Why don't more Young Eagles become pilots?

Mxsmanic wrote:
Cirrus follows this philosophy to a certain extent by strongly
targeting wealthy, low-time private pilots in their marketing,

Further note:
According to the section labeled "Lesson 5" on the following web page,
statistics indicate that "low-time" pilots are not the ones who are
experiencing accidents in Cirrus aircraft:

http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/...nslearned.aspx

Jim Logajan writes:

Further note:
According to the section labeled "Lesson 5" on the following web page,
statistics indicate that "low-time" pilots are not the ones who are
experiencing accidents in Cirrus aircraft:

http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/...nslearned.aspx

I have to question the objectivity of a pilot's association dedicated to the
manufacturer's aircraft. Especially when I see statements like "... the
ultimate safety device: CAPS." That's exactly the kind of attitude that can
cause accidents. The author seems to further believe that CAPS is a fix for
all sorts of situations, such as pilot disorientation and loss of control at
low altitude.

These statements do not reassure me. It sounds eerily like pilots who believe
that a GPS will perfectly and perpetually solve all their navigation issues
forever.

On Jun 30, 7:53*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

These statements do not reassure me. It sounds eerily like pilots who believe
that a GPS will perfectly and perpetually solve all their navigation issues
forever.

Since you don't fly a real plane, why do you even care what REAL
pilots believe?

Real pilots much rather go straight lines to make more efficient time
in their flight, but you have no clue what it's like navigating in the
REAL world. IF YOU DID KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO NAVIGATE IN THE REAL
WORLD, YOU WOULD NOT SAY SUCH AN INCOMPETENT STATEMENT LIKE THE ABOVE.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

Further note:
According to the section labeled "Lesson 5" on the following web
page, statistics indicate that "low-time" pilots are not the ones who
are experiencing accidents in Cirrus aircraft:

http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/...nslearned.aspx

I have to question the objectivity of a pilot's association dedicated
to the manufacturer's aircraft.

Objectivity of such an organization should be considered, but questioning
per se isn't an indictment or conviction of wrongful analysis or fact
cherry picking. One needs to point out the false factual claims or flawed
logic.

Especially when I see statements like
"... the ultimate safety device: CAPS." That's exactly the kind of
attitude that can cause accidents. The author seems to further believe
that CAPS is a fix for all sorts of situations, such as pilot
disorientation and loss of control at low altitude.

Taken in the context of the entire article, the author appears to be
using the word "ultimate" in its "final" or "last" meanings. When CAPS is
deployed it pretty much _is_ the ultimate or final safety action a pilot
can take - after which she becomes (hopefully) a passive floating object.

I would agree with him and disagree with you that CAPS is one possible
resolution to pilot disorientation and loss of control at low altitude.
He doesn't say use of CAPS is certain to succeed in either case - merely
that timely deployment has a good chance of working.

As to low altitude loss of control: consider a stall/spin on a turn from
base to final at 500 ft. Assuming the aircraft immediately (and
unrealistically) accelerated to 5000 ft/min (~84 ft/sec) and the
deployment had to occur above 200 ft AGL to succeed, the pilot or
passenger would have about 3.5 seconds to act. Not much but certainly
plausible. But the average descent rate is likely to be half that or
less, so more like 7 seconds to react.

I haven't tried it, but you could do an experiment and force a spin or
stall on final on a normal landing on MS flight simulator and time how
long it takes to hit the ground (or pass 200 ft AGL.) I'd be interested
in your results.

These statements do not reassure me. It sounds eerily like pilots who
believe that a GPS will perfectly and perpetually solve all their
navigation issues forever.

And yet the organization claims that the accident statistics of its
members is much lower than single engine GA in general.

Jim Logajan writes:

Objectivity of such an organization should be considered, but questioning
per se isn't an indictment or conviction of wrongful analysis or fact
cherry picking. One needs to point out the false factual claims or flawed
logic.

In this case, there's too much that's subjective about the judgment to prove
anything either way. From what I've seen, it looks like Cirrus has more
accidents than it should, and it seems that many Cirrus pilots are different
from average in lack of experience, lack of caution, or in other ways that
make them particularly prone to pilot error. However, the numbers can be
cooked and recooked to "prove" almost anything.

Even without looking at pilots, one need only look at Cirrus' marketing
strategy to be able to predict that it's going to attract the wrong kind of
people to flying their aircraft.

It's a bit like the flying car I just posted a link about in another new
thread. However, the flying car is unlikely to ever become any kind of
practicable reality, so there's no risk associated with the hype being built
around it.

Taken in the context of the entire article, the author appears to be
using the word "ultimate" in its "final" or "last" meanings. When CAPS is
deployed it pretty much _is_ the ultimate or final safety action a pilot
can take - after which she becomes (hopefully) a passive floating object.

