Marketing and the Cirrus Sales Pitch

[john smith]

Has anyone on this forum seriously considered purchasing a Cirrus, sat
throught a Cirrus sales pitch and not purchased an airplane?

Tell us your thoughts about the experience?

[Denny]

And , your point?

denny

john smith wrote:
> Has anyone on this forum seriously considered purchasing a Cirrus, sat
> throught a Cirrus sales pitch and not purchased an airplane?
>
> Tell us your thoughts about the experience?

[john smith]

Me feeling is that the Cirrus marketing/sales pitch is targeted at a
specific market, low time pilots with little experience. They focus on
the BRS parachute as the solution to any unexpected situation.
As I noted, this is the feeling I get from their advertising, what I
hear pilots saying and the type of pilots I see flying them. Hence my
request for actual experiene.

> And , your point?

> john smith wrote:
> > Has anyone on this forum seriously considered purchasing a Cirrus, sat
> > throught a Cirrus sales pitch and not purchased an airplane?
> >
> > Tell us your thoughts about the experience?

[Robert M. Gary]

I doubt the sales people are that stupid. I'm sure they taylor their
sales pitch to the pilot specifically. If they are talking with a
10,000 hour pilot you can bet the pitch is different than that of a 100
hr pilot. Even a used car dealer uses a different approach to the CEO
than to the college student.

-Robert


john smith wrote:
> Me feeling is that the Cirrus marketing/sales pitch is targeted at a
> specific market, low time pilots with little experience. They focus on
> the BRS parachute as the solution to any unexpected situation.
> As I noted, this is the feeling I get from their advertising, what I
> hear pilots saying and the type of pilots I see flying them. Hence my
> request for actual experiene.

[Doug[_1_]]

Whatever they are doing, they are selling a lot of airplanes and their
airplanes have a high accident and fatality rate. I don't think anyone
knows why.

[City Dweller[_1_]]

I was at some point deciding between the Cirrus, Diamond Star and Lancair
Columbia. The Columbia was the first to be scratched off my list due its
prohibitively high price. I then had a demo flight in the Cirrus SR22 and,
while extremely impressed with all the blows and whistles, was quite a bit
intimidated by it. I felt like I was flying a truck (I was but a lowly
50-hour student pilot at that time). I did not much care for the salesman,
either. He did not believe I was a serious buyer, I think, and acted
accordingly :-)

The poor safety record was the 2nd main reason I decided against the Cirrus,
and we are talking 1.5 years ago (2006 is Cirrus's worst year yet with 6
fatal accidents so far.)

Anyway, I ended up buying the Diamond Star and I love it.

-- cd

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> Has anyone on this forum seriously considered purchasing a Cirrus, sat
> throught a Cirrus sales pitch and not purchased an airplane?
>
> Tell us your thoughts about the experience?

[john smith]

> The poor safety record was the 2nd main reason I decided against the Cirrus,
> and we are talking 1.5 years ago (2006 is Cirrus's worst year yet with 6
> fatal accidents so far.)

I just searched the NTSB database.
Between January 1, 1997 and October 19, 2006, there have been 22 fatal
accidents out of a total of 59 Cirrus accidents. 21 of the 59 involved
SR20's, the remaining 38 accidents involved SR22's (including one G2).
The NTSB preliminary reports do not include pilot hours, the factual
reports do.

[Dan Luke]

"City Dweller" wrote:

> all the blows and whistles


That's a new one.

[Jim Logajan]

"Doug" > wrote:
> Whatever they are doing, they are selling a lot of airplanes and their
> airplanes have a high accident and fatality rate. I don't think anyone
> knows why.

Is it the design or construction of the plane that is the causal factor or
the pilot of the plane that is the causal factor for the alleged higher-
than-average accident rate?

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 23:12:10 GMT, john smith > wrote:

> Me feeling is that the Cirrus marketing/sales pitch is targeted at a
> specific market, low time pilots with little experience. They focus on
> the BRS parachute as the solution to any unexpected situation.
> As I noted, this is the feeling I get from their advertising, what I
> hear pilots saying and the type of pilots I see flying them. Hence my
> request for actual experiene.

Don't know about your family, but in many cases, the majority are not pilots. I
know of at least one case where the deciding factor was the pilot's spouse, who
decided they wanted the capability to induce a safe recovery should the pilot be
incapacitated.

Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Lee]

"Doug" > wrote:

>Whatever they are doing, they are selling a lot of airplanes and their
>airplanes have a high accident and fatality rate. I don't think anyone
>knows why.
>

Sure we do. Pilots doing stupid things. Now whether the BRS gives
them false confidence or not I really don't care. But of the
deployments I have heard about...pilot stupidity was the primary
causal factor for getting to the point of deployment.

Ron Lee

[Aluckyguess]

I think the BRS is more for the non-pilot. The wife, friends wife thats
afraid to fly and so on. Just my thoughts.

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> I doubt the sales people are that stupid. I'm sure they taylor their
> sales pitch to the pilot specifically. If they are talking with a
> 10,000 hour pilot you can bet the pitch is different than that of a 100
> hr pilot. Even a used car dealer uses a different approach to the CEO
> than to the college student.

They may not be targeting 10,000-hour pilots to begin with. Even a
very casual glance does create the impression that they are selling to
inexperienced pilots, and that they are using the bizarre concept of a
parachute to give these pilots a false sense of security. I'm sure
the idea is to make pilots think that, no matter what happens, they'll
be safe in a Cirrus aircraft, which in turn will make them think that
they need not worry about any mistakes they might make.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> Is it the design or construction of the plane that is the causal factor or
> the pilot of the plane that is the causal factor for the alleged higher-
> than-average accident rate?

Perhaps a plane designed to encourage carelessness combined with a
target demographic of inexperienced and potentially careless pilots.
I doubt that the plane is intrinsically unsafe, but the notion of a
parachute speaks volumes on the design and sales goals.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Aluckyguess writes:

> I think the BRS is more for the non-pilot. The wife, friends wife thats
> afraid to fly and so on. Just my thoughts.

If they looked at the numbers they might change their minds, but often
rationality has nothing to do with it (especially if they are
excessively worried in the first place).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Ron,

> Now whether the BRS gives
> them false confidence or not I really don't care.
>

If it does, that's really the first part of pilot stupidity.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

John,

> Me feeling is that the Cirrus marketing/sales pitch is targeted at a
> specific market, low time pilots with little experience. They focus on
> the BRS parachute as the solution to any unexpected situation.
>

What do you expect? That they try and keep people from buying their
plane? Of course they praise the chute, since only they have one. They'd
be stupid not to. They'd be equally stupid, however, to target only low
time pilots. Again, why would they?

Arguing for the chute in a single engine aircraft for engine failures at
night or in hard IFR is pretty compelling to me. Arguing for it as an
all-situations problem saver is dumb - and the salesman I sat down with
didn't.

Oh, FWIW, Dick Collins compared the accident rates of NEW 182s with those
of Cirrus. They are very similar.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dave S]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Perhaps a plane designed to encourage carelessness combined with a
> target demographic of inexperienced and potentially careless pilots.
> I doubt that the plane is intrinsically unsafe, but the notion of a
> parachute speaks volumes on the design and sales goals.

Designed to encourage carelessness? Are you an aircraft designer now?
What exact features are you referring to?


The parachute? Every manned spacecraft (with the exception of the
Orbiter) that has flown to date has a parachute incorporated into the
design, and a successful mission depends on its deployment. How does the
notion of a parachute automatically encourage carelessness?

Please base your answer on your actual flight experience in actual
aircraft, if possibile.

[Aluckyguess]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Aluckyguess writes:
>
>> I think the BRS is more for the non-pilot. The wife, friends wife thats
>> afraid to fly and so on. Just my thoughts.
>
> If they looked at the numbers they might change their minds, but often
> rationality has nothing to do with it (especially if they are
> excessively worried in the first place).

I had many friends say I should of bought the Cirrus because of the chute. I
actually looked at a used one and was going to buy it until I got the
insurance quote. 10K a year. I was actually a litttle intimitated by the
plane at first.
I think its a great plane, but at this point if I was considering a new
plane I would go A36.

>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mike Schumann]

Pilot stupidity is the primary causal factor of most GA accidents.

