Cirrus attracting pilots with 'The Wrong Stuff'? [Archive]

John Harper

April 22nd 04, 05:31 PM

I don't think the Cirrus is hard to fly. It feels a little
different because of the sidestick, which takes a few
minutes to get used to, and it IS a pain to hand fly because
of the poorly setup trim controls. But I don't think it's
especially slippery if that means difficult to control.

Someone mentioned the flying article, however that
was written just before the recent crop of three incidents.

John

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:3RQhc.2723$_L6.433903@attbi_s53...
> I haven't flown a Cirrus, ;( , so I can't speak to the flying
> characteristics. But the flight characteristics offered by "Toly":
>
> "but in the air the plane is very slippery and feels like it's skating on
> ice, only in three dimensions"
>
> sounds like a recipe for disaster, especially for a pilot that is rusty.
One
> of the things I really like about my TR182 is that it like flying a rock.
> Yes, it is boring, and I have thought lately about trading it in for a fun
> airplane like a Maule or Citabria - but, in it's defense, when I haven't
> flown for a while it is incredibly forgiving of imperfect piloting.
>
> Michael
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:OiQhc.2643$aQ6.415323@attbi_s51...
> > There's been some discussion here about Cirrus' less-than-stellar safety
> > record. <snip>
>
>
>

ArtP

April 22nd 04, 07:13 PM

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:14:57 GMT, "Roger Long"
m> wrote:

>"Flying" reports that the accident rate is plummeting and quickly
>approaching 182 territory. If the kind of pilots Jay refers to are
>predisposed to become Cirrus owners, the accidents certainly must have
>really gotten their attention and might create a quicker self correction
>than in some other airplane.

Early last year the accident rate got the attention of COPA. They
instituted a safety program which included ground and flight training.
The insurance companies beside raising rates, started requiring
recurrent training from Cirrus certified instructors. The number of
accidents did decrease, but with 3 accidents in the last month any
hope of a quick statistical turn around was destroyed.

John Galban

April 22nd 04, 09:14 PM

"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 have met 2 Cirrus pilots in recent months and both fit the profile
you described. Relatively low time pilots with a lot of spare cash.

To me, this looks a lot like what happened when Piper introduced the
Malibu. It could be flown by low timers with just a HP and Complex
endorsement. There was a rash of accidents involving overstressing of
the airframe after the airplane got away from the pilot in turbulence
or IMC. Unlike our lowly spam cans, the Malibu had a large gap
between normal cruising speed and manuevering speed. If the plane
got away from the pilot in cruise, it could not be horsed back into
line like a Cherokee or 172.

I think this problem was eventually solved by the insurance
companies requiring a level of training that was more appropriate to
the airplane type. My bet is that something similar will happen with
the Cirrus.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Tom Sixkiller

April 22nd 04, 09:49 PM

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

Look at the difference in accident statistic differences between the V35 and
the F33: BIG difference.

> 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?

I'd equate the Cirrus and the V35: good designs but not for the
occasional/inexperience/arrogant pilot.

Tom Sixkiller

April 22nd 04, 09:51 PM

"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
> I am not at liberty to answer you because I know some Cirrus pilots
myself.
> --
Uh huh, "But some of my best friends are Cirrus pilots!" :~)

Dean Wilkinson

April 22nd 04, 10:15 PM

Bull****! I have flown the SR22 and I thought it handled quite
nicely. I question the piloting skills of anyone who would say
something as inane about it as the bald tire bit listed below. It
wasn't any harder to fly than a Piper Archer II.

Dean

"Michael 182" > wrote in message news:<3RQhc.2723$_L6.433903@attbi_s53>...
> I haven't flown a Cirrus, ;( , so I can't speak to the flying
> characteristics. But the flight characteristics offered by "Toly":
>
> "but in the air the plane is very slippery and feels like it's skating on
> ice, only in three dimensions"
>
> sounds like a recipe for disaster, especially for a pilot that is rusty. One
> of the things I really like about my TR182 is that it like flying a rock.
> Yes, it is boring, and I have thought lately about trading it in for a fun
> airplane like a Maule or Citabria - but, in it's defense, when I haven't
> flown for a while it is incredibly forgiving of imperfect piloting.
>
> Michael
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:OiQhc.2643$aQ6.415323@attbi_s51...
> > There's been some discussion here about Cirrus' less-than-stellar safety
> > record. <snip>

Dave Stadt

April 22nd 04, 10:45 PM

"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
> "Flying" reports that the accident rate is plummeting and quickly
> approaching 182 territory.

That's no longer true after three accidents in less than a week.

John Harper

April 22nd 04, 10:46 PM

Huh? What "bald tire" bit?

