Today's WSJ...aviation articles 1/2

"Cubdriver" usenet AT danford.net wrote in message
...

I didn't entirely agree with the WSJ writer. Though I'm glad he can afford
a Cirrus (not on his salary, surely!), I think he's wrong to exculpate the
plane entirely. It does seem that just as the Bonanza gained the
reputation in California as the Doctor Killer, there is something about the
Cirrus that makes it dangerous to pilots.

IMO, that ought to read:

....there is something about pilots that makes them dangerous in Cirrus
(Cirri?)

A "Bo" doesn't know (or care) if the butt in the left seat is a Doctor or a
Plumber and a Cirrus doesn't know how many hours the person in the left seat
has flown. Unless there is proof Cirrus are flawed, it will still come down
to the responsibility of the PIC.

Should relative newbie pilots be flying Cirrus planes? Maybe Not...
Should they be flying them in the same manner in which you'd fly say, a C150
or 140hp Piper? (ie Day / VFR Only / Low / Slow / etc... ?) IMO, No.

You don't drive a Lamborghini or Ferrari in the same way you'd drive a VW
Bug.

But in that same vein, if someone drives a Lamborghini or Ferrari, "$
Because They Can... $" and they wrap it around a pole and kill themselves
(or God forbid, kill someone else in the process) you don't hear people
saying it's the fault of the car or that the car was inherently dangerous.
You might hear people say that they were driving something out of their
league...and why should it be different with aircraft?

For the number built, there are just too many dang crashes.

"Per this, per that" is to me, irrelevant. You have to look at each
incident on it's own merits. Multiple attempts to shoot an ILS to minimums
is no less foolish in a glass cockpit than it is with steam gauges.
T-Storms can smack down composites just as easily as aluminum. The East
River Corridor is just as tricky for a C182 if you aren't in the right
place, not paying attention or don't fly with a smart plan.

SA is the responsiblity of the PIC. Doesn't matter if he's getting his info
from a TAC or twin 12" LCDs.

It may even be the parachute. (The NYC pilot was quoted as boasting about
that great safety feature.)

Irrelevant. The chute is meaningless when you hit something moving
horizontally.

People (perhaps especially men) are prone to 'consume' part of each safety
or money-saving feature in additional speed, hours of use, etc.

A rather blatant generalization, don't you think? A sexist one at that...

We never get the savings out of fluorescent bulbs that the statistics
promise, because we leave the lights on longer;

??? WTF does this have to do with the price of tea in China? The savings is
in the "per kilowatt hour used" not on the overall life of the bulb. 100
lumens at 40W instead of 60W is a constant. If the flourescent bulb goes TU
and you replace it, there's no change in the kW/H savings...you're still
getting 100 lumens from 40W instead of 60W. All you're out is the cost of
the bulb and they do last longer than traditional filament-type bulbs
whether you burn them one hour a day or 24.

nor do we get the additional safety from side air-bags, because we driver
faster or more recklessly.

How many people do you think even know they have side-impact airbags
installed or not? Autophiles who would really care are probably already
prone to driving with a bit more "enthusiasm" to begin with. Tail wagging
the dog.

It may well be that that fabled parachute contributed to the East River
crash, by giving the pilot and his CFI (a young man, after all) just a wee
bit greater feeling of invulnerability.

Pure Speculation. The only facts a
- A Cirrus
- Owned by a Private Pilot with roughly 80 hours total
- With a CFI (was he a CFII?) on board who, IIRC, was not a local...he was
from CA.
- Hit a building in NYC
- Both are dead

AFAIK, in the instances where the chute was deployed within parameters and
in the manner in which it was intended, it has worked and worked well.
Lives have been saved.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