Should I upgrade from Skylane to Cirrus SR20? (not mxmaniac infested)

[gwengler]

I would also agree that going from a C182 to am SR20 would be a
downgrade. The SR20 is much more comparable to a C172 with the
exception of speed. As far as utility goes, the C182 is unbeatable in
that class. Look at weight, weight & balance issues, short field take
off and landing distances, winter operation, rough airfield operation,
etc. etc.
Be very careful about your view of the parachute. Cirrus airplanes do
not have a better safety record than other airplanes. Two main
reasons, a) parachute equipped airplane pilots tend to assume greater
risk ("all I have to do is to pull the handle") and b) it is a very
difficult decision to actually pull the handle and many pilots so far
in Cirrus airplanes have not pulled it when they should have.

Gerd
ATP, based in CZBA

[El Maximo]

"gwengler" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> As far as utility goes, the C182 is unbeatable in
> that class. Look at weight, weight & balance issues, short field take
> off and landing distances, winter operation, rough airfield operation,
> etc. etc.

Two friends of mine got stranded by weather on their way back from Oshkosh a
couple years back. They rented an Expedition to drive home, but couldn't fit
everything in the plane into the SUV.

[Aluckyguess]

Get an A36 better than both in every way. My A36 has a useful load of 1345
lbs and cruises @ 168 kts.
"El Maximo" > wrote in message
...
> "gwengler" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>> As far as utility goes, the C182 is unbeatable in
>> that class. Look at weight, weight & balance issues, short field take
>> off and landing distances, winter operation, rough airfield operation,
>> etc. etc.
>
> Two friends of mine got stranded by weather on their way back from Oshkosh
> a couple years back. They rented an Expedition to drive home, but couldn't
> fit everything in the plane into the SUV.
>

[Peter R.]

On 6/13/2007 11:00:31 AM, "El Maximo" wrote:

> They rented an Expedition to drive home, but couldn't fit
> everything in the plane into the SUV.

Are you sure it was an Expedition? I could see that with a Ford Explorer, but
an Expedition? Having a tough time accepting this one.

--
Peter

[El Maximo]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> On 6/13/2007 11:00:31 AM, "El Maximo" wrote:
>
>> They rented an Expedition to drive home, but couldn't fit
>> everything in the plane into the SUV.
>
> Are you sure it was an Expedition? I could see that with a Ford Explorer,
> but
> an Expedition? Having a tough time accepting this one.
>

Maybe it was an Explorer. I wasn't there.

[Thomas Borchert]

Gwengler,

> a) parachute equipped airplane pilots tend to assume greater
> risk ("all I have to do is to pull the handle")
>

Any kind of factual support for that statement? Even a hint would
surprise me.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[john smith]

El Maximo wrote:
> "gwengler" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>> As far as utility goes, the C182 is unbeatable in
>> that class. Look at weight, weight & balance issues, short field take
>> off and landing distances, winter operation, rough airfield operation,
>> etc. etc.
>
> Two friends of mine got stranded by weather on their way back from Oshkosh a
> couple years back. They rented an Expedition to drive home, but couldn't fit
> everything in the plane into the SUV.

I can tell you from personal experience that a C182 baggage area will
hold more than the trunk of a Nissan Altima.

[gwengler]

On Jun 13, 11:26 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> > a) parachute equipped airplane pilots tend to assume greater
> > risk ("all I have to do is to pull the handle")
>
> Any kind of factual support for that statement? Even a hint would
> surprise me.

No surpises, on hints, no support for this "theory" whatsoever. My
statement is only based on my belief, which in turn is based on
accident reports I have read. For example, the guy who got into ice
at 16,000 ft. with a Cirrus, lost control, and either didn't pull or
pulled at a speed too high (chute ripped to pieces) - I forgot.
Perhaps the Lidle crash in NYC formed my belief, as did two or three
accident discussions from the Flying magazine.
The OP of the infested thread kinda went the same way - as if mountain
flying was somehow safer with a ballistic parachute. This will not
prevent one box canyon accident, for example. I have a hard time
believing that a pilot will pull the chute if he gets in a serious
downdraft in the mountains.

Gerd

[The Visitor]

A 182 is an established and mature design. Foundair is building what
they call The Expedition. Not yet certified, but is a tricycle version
of the Bushhawk, with some improvements. I think I heard it was 8 inches
wider.

http://64.34.128.140/home.aspx

I only mention it to inform. I rather like it myself, but it is not for me.