"Dean Wilkinson" > wrote in message
m...
> Bull****! I have flown the SR22 and I thought it handled quite
> nicely. I question the piloting skills of anyone who would say
> something as inane about it as the bald tire bit listed below. It
> wasn't any harder to fly than a Piper Archer II.
>
> Dean
>
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:<3RQhc.2723$_L6.433903@attbi_s53>...
> > I haven't flown a Cirrus, ;( , so I can't speak to the flying
> > characteristics. But the flight characteristics offered by "Toly":
> >
> > "but in the air the plane is very slippery and feels like it's skating
on
> > ice, only in three dimensions"
> >
> > sounds like a recipe for disaster, especially for a pilot that is rusty.
One
> > of the things I really like about my TR182 is that it like flying a
rock.
> > Yes, it is boring, and I have thought lately about trading it in for a
fun
> > airplane like a Maule or Citabria - but, in it's defense, when I haven't
> > flown for a while it is incredibly forgiving of imperfect piloting.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > news:OiQhc.2643$aQ6.415323@attbi_s51...
> > > There's been some discussion here about Cirrus' less-than-stellar
safety
> > > record. <snip>

Newps

April 23rd 04, 12:19 AM

"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
> "Flying" reports that the accident rate is plummeting and quickly
> approaching 182 territory.

The Cirrus has 300% more fatal accidents than the new Cessna 182S. The
Cirrus has 8 fatals and the 182 has 7. The 182's fleet is three times
bigger than the Cirrus.

Tom Sixkiller

April 23rd 04, 01:10 AM

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Roger Long" m> wrote
in
> message ...
> > "Flying" reports that the accident rate is plummeting and quickly
> > approaching 182 territory.
>
> The Cirrus has 300% more fatal accidents than the new Cessna 182S. The
> Cirrus has 8 fatals and the 182 has 7. The 182's fleet is three times
> bigger than the Cirrus.
>
Transititioning from something else to a 182 is, what, 10-20 hours at most?
Wonder what an adequate transition time for a Cirrus would be?

Dan Luke

April 23rd 04, 01:16 AM

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> I've always heard this same thing said about the Bonanza...
> but recent accident stats for the Bo don't appear to bear
> this out.

Actually, A36s are having a spell as bad as Cirruses over the last year
or so, but anyhow...

This (Cirrus accident rate) is starting to look like exactly what you
were talking about in the subject line, i.e. a pilot problem. There's
no trend in the accidents that points to any obvious Cirrus flaw except
one: marketing. The Cirrus aircraft are touted as an escape from the
bad old days of GA, so much safer because of their sophisticated
avionics, simple controls, crashworthy cabins and ballistic parachutes.
Starry-eyed, well-heeled pilots are going for all this in a big way.
But all this cool new stuff doesn't change a thing about the way
airplanes fly. Pilots who are seduced by the safety hype seem to be
trying to exploit an edge the airplanes really aren't giving them, and
it's getting some of them killed.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Jim Fisher

April 23rd 04, 03:30 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> 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.

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."

This "CFI" hasn't had a certificate in years (bipolar) but flies his Bo
regularly. He's got a ton of hours but has never been a CFI. He's so good
that he brags of taking naps while Otto flies the plane for him. He ran out
of fuel some months ago when he slept through the "E" on the fuel gauge.
Landed in a field. No significant damage. Had the plane towed away before
authorities found out about it.

I've almost come to the conclusion that there are a very large, almost
terrifying number of pilots who fall into the category defined by my friend
and his bipolar buddy.

I've no doubt that lot's of 'em fly Cirrus' (or is it "Cirii"?) Bo's 182's
and Cherokees.

--
Jim Fisher

G.R. Patterson III

April 23rd 04, 04:33 AM

Roger Long wrote:
>
> I am not at liberty to answer you because I know some Cirrus pilots myself.

And I'm not qualified to venture an opinion 'cause I don't know any.

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".

[email protected]

April 23rd 04, 05:13 AM

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 Standby>ALT 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?

Thomas Borchert

April 23rd 04, 08:17 AM

Nathan,

fully agree.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mike Money

April 23rd 04, 10:07 AM

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)

Jay Honeck

April 23rd 04, 12:49 PM

> Landed in a field. No significant damage. Had the plane towed away
before
> authorities found out about it.

Now that is terrifying.

I've only met one pilot in ten years that would truly fit your description
(although I've certainly met quite a few with SOME of those
characteristics), and the guy scared the crap out of me.

If I could know when he was flying, I'd stay on the ground that day.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

April 23rd 04, 12:50 PM

> I am not at liberty to answer you because I know some Cirrus pilots
myself.

That pretty much says it all, Roger.