Mike Schumann

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "Doug" > wrote:
>
>>Whatever they are doing, they are selling a lot of airplanes and their
>>airplanes have a high accident and fatality rate. I don't think anyone
>>knows why.
>>
>
> Sure we do. Pilots doing stupid things. Now whether the BRS gives
> them false confidence or not I really don't care. But of the
> deployments I have heard about...pilot stupidity was the primary
> causal factor for getting to the point of deployment.
>
> Ron Lee

[Mxsmanic]

Dave S writes:

> Designed to encourage carelessness? Are you an aircraft designer now?
> What exact features are you referring to?

Things like a parachute.

> The parachute? Every manned spacecraft (with the exception of the
> Orbiter) that has flown to date has a parachute incorporated into the
> design, and a successful mission depends on its deployment.

Every manned spacecraft has coasted in a vacuum, too. Every submarine
has spent time underwater. Every car has tires. I don't see any
connections here.

> How does the notion of a parachute automatically encourage carelessness?

It gives naïve pilots the impression that the gadgets will save them
no matter how stupid their mistakes might become. The reality is that
the gadgets offer only a small increment of increased safety in
certain specific situations; the obligation of the pilot to be careful
is not diminished.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Aluckyguess writes:

> I think its a great plane, but at this point if I was considering a new
> plane I would go A36.

Is the A36 still in production? I thought it had been replaced
recently by a very similar but somewhat updated model.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Robert Dorsey]

Did you compair with a Lancair / Columbia? I can't understand why
anyone would pick a Cirrus over a Columbia except fpr the chute.
The chute was actually designed into the airframe to circumvent
difficulties with spin recovery requirements was it not?



On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 08:26:30 -0700, "Aluckyguess" > wrote:

>
>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> Aluckyguess writes:
>>
>>> I think the BRS is more for the non-pilot. The wife, friends wife thats
>>> afraid to fly and so on. Just my thoughts.
>>
>> If they looked at the numbers they might change their minds, but often
>> rationality has nothing to do with it (especially if they are
>> excessively worried in the first place).
>
>I had many friends say I should of bought the Cirrus because of the chute. I
>actually looked at a used one and was going to buy it until I got the
>insurance quote. 10K a year. I was actually a litttle intimitated by the
>plane at first.
>I think its a great plane, but at this point if I was considering a new
>plane I would go A36.
>
>>
>> --
>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Robert Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Did you compair with a Lancair / Columbia? I can't understand why
> anyone would pick a Cirrus over a Columbia except fpr the chute.
> The chute was actually designed into the airframe to circumvent
> difficulties with spin recovery requirements was it not?

Not necessary spin problems, but as a suitable alternative to spin testing, and
because the aircraft designers believed in the parachute as an increase to
safety.

With the chute, they did not have to FAA spin test it for certification.
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Logajan]

Robert Dorsey > wrote:
> Did you compair with a Lancair / Columbia? I can't understand why
> anyone would pick a Cirrus over a Columbia except fpr the chute.
> The chute was actually designed into the airframe to circumvent
> difficulties with spin recovery requirements was it not?

The Wikipedia entry makes that claim:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Aircraft_Parachute_System

BUT - Cirrus co-founder Dale Klapmeier says that a chute was planned from
the beginning and its use as alternative to spin recovery came about later:

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/chutehappens/qa/index.html

I think the Wikipedia entry needs updating.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:56:58 GMT, "Mike Schumann"
> wrote:

> Pilot stupidity is the primary causal factor of most GA accidents.

All accidents are, at the root, due to pilot error. Sometimes, though, the
pilot's only error is in getting out of bed that day.....

Ron Wanttaja

[Kingfish]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
> Is the A36 still in production? I thought it had been replaced
> recently by a very similar but somewhat updated model.

G36 replaced the A36. The only real difference is the new Garmin 1000
glass panel. Similarly, the B58 Baron is now the G58 Baron with the
same panel.