John



gwengler wrote:

> I would also agree that going from a C182 to am SR20 would be a
> downgrade. The SR20 is much more comparable to a C172 with the
> exception of speed. As far as utility goes, the C182 is unbeatable in
> that class. Look at weight, weight & balance issues, short field take
> off and landing distances, winter operation, rough airfield operation,
> etc. etc.
> Be very careful about your view of the parachute. Cirrus airplanes do
> not have a better safety record than other airplanes. Two main
> reasons, a) parachute equipped airplane pilots tend to assume greater
> risk ("all I have to do is to pull the handle") and b) it is a very
> difficult decision to actually pull the handle and many pilots so far
> in Cirrus airplanes have not pulled it when they should have.
>
> Gerd
> ATP, based in CZBA
>

[The Visitor]

Found Aircraft

http://www.foundair.com/






The Visitor wrote:

> A 182 is an established and mature design. Foundair is building what
> they call The Expedition. Not yet certified, but is a tricycle version
> of the Bushhawk, with some improvements. I think I heard it was 8 inches
> wider.
>
> http://64.34.128.140/home.aspx
>
> I only mention it to inform. I rather like it myself, but it is not for me.
>
> John
>

[Peter R.]

On 6/13/2007 12:13:23 PM, gwengler wrote:

> For example, the guy who got into ice
> at 16,000 ft. with a Cirrus, lost control, and either didn't pull or
> pulled at a speed too high (chute ripped to pieces) - I forgot.

In this accident, a case could also be made for the pilot taking extra risks
due to the installed TKS anti-icing system.

--
Peter

[john smith]

The Visitor wrote:
> A 182 is an established and mature design. Foundair is building what
> they call The Expedition. Not yet certified, but is a tricycle version
> of the Bushhawk, with some improvements. I think I heard it was 8 inches
> wider.
> http://64.34.128.140/home.aspx
> I only mention it to inform. I rather like it myself, but it is not for me.

Their website still needs some work so that the logo does not block the
information when one clicks on a link.

[Marty Shapiro]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Gwengler,
>
>> a) parachute equipped airplane pilots tend to assume greater
>> risk ("all I have to do is to pull the handle")
>>
>
> Any kind of factual support for that statement? Even a hint would
> surprise me.
>

Did you see the interview with NY Yankee pitcher Corey Lidel done
shortly before his fatal crash into an apartment building while trying to
turn around over the East River? He kept repeating how safe his Cirrus was
because all you had to do is reach up and pop the chute if any problem
arose.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Peter Dohm]

"Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert > wrote in
> :
>
> > Gwengler,
> >
> >> a) parachute equipped airplane pilots tend to assume greater
> >> risk ("all I have to do is to pull the handle")
> >>
> >
> > Any kind of factual support for that statement? Even a hint would
> > surprise me.
> >
>
> Did you see the interview with NY Yankee pitcher Corey Lidel done
> shortly before his fatal crash into an apartment building while trying to
> turn around over the East River? He kept repeating how safe his Cirrus
was
> because all you had to do is reach up and pop the chute if any problem
> arose.
>
> --
> Marty Shapiro
> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>
> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)

No, although it is interesting, and somewhat troubling, psychology.

Peter

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:26:16 -0400, Peter R. wrote:

> In this accident, a case could also be made for the pilot taking extra
> risks due to the installed TKS anti-icing system.

According to what I just read in some magazine, the forecast had no
mention of ice. However, perhaps the TKS lulled the pilot when he first
saw it forming.

- Andrew

[Matt Whiting]

El Maximo wrote:
> "gwengler" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>> As far as utility goes, the C182 is unbeatable in
>> that class. Look at weight, weight & balance issues, short field take
>> off and landing distances, winter operation, rough airfield operation,
>> etc. etc.
>
> Two friends of mine got stranded by weather on their way back from Oshkosh a
> couple years back. They rented an Expedition to drive home, but couldn't fit
> everything in the plane into the SUV.
>
>

That has urban legend written all over it.

Matt

[Aluckyguess]

nice
"The Visitor" > wrote in message
...
>A 182 is an established and mature design. Foundair is building what they
>call The Expedition. Not yet certified, but is a tricycle version of the
>Bushhawk, with some improvements. I think I heard it was 8 inches wider.
>
> http://64.34.128.140/home.aspx
>
> I only mention it to inform. I rather like it myself, but it is not for
> me.
>
> John
>
>
>
> gwengler wrote:
>
>> I would also agree that going from a C182 to am SR20 would be a
>> downgrade. The SR20 is much more comparable to a C172 with the
>> exception of speed. As far as utility goes, the C182 is unbeatable in
>> that class. Look at weight, weight & balance issues, short field take
>> off and landing distances, winter operation, rough airfield operation,
>> etc. etc.
>> Be very careful about your view of the parachute. Cirrus airplanes do
>> not have a better safety record than other airplanes. Two main
>> reasons, a) parachute equipped airplane pilots tend to assume greater
>> risk ("all I have to do is to pull the handle") and b) it is a very
>> difficult decision to actually pull the handle and many pilots so far
>> in Cirrus airplanes have not pulled it when they should have.
>>
>> Gerd
>> ATP, based in CZBA
>>
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Gwengler,

> My
> statement is only based on my belief
>

Ah! I'm not much into beliefs.