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Mike O'Malley

April 23rd 04, 01:25 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:1p7ic.10076$_L6.892463@attbi_s53...
> > Landed in a field. No significant damage. Had the plane towed away
> before
> > authorities found out about it.
>
> Now that is terrifying.
>
> I've only met one pilot in ten years that would truly fit your description
> (although I've certainly met quite a few with SOME of those
> characteristics), and the guy scared the crap out of me.
>

I've met one, and heard tell of another one. The second took a few lessons,
solo'ed then bought an airplane. Decided that one wasn't fast enough, so
bought a Twin Comanche, he'd routinely fly it from NJ to FL, right down the
east coast. Remember, still a solo'ed student here. Don't worry though,
he's long since killed himself in one of his planes. The kicker was, this
guy was a lawyer! Even though it happened 30+ years ago, I wonder if his
estate sued?

> If I could know when he was flying, I'd stay on the ground that day.

Dunno about that one, he might crash into you. I'd much rather be up in the
air; think I've got better odds that way.

Michael Houghton

April 23rd 04, 02:01 PM

Howdy!

In article >,
Jim Fisher > wrote:

[snip]

>I've no doubt that lot's of 'em fly Cirrus' (or is it "Cirii"?) Bo's 182's
>and Cherokees.

That's be "Cirri"...

helpfully yours,
Michael

--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

Teacherjh

April 23rd 04, 02:12 PM

>>I've no doubt that lot's of 'em fly Cirrus' (or is it "Cirii"?) Bo's 182's
>>and Cherokees.
>
>That's be "Cirri"...

It certainly does not use the apostrophe, which is used for possessives and not
plurals.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Ron Lee

April 23rd 04, 02:38 PM

"Jim Fisher" > wrote:
>
>This "CFI" hasn't had a certificate in years (bipolar) but flies his Bo
>regularly. He's got a ton of hours but has never been a CFI. He's so good
>that he brags of taking naps while Otto flies the plane for him. He ran out
>of fuel some months ago when he slept through the "E" on the fuel gauge.
>Landed in a field. No significant damage. Had the plane towed away before
>authorities found out about it.
>--
>Jim Fisher

I think he needs a parachute system on his plane to improve safety.
Obviously the plane needs safety enhancements. :)

Ron Lee

Thomas Borchert

April 23rd 04, 04:13 PM

Mike,

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

AOPA ePilot of today disagrees.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

C J Campbell

April 23rd 04, 06:01 PM

John Kerry has been blaming the Bush administration for the rash of Cirrus
crashes. Kerry says that number of Cirrus accidents has increased
dramatically since Bush took office. He is calling for a special independent
commission to determine what Bush knew about the dangers of flying Cirrus
aircraft and when he knew it.

The White House responds that the Cirrus was mostly developed during the
Clinton administration. They say that the President introduced several items
of legislation to make Cirrus aircraft safer and that Kerry voted for these
proposals, but now Kerry claims that he based his vote on bad information
given to him by the Bush administration. He alleged a Republican conspiracy
to make him "look bad" by tricking him into voting for things he would not
have supported had he known all the facts. Then he went on to attack Bush
for being stupid and for acting without ascertaining the facts.

Kerry says that if elected he will require all Cirrus aircraft to carry a
placard to avoid slips with flaps extended. He will also conduct an
investigation into the role of Cirrus airplanes in creating chemtrails.
Colin Powell responded that he supported the placard all along, but that he
has information that chemtrails are actually being caused by Lancairs.

"USA Toaday" ran an editorial suggesting that Cirrus aircraft may actually
be manufactured by Al Qaeda terrorists who are deliberately sabotaging the
aircraft and causing them to crash. A guest editorial written by Chicago
mayor Richard M. Daley agreed and said that the only way to deal with the
problem would be to ground all Piper Cubs immediately. Daley went on to say
that the poor safety record of Cirrus aircraft proves that his decision to
close Meigs was the right one.

The highly respected Internet trade publication "Aviation News Network" said
that the crashes were all caused by the wings falling off the airplanes.
Publisher Jim 'Zzzzoom' Campbell, just returned from testing the new and
extremely secret Aurora III in the Martian atmosphere, announced that he was
suing just about everybody. Well-known "Klyde Morris" cartoonist Wes
Oleszewski said he was attacked and beaten up by FAA goons while attempting
to photograph Cirrus crash sites. Oleszewski said that the attack was
instigated by AVweb in a blatant effort to suppress dissent.

"Stop the Noise" is suing Cirrus pilots for creating excess noise when they
crash and for allowing their aircraft to crash in inhabited areas.

The United Association of Usenet Anarchists and Nazis Who Cannot Spel has
worked to come up with there own plans for preventing Sirius pilots from
loosing control of there aircraft. Plans include storing the the airplanes
in hangers. "If you can't afford to pout you're plane in a hanger," said
"Badwater Bill," "then you deserve to loose it. Knot only that, you should
be left out in the dessert somewhere. I hate people, anyway. I need a
drink."