[Kingfish]

Robert Dorsey wrote:
> Did you compair with a Lancair / Columbia? I can't understand why
> anyone would pick a Cirrus over a Columbia except fpr the chute.
> The chute was actually designed into the airframe to circumvent
> difficulties with spin recovery requirements was it not?
>

I demo'd both planes (SR22 and C400) and found them to be very similar.
Naturally the turbo'd 400 has the speed advantage, but you have to
climb to FL250 to see its advertised top speed. I didn't care for the
single lever power control in the Cirrus - I know why they went that
route (simplified power management?) but I just prefer a separate prop
control. Besides that, the Columbia is available with either the G1000
or Avidyne panels which I found interesting. I don't know either system
that well, but assume the capabilities are pretty close. (Which is to
say they are amazing)

My impression is that the majority of Cirrus accidents involve lower
time pilots that may not have a high enough comfort level with the
plane. The BRS system is a good safety feature, although I think some
pilots might rely on it a little too much to get them out of a jam.
Can't really back that up, it's just a gut feeling. The Columbia is
close enough in performance and capability to the SR22, but I don't
think there have been many accidents involving them - probably due to
the fact that the Cirrus fleet is so much larger. I think it comes down
to training. Seeing as insuring a Cirrus is so expensive, I'm wondering
if type training might be a requirement soon. I don't think the
accident rate is any higher (ref Collins' article) than other types,
but we sure do hear about it any time there's an incident/accident
involving one.

[Dave S]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> It gives naïve pilots the impression ...

Now we are on to something you can claim expertise in.. about time...

[Mxsmanic]

Kingfish writes:

> G36 replaced the A36. The only real difference is the new Garmin 1000
> glass panel. Similarly, the B58 Baron is now the G58 Baron with the
> same panel.

Can you get these aircraft without the glass panel? The last thing
I'd want is a Garmin 1000.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Robert,

> I can't understand why
> anyone would pick a Cirrus over a Columbia except fpr the chute.

Price.

> The chute was actually designed into the airframe to circumvent
> difficulties with spin recovery requirements was it not?
>

It was not. Google the group.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Morgans > posted:

> "Robert Dorsey" > wrote:
>> The chute was actually designed into the airframe to circumvent
>> difficulties with spin recovery requirements was it not?
>
> Not necessary spin problems, but as a suitable alternative to spin
> testing, and because the aircraft designers believed in the parachute
> as an increase to safety.
>
> With the chute, they did not have to FAA spin test it for
> certification.
>
The more I hear this line of reasoning, the more I wonder why a
manufacturer would NOT spin test their aircraft? Surely, the increased
cost of testing would not offset the inuendo that the aircraft can't
recover from a spin? If I were in a position to spend that kind of money
on a plane, I'd want to know that it could be flown within all normal
parameters, and my opinion is that spin recovery is a normal parameter.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Kingfish writes:
>
>> G36 replaced the A36. The only real difference is the new Garmin 1000
>> glass panel. Similarly, the B58 Baron is now the G58 Baron with the
>> same panel.
>
> Can you get these aircraft without the glass panel? The last thing
> I'd want is a Garmin 1000.
>
Not to worry... on your income, it's a non-issue.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> Not to worry... on your income, it's a non-issue.

That doesn't answer the question. Can these aircraft still be had
without the PC clone in the cockpit?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> The more I hear this line of reasoning, the more I wonder why a
> manufacturer would NOT spin test their aircraft? Surely, the increased
> cost of testing would not offset the inuendo that the aircraft can't
> recover from a spin?

Assuming that potential buyers ask about it, which they might not.

> If I were in a position to spend that kind of money
> on a plane, I'd want to know that it could be flown within all normal
> parameters, and my opinion is that spin recovery is a normal parameter.

Is the Cirrus line expensive, in comparison to other GA aircraft?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Lee]

Ron Wanttaja > wrote:

>> Pilot stupidity is the primary causal factor of most GA accidents.
>
>All accidents are, at the root, due to pilot error. Sometimes, though, the
>pilot's only error is in getting out of bed that day.....
>
>Ron Wanttaja

I don't agree. The DC-10 in Sioux City IA (Capt Hays); an MD 80 ntype
crask in the Pacific, The Airbus in New York soon after 9/11, etc are
mechanical issues that I would not attribute to the pilot(s).

Ron Lee

[Thomas Borchert]

Neil,

> The more I hear this line of reasoning, the more I wonder why a
> manufacturer would NOT spin test their aircraft?

Money.

> Surely, the increased
> cost of testing would not offset the inuendo that the aircraft can't
> recover from a spin?

It can. The certified method for that is to pull the chute.