I read yesterday that the descent rate of a Cirrus with the parachute deployed
is around 1700 fpm, far more than a competent pilot could manage by actually
flying the aircraft. And the maximum speed for deployment is 133 knots.

The parachute was originally installed to get past the fact that Cirrus
aircraft behave very poorly in spins. Cirrus marketing turned a liability into
an (apparent) asset, which is quite an accomplishment, but not one that I
think serves the public interest.

I haven't tried it, but you could do an experiment and force a spin or
stall on final on a normal landing on MS flight simulator and time how
long it takes to hit the ground (or pass 200 ft AGL.) I'd be interested
in your results.

I don't have a Cirrus, although Eaglesoft supposedly makes a nice one that
I've been thinking about (when I have the budget). Since the Cirrus simulation
would essentially be a simulation of two PC screens on another PC screen, I
have some doubts--it's hard to simulate all-in-one glass panels accurately,
unless one has access to the original source code or a great deal of time to
work on it.

MSFS also is not tops at simulating unusual flight regimes, given its
table-based design. I do note that Carenado's Cessnas seem to behave in a spin
just as the real aircraft supposedly behave, or at least they are difficult to
spin and easy to recover.

And yet the organization claims that the accident statistics of its
members is much lower than single engine GA in general.

That's what I would expect them to claim. It's hard to imagine that they are
completely unbiased. Other sources I've visited point out how the numbers can
be cooked.

In general, I am suspicious of companies that spend too much on marketing.
Cessna has been guilty of that a bit in the past and perhaps even today.
Beechcraft seems to be much more conservative. It seems that the high end
often spends money on quality and then lets the product speak for itself,
whereas the low end spends a lot more on marketing to conceal the shortcomings
of a product (not just in aviation, of course).

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

I read yesterday that the descent rate of a Cirrus with the parachute deployed
is around 1700 fpm, far more than a competent pilot could manage by actually
flying the aircraft. And the maximum speed for deployment is 133 knots.

Can any real pilots who know something about the Cirrus comment on that
1700fpm figure? It seems completely outlandish to me that you wouldn't
be able to exceed 1700fpm in flight, but powered aircraft in general and
the Cirrus in particular aren't exactly my area of expertise.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

On Jul 2, 3:34*am, Mike Ash wrote:
In article ,

*Mxsmanic wrote:
I read yesterday that the descent rate of a Cirrus with the parachute deployed
is around 1700 fpm, far more than a competent pilot could manage by actually
flying the aircraft. And the maximum speed for deployment is 133 knots.

Can any real pilots who know something about the Cirrus comment on that
1700fpm figure? It seems completely outlandish to me that you wouldn't
be able to exceed 1700fpm in flight, but powered aircraft in general and
the Cirrus in particular aren't exactly my area of expertise.


The Cirrus pilot doesn't know how to slip ?

Cheers

On Jul 1, 12:16*pm, "Flaps_50!" wrote:

The Cirrus pilot doesn't know how to slip ?

Cheers

Nope, MX doesn't know how to slip.

Flaps_50! writes:

The Cirrus pilot doesn't know how to slip ?

The 1700-fpm is _with the parachute deployed_, and thus has nothing to do with
normal flight.

On Jul 1, 10:34*am, Mike Ash wrote:
In article ,

*Mxsmanic wrote:
I read yesterday that the descent rate of a Cirrus with the parachute deployed
is around 1700 fpm, far more than a competent pilot could manage by actually
flying the aircraft. And the maximum speed for deployment is 133 knots.

Can any real pilots who know something about the Cirrus comment on that
1700fpm figure? It seems completely outlandish to me that you wouldn't
be able to exceed 1700fpm in flight, but powered aircraft in general and
the Cirrus in particular aren't exactly my area of expertise.

As usual Mx talks with NO knowledge of flying a REAL airplane hence
his trolling continues. He is absolutely clueless.

I have FAR exceeded 2000 fpm descent rate (have a video of it on my
You Tube channel) practicing emergency descents in a Sundowner. I am
here to talk about it and it was completely controlled. Things happen
real fast and not for the faint of heart.

My research before trying 90 degree bank in a non acro plane can be
found at http://discussions.flightaware.com/v...?p=87495#87495

My reaction after doing this emergency descent manuever can be found
at http://discussions.flightaware.com/v...?p=87850#87850

The video itself can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxkiT8gWIQo

No access to You Tube where I am at, sooooo going on memory, I
provided FARS references on legality of doing this manuevar as acro is
not defined by a degree of bank, but requirements for parachutes when
WITH passengers (I was solo - no parachute required) is defined by
degrees of bank.