One safety plan developed by an independent consultant known only as
"Michael" would require all pilots to log 1,000 hours solo pilot in command
time in Cirrus aircraft performing loops, spins and rolls before being
allowed to touch the controls. This plan competes with the proposal of "Ron
Lee" that unsafe or inexperienced pilots should be forced to kill themselves
in other brands of aircraft before they are allowed to fly in a Cirrus.

"Larry Dighera" said that the fatality rate was not a problem anyway, since
most Cirrus purchasers are rich and that therefore they are probably
Republicans. "Who cares what happens to them?" asked "Dighera." Respected
aeronautical engineer "Tarver" said that the problem lay in the Cirrus'
interface with the digital muffler bearings, which he said did not meet the
specifications of FAA TSO-C70a. "Tarver" declared that the problem was so
bad that he expected that the Cirrus would never receive a type certificate.
"Tom Sixkiller" said that the problem was caused by the Klapmeiers'
religious beliefs. "Steven P. McNicoll" declared that the crashes were
caused by high taxes.

A third proposal developed by a consortium of world famous flight
instructors headed by "CJ Campbell" was immediately dismissed as being based
on a pack of lies. Although no one can now find a copy of the proposal,
rumor has it that the world famous flight instructors wanted Cirrus to give
a brand new Cirrus SR22 airplane to every flight instructor.

The owner of the Alexis Park Inn posted ads requesting Cirrus parts that he
can hang on the walls of his new 'Cirrus Suite.' He not only posted those
ads, he cross-posted them, posted them again, and then added them to his
Usenet signature.

The Internet Oracle could not be reached for comment.

2Poor2Fly4Real

April 23rd 04, 06:13 PM

Good grief!!! (while LMAO)

That tongue of yours is buried pretty deep in that cheek; are you going =
to be able to return it to its normal position (assuming its current =
location is NOT normal, of course), or are you gonna need surgery??

Mike T.
--=20
When I had Money, I could fly.
Then I got Married...then we got a Mortgage...then we had a Munchkin.
She has three Ms, I have none. I'm...
2Poor2Fly4Real

(remove "nospam" from address for direct replies)

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message =
...
> John Kerry has been blaming the Bush administration for the rash of =
Cirrus
> crashes. Kerry says that number of Cirrus accidents has increased
> dramatically since Bush took office. He is calling for a special =
independent
> commission to determine what Bush knew about the dangers of flying =
Cirrus
> aircraft and when he knew it.
>=20
> The White House responds that the Cirrus was mostly developed during =
the
> Clinton administration. They say that the President introduced several =
items
> of legislation to make Cirrus aircraft safer and that Kerry voted for =
these
> proposals, but now Kerry claims that he based his vote on bad =
information
> given to him by the Bush administration. He alleged a Republican =
conspiracy
> to make him "look bad" by tricking him into voting for things he would =
not
> have supported had he known all the facts. Then he went on to attack =
Bush
> for being stupid and for acting without ascertaining the facts.
>=20
> Kerry says that if elected he will require all Cirrus aircraft to =
carry a
> placard to avoid slips with flaps extended. He will also conduct an
> investigation into the role of Cirrus airplanes in creating =
chemtrails.
> Colin Powell responded that he supported the placard all along, but =
that he
> has information that chemtrails are actually being caused by Lancairs.
>=20
> "USA Toaday" ran an editorial suggesting that Cirrus aircraft may =
actually
> be manufactured by Al Qaeda terrorists who are deliberately sabotaging =
the
> aircraft and causing them to crash. A guest editorial written by =
Chicago
> mayor Richard M. Daley agreed and said that the only way to deal with =
the
> problem would be to ground all Piper Cubs immediately. Daley went on =
to say
> that the poor safety record of Cirrus aircraft proves that his =
decision to
> close Meigs was the right one.
>=20
> The highly respected Internet trade publication "Aviation News =
Network" said
> that the crashes were all caused by the wings falling off the =
airplanes.
> Publisher Jim 'Zzzzoom' Campbell, just returned from testing the new =
and
> extremely secret Aurora III in the Martian atmosphere, announced that =
he was
> suing just about everybody. Well-known "Klyde Morris" cartoonist Wes
> Oleszewski said he was attacked and beaten up by FAA goons while =
attempting
> to photograph Cirrus crash sites. Oleszewski said that the attack was
> instigated by AVweb in a blatant effort to suppress dissent.
>=20
> "Stop the Noise" is suing Cirrus pilots for creating excess noise when =
they
> crash and for allowing their aircraft to crash in inhabited areas.
>=20
> The United Association of Usenet Anarchists and Nazis Who Cannot Spel =
has
> worked to come up with there own plans for preventing Sirius pilots =
from
> loosing control of there aircraft. Plans include storing the the =
airplanes
> in hangers. "If you can't afford to pout you're plane in a hanger," =
said
> "Badwater Bill," "then you deserve to loose it. Knot only that, you =
should
> be left out in the dessert somewhere. I hate people, anyway. I need a
> drink."
>=20
> One safety plan developed by an independent consultant known only as
> "Michael" would require all pilots to log 1,000 hours solo pilot in =
command
> time in Cirrus aircraft performing loops, spins and rolls before being
> allowed to touch the controls. This plan competes with the proposal of =
"Ron
> Lee" that unsafe or inexperienced pilots should be forced to kill =
themselves
> in other brands of aircraft before they are allowed to fly in a =
Cirrus.
>=20
> "Larry Dighera" said that the fatality rate was not a problem anyway, =
since
> most Cirrus purchasers are rich and that therefore they are probably
> Republicans. "Who cares what happens to them?" asked "Dighera." =
Respected
> aeronautical engineer "Tarver" said that the problem lay in the =
Cirrus'
> interface with the digital muffler bearings, which he said did not =
meet the
> specifications of FAA TSO-C70a. "Tarver" declared that the problem was =
so
> bad that he expected that the Cirrus would never receive a type =
certificate.
> "Tom Sixkiller" said that the problem was caused by the Klapmeiers'
> religious beliefs. "Steven P. McNicoll" declared that the crashes were
> caused by high taxes.
>=20
> A third proposal developed by a consortium of world famous flight
> instructors headed by "CJ Campbell" was immediately dismissed as being =
based
> on a pack of lies. Although no one can now find a copy of the =
proposal,
> rumor has it that the world famous flight instructors wanted Cirrus to =
give
> a brand new Cirrus SR22 airplane to every flight instructor.
>=20
> The owner of the Alexis Park Inn posted ads requesting Cirrus parts =
that he
> can hang on the walls of his new 'Cirrus Suite.' He not only posted =
those
> ads, he cross-posted them, posted them again, and then added them to =
his
> Usenet signature.
>=20
> The Internet Oracle could not be reached for comment.
>=20
>