Why use a chute rather than certify traditional spin recovery? They
wanted the chute anyway, so they saved money. Why build in a chute? Look
at the sales numbers.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Kingfish]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Kingfish writes:
>
> > G36 replaced the A36. The only real difference is the new Garmin 1000
> > glass panel. Similarly, the B58 Baron is now the G58 Baron with the
> > same panel.
>
> Can you get these aircraft without the glass panel? The last thing
> I'd want is a Garmin 1000.
>

I think the G1000 has become standard equipment on both planes now

[Aluckyguess]

yes the g36. but I am talking used.
"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Aluckyguess writes:
>
>> I think its a great plane, but at this point if I was considering a new
>> plane I would go A36.
>
> Is the A36 still in production? I thought it had been replaced
> recently by a very similar but somewhat updated model.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Kingfish writes:

> I think the G1000 has become standard equipment on both planes now

But can you get them without the G1000, with more reliable avionics?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[mike regish]

Wasn't the Airbus due to too rapid and complete rudder activation? Since it
wasn't warned against, I guess it can't be completely laid on the pilot, but
still it was a pilot input that caused the failure.

mike

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>
>>> Pilot stupidity is the primary causal factor of most GA accidents.
>>
>>All accidents are, at the root, due to pilot error. Sometimes, though,
>>the
>>pilot's only error is in getting out of bed that day.....
>>
>>Ron Wanttaja
>
> I don't agree. The DC-10 in Sioux City IA (Capt Hays); an MD 80 ntype
> crask in the Pacific, The Airbus in New York soon after 9/11, etc are
> mechanical issues that I would not attribute to the pilot(s).
>
> Ron Lee
>
>

[Ron Lee]

"mike regish" > wrote:

>Wasn't the Airbus due to too rapid and complete rudder activation? Since it
>wasn't warned against, I guess it can't be completely laid on the pilot, but
>still it was a pilot input that caused the failure.
>

That one may be ambiguous.

Ron Lee

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Thomas Borchert > posted:

> Neil,
>
>> The more I hear this line of reasoning, the more I wonder why a
>> manufacturer would NOT spin test their aircraft?
>
> Money.
>
>> Surely, the increased
>> cost of testing would not offset the inuendo that the aircraft can't
>> recover from a spin?
>
> It can. The certified method for that is to pull the chute.
>
That's "flight abandonment", not spin recovery, as "recovery" implies that
one is flying afterwards... ;-)

> Why use a chute rather than certify traditional spin recovery? They
> wanted the chute anyway, so they saved money. Why build in a chute?
> Look at the sales numbers.
>
I don't think that the sales numbers would suffer from the inclusion of
traditional spin recovery techniques. Perhaps I'm a real oddball type of
pilot, but I am not impressed by the 'chute, given the injuries and deaths
that have resulted from its use.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Kingfish writes:
>
>> I think the G1000 has become standard equipment on both planes now
>
> But can you get them without the G1000, with more reliable avionics?
>
With enough money, you can get whatever you want. However, to go way back
to an earlier discussion, there is no evidence that suggests that a G1000
is less reliable than traditional gauges.

Neil

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Neil Gould" > wrote

> I don't think that the sales numbers would suffer from the inclusion of
> traditional spin recovery techniques. Perhaps I'm a real oddball type of
> pilot, but I am not impressed by the 'chute, given the injuries and deaths
> that have resulted from its use.

Are you aware of any fatal accidents where the chute was deployed at sufficient
altitude for proper opening?
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> With enough money, you can get whatever you want. However, to go way back
> to an earlier discussion, there is no evidence that suggests that a G1000
> is less reliable than traditional gauges.

I'll wait 15 years or so for the evidence to accumulate, and then
we'll see. In the meantime, someone else can be the pioneer and take
the risks.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Morgans > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote
>
>> I don't think that the sales numbers would suffer from the inclusion
>> of traditional spin recovery techniques. Perhaps I'm a real oddball
>> type of pilot, but I am not impressed by the 'chute, given the
>> injuries and deaths that have resulted from its use.
>
> Are you aware of any fatal accidents where the chute was deployed at
> sufficient altitude for proper opening?
>
So, now you want to qualify the conditions of its use? ;-)

I almost excluded the "...deaths..." part when I wrote my opinion, but
then I figured that if the plane is capable of spin recovery, it could
possibly do so below the altitude that the 'chute would work. If so, then
those moments would be better spent trying to recover from the spin.

Neil

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 05:00:23 +0000, Dave S wrote:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>
>> It gives naïve pilots the impression ...
>
> Now we are on to something you can claim expertise in.. about time...

