Cirrus attracting pilots with 'The Wrong Stuff'?

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:49:22 -0700, "C J Campbell"

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.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:49:22 -0700, "C J Campbell" wrote:

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.

I can't even process what you said there. "Worst thing to happen to
general aviation"? Huh? Comparing the K brothers to Bede? Huh?
Unforgivable? WHAT?

The PRESS is making the technology disreputable. It's an example of what
they do best.

Some thoughts:

The K Bros have made a bold attempt to correct some of the lame-ass
things that some pilots are apparently still willing to live with - e.g.
critical instruments that absolutely depend on a 70-year old technology
that MIGHT work for UP TO 500 hours, etc. etc. Hey, whatever, go buy a
$200,000 airplane that still has a vacuum system - I'm not gonna do it.

I LIKE a transponder that goes into Active mode automatically when I
exceed a certain ground speed on takeoff. I LIKE not having to
continually reset my heading indicator to the whiskey compass. I LOVE
having a decent TCAS system. There are other workload-reducing aspects
to the Cirrus, as I said in an earlier post, but I totally support this
concept - making the pilot's job easier and less life-threatening so
that he can actually *enjoy* the art of flying. This is the future of
aviation - the Cirrus is on the bleeding edge of that but I'm very
comfortable flying the aircraft.

Several lives have been saved in the last two or three weeks due to the
BRS system, and those people would've almost certainly've died in any
other airplane. I think that these incidents validate the concept of the
parachute.

The SR airplanes certainly require type-specific training due to their
significant differences with traditional GA aircraft, but what you say
is IMO nonsense. I am not trying to be confrontational but like I said,
I just can't figure out how introducing/integrating several pilot
workload-reducing technologies can be a bad thing.

Any airplane type is unfortunately going to have its share of idiots at
the wheel/stick, and I am certain that there are SR pilots and/or owners
that have more money than brains. It reminds me of the so-called
"doctor killer" Bonanza high-performance aircraft that were the Thing To
Own back in the day...

What I'm hearing here us a traditionalist crying fould because this
next-generation aircraft is DIFFERENT than the crap that we would
otherwise have to choose from in the quarter million dollar range (e.g.
C172, Archer, and especially the new Tiger). I'll take an SR20 over any
of those any day of the week.

I will treat the SR with respect as I do any aircraft, and I'll be
conservative in my flying decisions as I always am. And - FWIW - the
fact that the aircraft has a parachute doesn't even enter into my
decision process while flying. I consider it to be there primarily for a
mid-air or airframe failure situation only. I'm not going to test more
clouds or worse wx because I have a parachute to save my ass.

I'm probably rambling here a bit, but your declaration really left me
scratching my head. I Just Don't Get It. The Cirrus is one of the
reasons that encouraged me to get my pilot certificate, and I can't see
how that's a bad thing. I consider myself to be really lucky to be able
to fly one.

Dave Blevins

"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.)

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

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

I think this will become the subject of lots of human factors research in
the future.

Personally I think a big part may be that Cirrus have oversold the plane by
planting the seed in pilots' minds that their equipment makes it an
all-weather airplane that reduces pilot workload. The fact is that no
piston airplane can compete with jets in terms of weather capabilities
and -- more importantly -- no amount of cockpit automation can replace the
required pilot dispatch judgment.

On top of that, the Cirrus is being sold to pilots with serious
high-utilization cross-country aspirations, yet the plane has no weather
datalink, no radar, is not known-ice certified, and only has a Stormscope if
that is purchased as an option.

So I think Cirrus has underemphasized the weather experience and equipment
needed if the airplane is to be used on serious IFR flights. And even at
that, there is still a limit on what is practical IMC for a piston airplane,
no less a piston single.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com