Bob Moore

April 23rd 04, 06:16 PM

"C J Campbell" wrote
> The Internet Oracle could not be reached for comment.

And...I KNOW that the crashes were caused by the pilots having
only a pilots license and not the requisite airman certificate.

Bob Moore

C J Campbell

April 23rd 04, 06:26 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> The owner of the Alexis Park Inn posted ads requesting Cirrus parts that
he
> can hang on the walls of his new 'Cirrus Suite.' He not only posted those
> ads, he cross-posted them, posted them again, and then added them to his
> Usenet signature.
>

The suite features a four-poster bed suspended from the ceiling on bungee
cords.

C J Campbell

April 23rd 04, 07:00 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> John Kerry has been blaming the Bush administration for the rash of Cirrus
> crashes. Kerry says that number of Cirrus accidents has increased
> dramatically since Bush took office. He is calling for a special
independent
> commission to determine what Bush knew about the dangers of flying Cirrus
> aircraft and when he knew it.
>
> The White House responds that the Cirrus was mostly developed during the
> Clinton administration. They say that the President introduced several
items
> of legislation to make Cirrus aircraft safer and that Kerry voted for
these
> proposals, but now Kerry claims that he based his vote on bad information
> given to him by the Bush administration. He alleged a Republican
conspiracy
> to make him "look bad" by tricking him into voting for things he would not
> have supported had he known all the facts. Then he went on to attack Bush
> for being stupid and for acting without ascertaining the facts.
>

Sinister Republican operatives have also been circulating Internet rumors
that although John Kerry now claims to be a pilot who supports general
aviation, he is actually one of the founders of the anti-aviation group Stop
the Noise. Pictures of a smiling Kerry standing with Stop the Noise
president Bill Burgoyne have been making the rounds by email. Kerry, while
not denying that these specific pictures were accurate, condemned the smear
tactics of Republican goons who send doctored photos of him around the
Internet. "I was right about aircraft noise then," said Kerry, "and I am
right about general aviation now. At least I am a real pilot and not some
moron who flew fighter planes in order to avoid military service."

Condoleezza Rice pointed out that Kerry hates generals of all kinds. "Why
would he all of a sudden start supporting general aviation?" Kerry responded
that he had met with the leaders of every foreign country in the last week
and that they supported his views on general aviation, and that the Bush
administration was lying.

Jay Honeck

April 23rd 04, 07:23 PM

> The suite features a four-poster bed suspended from the ceiling on bungee
> cords.

