to hang with. Nice guy and all
that. Very intelligent as well.

But he's nuts for piloting an aircraft. The field landing was not his only
incident. He needs to not be anywhere near a plane.

He should damn well know better - just as you do.

--
Jim Fisher

"Bill Denton" wrote:
I think it's safe to assume that most of you have figured out
that I suffer from bipolar disorder.

Thanks for sharing, Bill. My father and uncle were both hospitalized
several times for b. d. before lithium appeared, so I know the toll it
can take on families. Best of luck to you: hope you get that medical
some day.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Bill Denton" wrote in message ...

I hope your assessment that: "One is certifiably nuts" is based on more than
just his affliction with bipolar disorder.

Well, I'm not Jim, but I would say it's based on being afflicted
with bipolar disorder yet being unwilling/unable to accept the
limitations imposed by his condition -- then on top of it thinking
he ought to go act as a CFI, without even being qualified to act
as a pilot.

Bipolar is closer in character to a chemical imbalance that to a mental
disease. It is treated with lithium, which corrects the chemical imbalance.
And treatment with lithium is very effective as the side effects are
extremely mild

Just a comment, you're lucky lithium works for you and that's all
you need.

Not true for a bipolar friend of mine

Hope it continues to be true for you.

Best wishes,
Sydney

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message ...
A good friend of mine has sold his Cherokee and is getting "training" in a
Bo almost as I speak. He intends to buy into a partnership with his buddy
who is the current owner and "acting CFI."

Um...how good of a friend is this Jim?

Good enough that you'd pull him back from the edge of a cliff?

Without a current medical certificate, I don't understand how
he can get insurance. Without insurance, seems to me his assets
(and his partner's assets) are "sitting ducks" for the trouble
it sounds like he's headed for.

Not a situation I'd want to see a good friend of mine headed for.

'course, some people "know it all" and wouldn't listen if Moses
showed up in front if them with it all spelt out on a tablet

$0.02
Sydney

I have about 20 hours in an SR20 - a late model one with the "glass"
Entegra instruments. The vast majority of the rest of my 225-ish hours
in fixed-wingers is in 172s. I must say that - once a person understands
the avionics and systems - which are to be sure *different* than those
of non-"New Tech" airplanes but no more difficult to understand once
familiarity is gained - the SR20 is a fairly easy airplane to fly. The
workload can even be less than in (say) a 172 assuming good familiarity
with the systems. (regarding lower workload - the SR has no precessing
gyro, no prop control, no cowl flaps, tight integration of the autopilot
with the Entegra and GPSs, automatic StandbyALT switching of the
transponder based on groundspeed, a Lean Assist program for leaning the
engine (if the aircraft has the optional engine monitoring instrument
package), etc..)

I must admit that at first the combination of the Entegra displays, 2
GNS430s, and the STec autopilot were a bit overwhelming - there is so
much information at your disposal that it takes some time to filter it
down to what you really need at any given moment of the flight. But in
about 10 hours I was pretty comfortable in the airplane. I don't find it
to be particularly slippery, and to my surprise (as I am prone to be
high and fast when nearing an airport due to poor planning 8^) ) it's
not that hard to get it slowed down and configured for landing.

So in sum, as a fairly low time pilot with little complex time and no
hi-perf endorsement (yet), I believe the SR20 is a safe, relatively
easy-to-fly airplane. I think that Allan K and his bro (forget his name)
have accomplished what they set out to do.

Now, if only they'd hit the $140K price mark that they estimated in a
1995 Flying magazine that I saw recently, I'd be in hog heaven. I'd own
an SR20, too 8^) .

Dave Blevins

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:05:34 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

There's been some discussion here about Cirrus' less-than-stellar safety
record. Someone mentioned that perhaps the Cirrus line, with all of its
whiz-bang electronics and slippery airframe, is attracting the "wrong" kind
of pilots -- meaning, perhaps, too much cash and not enough sense?

I've always heard this same thing said about the Bonanza (the "Fork-tailed
doctor killer") -- but recent accident stats for the Bo don't appear to bear
this out.

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 fatality rate for the SR-20/22 is high. High performance (200/310
HP), high tech cockpit (Glass Primary Flight/Multi-Functional Displays)
with a Joy Stick. This aircraft is not for the new pilot. Training and
experience is a must. Properly trained, this aircraft rock 'n rolls.

Mike $$$ (PA-28)

Mike,

The fatality rate for the SR-20/22 is high.


AOPA ePilot of today disagrees.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Mike,

The fatality rate for the SR-20/22 is high.


AOPA ePilot of today disagrees.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Did they back up the claim with any supporting data?