"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.