Hey.... I *like* that... ;-)

Also in this suite: If you can't keep it up (so to speak) in the air your
"ballistic recovery unit" deploys automatically...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

PJ Hunt

April 23rd 04, 08:41 PM

Dude, you've got WAY too much spare time! (But still intertaining)

PJ
==================================================

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> John Kerry has been blaming the Bush administration for the rash of Cirrus
> crashes. Kerry says that number of Cirrus accidents has increased
> dramatically since Bush took office. He is calling for a special
independent
> commission to determine what Bush knew about the dangers of flying Cirrus
> aircraft and when he knew it.
>
> The White House responds that the Cirrus was mostly developed during the
> Clinton administration. They say that the President introduced several
items
> of legislation to make Cirrus aircraft safer and that Kerry voted for
these
> proposals, but now Kerry claims that he based his vote on bad information
> given to him by the Bush administration. He alleged a Republican
conspiracy
> to make him "look bad" by tricking him into voting for things he would not
> have supported had he known all the facts. Then he went on to attack Bush
> for being stupid and for acting without ascertaining the facts.
>
> Kerry says that if elected he will require all Cirrus aircraft to carry a
> placard to avoid slips with flaps extended. He will also conduct an
> investigation into the role of Cirrus airplanes in creating chemtrails.
> Colin Powell responded that he supported the placard all along, but that
he
> has information that chemtrails are actually being caused by Lancairs.
>
> "USA Toaday" ran an editorial suggesting that Cirrus aircraft may actually
> be manufactured by Al Qaeda terrorists who are deliberately sabotaging the
> aircraft and causing them to crash. A guest editorial written by Chicago
> mayor Richard M. Daley agreed and said that the only way to deal with the
> problem would be to ground all Piper Cubs immediately. Daley went on to
say
> that the poor safety record of Cirrus aircraft proves that his decision to

> close Meigs was the right one.
>
> The highly respected Internet trade publication "Aviation News Network"
said
> that the crashes were all caused by the wings falling off the airplanes.
> Publisher Jim 'Zzzzoom' Campbell, just returned from testing the new and
> extremely secret Aurora III in the Martian atmosphere, announced that he
was
> suing just about everybody. Well-known "Klyde Morris" cartoonist Wes
> Oleszewski said he was attacked and beaten up by FAA goons while
attempting
> to photograph Cirrus crash sites. Oleszewski said that the attack was
> instigated by AVweb in a blatant effort to suppress dissent.
>
> "Stop the Noise" is suing Cirrus pilots for creating excess noise when
they
> crash and for allowing their aircraft to crash in inhabited areas.
>
> The United Association of Usenet Anarchists and Nazis Who Cannot Spel has
> worked to come up with there own plans for preventing Sirius pilots from
> loosing control of there aircraft. Plans include storing the the airplanes
> in hangers. "If you can't afford to pout you're plane in a hanger," said
> "Badwater Bill," "then you deserve to loose it. Knot only that, you should
> be left out in the dessert somewhere. I hate people, anyway. I need a
> drink."
>
> One safety plan developed by an independent consultant known only as
> "Michael" would require all pilots to log 1,000 hours solo pilot in
command
> time in Cirrus aircraft performing loops, spins and rolls before being
> allowed to touch the controls. This plan competes with the proposal of
"Ron
> Lee" that unsafe or inexperienced pilots should be forced to kill
themselves
> in other brands of aircraft before they are allowed to fly in a Cirrus.
>
> "Larry Dighera" said that the fatality rate was not a problem anyway,
since
> most Cirrus purchasers are rich and that therefore they are probably
> Republicans. "Who cares what happens to them?" asked "Dighera." Respected
> aeronautical engineer "Tarver" said that the problem lay in the Cirrus'
> interface with the digital muffler bearings, which he said did not meet
the
> specifications of FAA TSO-C70a. "Tarver" declared that the problem was so
> bad that he expected that the Cirrus would never receive a type
certificate.
> "Tom Sixkiller" said that the problem was caused by the Klapmeiers'
> religious beliefs. "Steven P. McNicoll" declared that the crashes were
> caused by high taxes.
>
> A third proposal developed by a consortium of world famous flight
> instructors headed by "CJ Campbell" was immediately dismissed as being
based
> on a pack of lies. Although no one can now find a copy of the proposal,
> rumor has it that the world famous flight instructors wanted Cirrus to
give
> a brand new Cirrus SR22 airplane to every flight instructor.
>
> The owner of the Alexis Park Inn posted ads requesting Cirrus parts that
he
> can hang on the walls of his new 'Cirrus Suite.' He not only posted those
> ads, he cross-posted them, posted them again, and then added them to his
> Usenet signature.
>
> The Internet Oracle could not be reached for comment.
>
>

John Galban

April 23rd 04, 09:26 PM

"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.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Jim Fisher

April 23rd 04, 10:19 PM

"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

G.R. Patterson III

April 23rd 04, 10:41 PM

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".