One thing you say has me stumped, though: The Lidle accident has
exactly zip to do with the presence of the chute. There is simply no
possible connection. Clue me in, please!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Marty,

> Did you see the interview with NY Yankee pitcher Corey Lidel done
> shortly before his fatal crash into an apartment building while trying to
> turn around over the East River? He kept repeating how safe his Cirrus was
> because all you had to do is reach up and pop the chute if any problem
> arose.
>

Non sequitur!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ron Natalie]

Peter R. wrote:
> On 6/13/2007 11:00:31 AM, "El Maximo" wrote:
>
>> They rented an Expedition to drive home, but couldn't fit
>> everything in the plane into the SUV.
>
> Are you sure it was an Expedition? I could see that with a Ford Explorer, but
> an Expedition? Having a tough time accepting this one.
>

I can believe it. I had a full up Chevy Suburban and the interior
volume was about the same as I could pack in the Navion (using the
baggage compartment and the rear seats).

The 182 isn't any smaller on the inside than the Navion (about the
same I believe).

[El Maximo]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> El Maximo wrote:

>> Two friends of mine got stranded by weather on their way back from
>> Oshkosh a couple years back. They rented an Expedition to drive home, but
>> couldn't fit everything in the plane into the SUV.
>
> That has urban legend written all over it.
>
> Matt

I don't think it qualifies as a legend. Maybe BS, but not legend status yet.

As I posted earlier, it may have been an Explorer. I know it was a Skylane,
and I know it was a Ford.

[gwengler]

On Jun 14, 4:58 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> Ah! I'm not much into beliefs.
>
> One thing you say has me stumped, though: The Lidle accident has
> exactly zip to do with the presence of the chute. There is simply no
> possible connection. Clue me in, please!
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas,

Don't you believe that Cirrus airplanes are superior to Cessna
airplanes? Don't you believe that GA pilots are adverse to new
technologies? (I am too lazy to pull up quotes from you on this in
the past). Anyway, so much about beliefs.
The Lidle accident serves as an example for me how someone can be
lulled into a false sense of safety by wrongfully believing that there
will be always a way out. That leads automatically to complacency
which is a dangerous thing, especially for pilots. So, I believe
(from interviews with Lidle) that he thought he had a super-safe
airplane because of the chute. I believe that this was a contributing
factor to the accident. No factual proofs here, just beliefs - just
as yours.

Gerd

[Thomas Borchert]

Gwengler,

> Don't you believe that Cirrus airplanes are superior to Cessna
> airplanes?

No. You won't find a quote like that from me, either. It's all a matter
of mission requirements, IMHO.

I just happen to think the facts do not bear out that Ciruus airplanes
are inferior to Cessna - yet you read statements to that effect here
quite a lot.

> Don't you believe that GA pilots are adverse to new
> technologies?

No. I see that tendency quite clearly in posts here, in magazine
articles and discussions with fellow pilots. I can back that claim up
with fact. No believing required.

As for Lidle, I see what you're getting at, and sadly, you may be
right. But, as someone said in a similar discussion on another forum:
"Pilots who think that way will probably do something stupid with or
without a chute."

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[gwengler]

Very good, Thomas! I respect your opinion (at least your's is based
on facts as opposed to so many here). I just had to laugh, your
phrase "I just happen to think" could be construed as "I believe".

Gerd

[Thomas Borchert]

Gwengler,

> I just had to laugh, your
> phrase "I just happen to think" could be construed as "I believe".
>

;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mike Beede]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Gwengler,
>
> > a) parachute equipped airplane pilots tend to assume greater
> > risk ("all I have to do is to pull the handle")
> >
>
> Any kind of factual support for that statement? Even a hint would
> surprise me.

Here's an interesting theory that apparently has at least some
experimental validation. Of course, since it's a psychology
thing, there's no agreement.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_homeostasis>

Mike Beede

[Thomas Borchert]

Some,

> A safety expert on the show mused that accident rates would plummet
> if every car was equipped with a four-inch steel spike sticking out
> of the middle of the steering wheel.
>

Uhm, accident rates DO plummet - with ABS and all the other safety
enhancements we have in modern cars. Now what does that do for the
theories of psychology experts?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter Dohm]

"Mike Beede" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
> > Gwengler,
> >
> > > a) parachute equipped airplane pilots tend to assume greater
> > > risk ("all I have to do is to pull the handle")
> > >
> >
> > Any kind of factual support for that statement? Even a hint would
> > surprise me.
>
> Here's an interesting theory that apparently has at least some
> experimental validation. Of course, since it's a psychology
> thing, there's no agreement.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_homeostasis>
>
> Mike Beede

That was an interesting link. I was not aware of the Munich study, but my
own annecdotal observation in Miami Florida traffic at that time showed the
same result.

