Cirrus down, Chapel Hill NC

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

If you had spent any time looking at accident databases and had any
understanding of what you were looking at, you would be well aware that
the rates increase with complexity and wouldn't be arguing about it.

The rates of encounters with icing conditions? I don't think so.

Changing the subject in midstream again, I see.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

You don't have to as the newsreader does that for you.

I don't bother to look. Since I respond to specific points rather than to
specific personalities, it doesn't really matter who wrote the post.

Babbling nonsense.

If you respond to specific points you are responding to the writer of
those points unless you are doing something extremely stupid like
responding to something quoted many posts ago instead of the original
posting of that point.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

What post of mine made claims about such things?
Are you perhaps confusing my posts with someone elses?

I haven't been trying to keep track of who posts what, as the discussion
concerns aviation, not individuals.

What dataset are you using that shows Cirrus has fewer accidents per plane
per year than Cessna 172s?

Jim Logajan writes:

What dataset are you using that shows Cirrus has fewer accidents per plane
per year than Cessna 172s?

The NTSB accident database, and the FAA aircraft registry database.

On Jul 16, 5:25*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
What data sets are YOU using to base your uninformed opinion?????

The NTSB's accident database, and the FAA's aircraft registry database.

I ASK YOU again what datasets do you use to come up with your
uninformed opinion.

Please provide cases that support your analysis, not just a bullcrap
answer like the above.

IF you can make conclusions then surely you can provide what incidents
you used to BASE your uninfomed opinions you keep spewing out

OR IS YOU HAVE CLUE NO ON WHAT YOUR ARE TALKING ABOUT TO SUPPORT WHAT
YOU SAY????????

writes:

On Jul 16, 5:25*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
What data sets are YOU using to base your uninformed opinion?????

The NTSB's accident database, and the FAA's aircraft registry database.

I ASK YOU again what datasets do you use to come up with your
uninformed opinion.

The NTSB's accident database, and the FAA's aircraft registry database.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

What dataset are you using that shows Cirrus has fewer accidents per
plane per year than Cessna 172s?

The NTSB accident database, and the FAA aircraft registry database.

So your dataset shows the Cirrus is the safer airplane.

Jim Logajan writes:

So your dataset shows the Cirrus is the safer airplane.

I've already pointed out that the opposite appears to be true when all the
data is considered.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:

So your dataset shows the Cirrus is the safer airplane.

I've already pointed out that the opposite appears to be true when all
the data is considered.

It doesn't matter what you have pointed out, as the discussion concerns
aviation, not individuals. Why do you insist on making this discussion
about you?

On Jul 16, 9:18*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
On Jul 16, 5:25*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
What data sets are YOU using to base your uninformed opinion?????

The NTSB's accident database, and the FAA's aircraft registry database.

I ASK YOU again what datasets do you use to come up with your
uninformed opinion.

The NTSB's accident database, and the FAA's aircraft registry database.

Please point me to the data you used for your analysis. I ASK A VERY
DIRECT QUESTION.

NOT WEBSITES I KNOW THAT CONTAIN EVERYTHING.

What part DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND OF MY QUESTION??????????????

Let me guess, you won't provide the data YOU USED and you talk nothing
but bull****.