Bill Denton

April 23rd 04, 11:19 PM

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
>
>

Mike Money

April 24th 04, 12:46 AM

Tom,
I agree and disagree with AOPA ePilot.

Compared Cirrus SR 20/22 with Lancair 300/400 series, which appear to be
similar aircraft in design, manufacture, performance, and equipment.
Neither can be compared to Cessna/Piper/Beech in design or concept.

Even though the Lancair 300 has been flying longer than the Cirrus SR,
Lancair 300/400 has only two (2) NTSB accident/incident reports with one
(1) fatal, compared to Cirrus SR 20/22 having eighteen (18) reports with
eight (8) fatal. This seems significant to me.

I will add that of the nine (9) fatal accident reports, NTSB determined
pilot error with regard to weather, loss of situational awareness, or
improper technique as the cause, except for one accident. NTSB
determined that the cause was attributed to a design flaw by Cirrus.
This seems significant to me.

Mike $$$ (PA28)

Dave Stadt

April 24th 04, 12:52 AM

"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?

Jim Fisher

April 24th 04, 02:47 AM

"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

Dan Luke

April 24th 04, 03:20 AM

"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

Thomas Borchert

April 24th 04, 08:28 AM

Mike,

> Even though the Lancair 300 has been flying longer than the Cirrus SR,
> Lancair 300/400 has only two (2) NTSB accident/incident reports with one
> (1) fatal, compared to Cirrus SR 20/22 having eighteen (18) reports with
> eight (8) fatal. This seems significant to me.
>

How do you arrive at that conclusion? What does "has been flying longer"
mean? The Cirruses have flown way more hours than the Lancair fleet. There
are virtually no Lancairs out there in the field. Those numbers are
certainly too low to conclude anything from them.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

EDR

April 24th 04, 06:37 PM

Read Collin's artilce in the latest FLYING.
He compares the number of aircraft produced since 1997 with the number
of accidents to arrive at his summation.
Just because Lancair is a similar design may not be significant if they
have not produced a comparable number of aircraft.

Snowbird

April 25th 04, 04:16 AM

"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

Snowbird

April 25th 04, 04:20 AM

"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

C J Campbell

April 25th 04, 06:15 AM

"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.

Thomas Borchert

April 25th 04, 09:23 AM

Edr,

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

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dan Luke

April 25th 04, 02:06 PM

"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

Jay Honeck

April 25th 04, 02:24 PM

> 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"

fuji

April 25th 04, 04:37 PM

"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.

Thomas Borchert

April 25th 04, 05:31 PM

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)

C J Campbell

April 25th 04, 05:49 PM

"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.

Ron Lee

April 25th 04, 06:29 PM

"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

Dan Luke

April 25th 04, 06:50 PM

"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

ArtP

April 25th 04, 09:33 PM

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

April 26th 04, 02:34 PM

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

Don't get me wrong -- I'd take an SR-22 in a heartbeat. If I could afford
the insurance.

But I'd be very cautious with it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Dave Katz

April 26th 04, 07:05 PM

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> Don't get me wrong -- I'd take an SR-22 in a heartbeat. If I could afford
> the insurance.
>
> But I'd be very cautious with it.

As you no doubt already are in your current airplane, and as you should
when transitioning to any new aircraft. Beyond that would you be more
cautious, and if so why, and what form would that take?

Jay Honeck

April 26th 04, 09:51 PM

> As you no doubt already are in your current airplane, and as you should
> when transitioning to any new aircraft. Beyond that would you be more
> cautious, and if so why, and what form would that take?

I think being aware of the current spate of mishaps should make ANY Cirrus
pilot more cautious.

If I were lucky enough to own a new SR-22, I would make a more concerted
effort to learn all the gee-whiz stuff while I was parked in my hangar. I'd
also make a conscious effort to keep my eyes outside of the plane while in
flight, and avoid difficult flights until I had a few hundred hours in the
bird.

Otherwise, I don't think I'd change anything from the way I fly today.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

C J Campbell

April 27th 04, 01:15 AM

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> 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...

Speak for yourself. My spam can was built in 1999. Still, that was during
the last century....

Dave Katz

April 27th 04, 04:27 AM

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> > As you no doubt already are in your current airplane, and as you should
> > when transitioning to any new aircraft. Beyond that would you be more
> > cautious, and if so why, and what form would that take?
>
> I think being aware of the current spate of mishaps should make ANY Cirrus
> pilot more cautious.

