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

"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.

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

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)

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

Gwengler,

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


;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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

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)

"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

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/en...o pt=Abstract

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!!!)