Not really. He's not a pilot. He's a gamer.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:37:17 +0200, Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Oh, FWIW, Dick Collins compared the accident rates of NEW 182s with those
> of Cirrus. They are very similar.

I think he recently wrote something that considered mapping accident rate
as a function of the time a pilot had in a particular aircraft. The idea
was that a pilot new to the XXX was more at risk flying the XXX than
either that same pilot in the YYY he/she knows well or another pilot in
the XXX with more XXX time.

It makes sense that a fair number of new airplanes are flown by pilots new
to that airplane.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 15:39:34 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

> I'll wait 15 years or so for the evidence to accumulate, and then we'll
> see. In the meantime, someone else can be the pioneer and take the risks.

You'll be sure to let us know when you're willing to take the risk of
actually flying an airplane.

[Dave Stadt]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 15:39:34 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> I'll wait 15 years or so for the evidence to accumulate, and then we'll
>> see. In the meantime, someone else can be the pioneer and take the
>> risks.
>
> You'll be sure to let us know when you're willing to take the risk of
> actually flying an airplane.

We should live so long.

[john smith]

In article >,
Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:37:17 +0200, Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
> > Oh, FWIW, Dick Collins compared the accident rates of NEW 182s with those
> > of Cirrus. They are very similar.

> I think he recently wrote something that considered mapping accident rate
> as a function of the time a pilot had in a particular aircraft. The idea
> was that a pilot new to the XXX was more at risk flying the XXX than
> either that same pilot in the YYY he/she knows well or another pilot in
> the XXX with more XXX time.
> It makes sense that a fair number of new airplanes are flown by pilots new
> to that airplane.

Thirty years ago, one of my flight instructors told me the reason for
the insurance companies checkout requirement of ten hours of dual in an
airplane the pilot has not flown is based on the accident statistics.

[Mxsmanic]

Andrew Gideon writes:

> You'll be sure to let us know when you're willing to take the risk of
> actually flying an airplane.

Probably when I can buy one of my own and see to it that it is
perfectly maintained.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Neil,

> I don't think that the sales numbers would suffer from the inclusion of
> traditional spin recovery techniques. Perhaps I'm a real oddball type of
> pilot, but I am not impressed by the 'chute, given the injuries and deaths
> that have resulted from its use.
>

As some others have posted here, traditional spin recovery was tested for
European certification. I have not been able to verify that yet, however.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Thomas Borchert > posted:

> Neil,
>
>> I don't think that the sales numbers would suffer from the inclusion
>> of traditional spin recovery techniques. Perhaps I'm a real oddball
>> type of pilot, but I am not impressed by the 'chute, given the
>> injuries and deaths that have resulted from its use.
>>
>
> As some others have posted here, traditional spin recovery was tested
> for European certification. I have not been able to verify that yet,
> however.
>
Yes, I've read that here many times, and like you have seen no real
evidence of it. One would think that such an accomplishment would be
"broadcast", at least through European aviation magazines. I also suspect
that the process would somewhat offset the costs involved in US
certification, as the requirements shouldn't be all that different. So,
it's a curious ommission.

Neil

[mike regish]

No such animal.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message

> perfectly maintained.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Capt.Doug]

>"Ron Lee" wrote in message > That one may be ambiguous.

Ambiguous how? In that the pilot mistakingly believed that full flight
control travel was safe because he was below manuevering speed and American
Airline's training program reinforced that flawed premise?

That airplane didn't break without the pilot's help.

D.

[Ron Lee]

"Capt.Doug" > wrote:

>>"Ron Lee" wrote in message > That one may be ambiguous.
>
>Ambiguous how? In that the pilot mistakingly believed that full flight
>control travel was safe because he was below manuevering speed and American
>Airline's training program reinforced that flawed premise?
>
>That airplane didn't break without the pilot's help.
>
>D.

Ambiguous because I do not recall if it was a design issue or pilot
problem.

The point remains is that aircraft problems have led to crashes.

Ron Lee

[Capt.Doug]

>"Ron Lee" wrote in message
> Ambiguous because I do not recall if it was a design issue or pilot
problem.

I would put that particular example in the training category.

> The point remains is that aircraft problems have led to crashes.

As I know personally, but it wouldn't be r.a.p. if we didn't nitpick. :-)

D.