I keep them in mind and try to learn something from each one. But
simply being "more cautious" is a lot like the government asking us to
be "more vigilant" when they start talking about Credible Threats.
Trying to make an honest self-assessment is important. Simply being
more worried isn't helpful. I haven't changed my flying habits based
on any of the accidents, however, but I'm a pretty conservative pilot.

> If I were lucky enough to own a new SR-22, I would make a more concerted
> effort to learn all the gee-whiz stuff while I was parked in my hangar. I'd
> also make a conscious effort to keep my eyes outside of the plane while in
> flight, and avoid difficult flights until I had a few hundred hours in the
> bird.

All of your points are spot-on, though I might rephrase the last one
as "work my way up to more difficult flights by becoming experienced
and comfortable with easier ones, and by bringing an experienced
instructor to help expand my skills and build confidence." A few
hundred hours is an awfully long time. It probably took me 30 hours
to become comfortable with the plane, and another 30 to become as
proficient as I thought I was. ;-)

The points that you make are not about being "more cautious" though;
they are fundamental to flying any plane of this complexity, and the
training reflects all of them.

Clearly the most difficult aspect of all of the new planes (including
the new-but-venerable Cessnas) is learning to manage the avionics.
Flying solo IFR with them is crazy until you have them down cold.

Mike Money

April 27th 04, 06:35 PM

Tom Borchert asks:

What does "have been flying longer" mean?

Mike: Cirrus SR series first delivered 1999. Lancair 300 series first
delivered 1992.

Tom: The Cirruses have flown way more hours than the Lancair fleet.

Mike: I don't know.

Tom: There are virtually no Lancairs out there in the field.

Mike: Cirrus has 1000 units delivered. Lancair has 1870 units
delivered.

Tom: These numbers are certainly too low to conclude anything from
them.

Mike: I agree.

I used the Lancair 300 for comparison due to the similarity with the
Cirrus SR.

I am impressed with the Cirrus SR. It represents a major advance in
design and concept for GA. Use of composites and state-of-the-art
avionics, not to mention the speed and rate-of-climb performance is a
giant leap forward.

I am perplexed to the negative comments about this airplane. There are
no stats to support a negative image. NTSB reports 18 total
accident/incidents, with 8 being fatal. Of the fatal accidents, one was
during test, and all the others were pilot error. If you review each of
the 7 other accident reports, there is nothing to indicate that the
airplane contributed to the fatality, and that unfortunately the Cirrus
pilots made the same mistakes made by other pilots flying other
airplanes.

Mike $$$ (PA28)

John Harper

April 27th 04, 06:57 PM

You've neatly taken this discussion full circle. (Beats what
usually happens with long threads!)

The original question was, how come this type, which on the
face of it is a perfectly normal, reasonable plane (just about
anybody who has flown one would agree with that) has such a
high accident rate per whatever? And a summary of the discussion
is, various people have opinions, mostly to do with the kind of
people who are tempted to buy a Cirrus, but nobody really knows.
Does buying a Cirrus suddenly multiply your chances of flying
into a mountain on the hairy edge of the scud? Seems pretty
improbable. Of the various incidents, only one is definitely down
the plane, and that was faulty maintenance. The rest all appear
to be pilot error (or just plain unknown/unknowable).

I guess we're done.

John

"Mike Money" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Borchert asks:
>
> What does "have been flying longer" mean?
>
> Mike: Cirrus SR series first delivered 1999. Lancair 300 series first
> delivered 1992.
>
> Tom: The Cirruses have flown way more hours than the Lancair fleet.
>
> Mike: I don't know.
>
> Tom: There are virtually no Lancairs out there in the field.
>
> Mike: Cirrus has 1000 units delivered. Lancair has 1870 units
> delivered.
>
> Tom: These numbers are certainly too low to conclude anything from
> them.
>
> Mike: I agree.
>
> I used the Lancair 300 for comparison due to the similarity with the
> Cirrus SR.
>
> I am impressed with the Cirrus SR. It represents a major advance in
> design and concept for GA. Use of composites and state-of-the-art
> avionics, not to mention the speed and rate-of-climb performance is a
> giant leap forward.
>
> I am perplexed to the negative comments about this airplane. There are
> no stats to support a negative image. NTSB reports 18 total
> accident/incidents, with 8 being fatal. Of the fatal accidents, one was
> during test, and all the others were pilot error. If you review each of
> the 7 other accident reports, there is nothing to indicate that the
> airplane contributed to the fatality, and that unfortunately the Cirrus
> pilots made the same mistakes made by other pilots flying other
> airplanes.
>
> Mike $$$ (PA28)
>

Richard Kaplan

April 29th 04, 07:19 PM

"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

[email protected]

April 30th 04, 06:30 AM

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.
>

[email protected]

April 30th 04, 06:58 AM

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