IIRC, insurance loss statistics also showed no change after a fairly short
time. It other words, losses returned to their previous level in months,
rather than years.

Peter

[Jim Logajan]

Some Other Guy > wrote:
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Some,
>>
>>> A safety expert on the show mused that accident rates would plummet
>>> if every car was equipped with a four-inch steel spike sticking out
>>> of the middle of the steering wheel.
>>
>> Uhm, accident rates DO plummet - with ABS and all the other safety
>> enhancements we have in modern cars. Now what does that do for the
>> theories of psychology experts?
>
> Accident rates do NOT plummet according to the very link posted
> earlier:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_homeostasis

Not only does the Wikipedia entry list one rebuttal to the theory, a
Google search for "risk homeostasis" yields several papers that find
evidence to the contrary, such as this one:

"The risk homeostasis theory posits, in essence, that a control
mechanism analogous to the thermal homeostatic system in warm-blooded
animals tends to keep risk per unit time constant, and, as a
consequence, the number of traffic accidents per unit time of driving
also tends to remain constant, essentially independent of changes in the
traffic safety system. It is the purpose of the present research to
examine the validity of this claim using a wide variety of traffic
accident data. All the data examined are found to be incompatible with
the risk homeostasis theory. The only specific field accident data
offered in the literature to support the risk homeostasis theory are
found to, in fact, refute the theory. The accident data provide evidence
that a rich variety of user responses occur. While it is possible for
users to collectively respond in such a way that safety benefits are
completely cancelled, such a response is not particularly common; it is
certainly not universally occurring, as suggested by the risk
homeostasis theory. It is concluded that the risk homeostasis theory
should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it
and much evidence refuting it."

From:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3602497&dopt=Abstract

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Some,
>
> > A safety expert on the show mused that accident rates would plummet
> > if every car was equipped with a four-inch steel spike sticking out
> > of the middle of the steering wheel.
> >
>
> Uhm, accident rates DO plummet - with ABS and all the other safety
> enhancements we have in modern cars. Now what does that do for the
> theories of psychology experts?

hmmm, the last I looked the rate of car accidents in the US has been
pretty flat (according to statistics pulled from the US National Highway
Transportation somethingorother agency).

Maybe all the evil cellphone usage is countering the safety improvements...

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-06-13, Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> Gwengler,
>
>> a) parachute equipped airplane pilots tend to assume greater
>> risk ("all I have to do is to pull the handle")
>>
>
> Any kind of factual support for that statement? Even a hint would
> surprise me.

Actually, percieved risk homeostatis is a well established psychological
phenomena - i.e. given safety improvements, a person generally will take
more risks until they are back at their normal level of risk comfort. So
people with ABS brakes and airbags tend to drive faster (and possibly
more recklessly) compared to when they didn't have ABS and airbags. It's
been cited in many road safety studies. There's no reason why it
wouldn't apply to aircraft.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-06-15, Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> Uhm, accident rates DO plummet - with ABS and all the other safety
> enhancements we have in modern cars. Now what does that do for the
> theories of psychology experts?

If you look at the bigger picture, it's less clear. For example, when
seatbelts were made mandatory in Britain, although the injury rate
went down amongst occupants of cars, the injury rate went up for
cyclists and pedestrians. Cars were crashing more often, but causing
less harm to their occupants (but causing more risk, nonetheless,
to those outside the vehicle).

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Thomas Borchert]

Dylan,

> Actually, percieved risk homeostatis is a well established psychological
> phenomena
>

Well, if you read the rest of the thread (and the literature), it is less
than established, I'd say.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected][_2_]]

Food for thought, and the thing I think of when the subject of Cirrus
come up is the insurance costs. If you are comparing an older 182 with
a brand new Cirrus, won't the hull-value part of your insurance eat
you alive...?
That's been one of the factors that gives me pause when considering
one of the local groups that has shares of an SR22 for sale. (but it's
not the only one).

I guess it all really depends on your "mission" that you need an
airplane for.
-Ryan in Madison

[Peter Dohm]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2007-06-15, Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> > Uhm, accident rates DO plummet - with ABS and all the other safety
> > enhancements we have in modern cars. Now what does that do for the
> > theories of psychology experts?
>
> If you look at the bigger picture, it's less clear. For example, when
> seatbelts were made mandatory in Britain, although the injury rate
> went down amongst occupants of cars, the injury rate went up for
> cyclists and pedestrians. Cars were crashing more often, but causing
> less harm to their occupants (but causing more risk, nonetheless,
> to those outside the vehicle).
>
This is exactly the sort of behavior that I have observed on the street,
without benefit of the statistics to back it up.