Cirrus attracting pilots with 'The Wrong Stuff'?

Dude, you've got WAY too much spare time! (But still intertaining)

PJ
==================================================

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
John Kerry has been blaming the Bush administration for the rash of Cirrus
crashes. Kerry says that number of Cirrus accidents has increased
dramatically since Bush took office. He is calling for a special
independent
commission to determine what Bush knew about the dangers of flying Cirrus
aircraft and when he knew it.

The White House responds that the Cirrus was mostly developed during the
Clinton administration. They say that the President introduced several
items
of legislation to make Cirrus aircraft safer and that Kerry voted for
these
proposals, but now Kerry claims that he based his vote on bad information
given to him by the Bush administration. He alleged a Republican
conspiracy
to make him "look bad" by tricking him into voting for things he would not
have supported had he known all the facts. Then he went on to attack Bush
for being stupid and for acting without ascertaining the facts.

Kerry says that if elected he will require all Cirrus aircraft to carry a
placard to avoid slips with flaps extended. He will also conduct an
investigation into the role of Cirrus airplanes in creating chemtrails.
Colin Powell responded that he supported the placard all along, but that
he
has information that chemtrails are actually being caused by Lancairs.

"USA Toaday" ran an editorial suggesting that Cirrus aircraft may actually
be manufactured by Al Qaeda terrorists who are deliberately sabotaging the
aircraft and causing them to crash. A guest editorial written by Chicago
mayor Richard M. Daley agreed and said that the only way to deal with the
problem would be to ground all Piper Cubs immediately. Daley went on to
say
that the poor safety record of Cirrus aircraft proves that his decision to

close Meigs was the right one.

The highly respected Internet trade publication "Aviation News Network"
said
that the crashes were all caused by the wings falling off the airplanes.
Publisher Jim 'Zzzzoom' Campbell, just returned from testing the new and
extremely secret Aurora III in the Martian atmosphere, announced that he
was
suing just about everybody. Well-known "Klyde Morris" cartoonist Wes
Oleszewski said he was attacked and beaten up by FAA goons while
attempting
to photograph Cirrus crash sites. Oleszewski said that the attack was
instigated by AVweb in a blatant effort to suppress dissent.

"Stop the Noise" is suing Cirrus pilots for creating excess noise when
they
crash and for allowing their aircraft to crash in inhabited areas.

The United Association of Usenet Anarchists and Nazis Who Cannot Spel has
worked to come up with there own plans for preventing Sirius pilots from
loosing control of there aircraft. Plans include storing the the airplanes
in hangers. "If you can't afford to pout you're plane in a hanger," said
"Badwater Bill," "then you deserve to loose it. Knot only that, you should
be left out in the dessert somewhere. I hate people, anyway. I need a
drink."

One safety plan developed by an independent consultant known only as
"Michael" would require all pilots to log 1,000 hours solo pilot in
command
time in Cirrus aircraft performing loops, spins and rolls before being
allowed to touch the controls. This plan competes with the proposal of
"Ron
Lee" that unsafe or inexperienced pilots should be forced to kill
themselves
in other brands of aircraft before they are allowed to fly in a Cirrus.

"Larry Dighera" said that the fatality rate was not a problem anyway,
since
most Cirrus purchasers are rich and that therefore they are probably
Republicans. "Who cares what happens to them?" asked "Dighera." Respected
aeronautical engineer "Tarver" said that the problem lay in the Cirrus'
interface with the digital muffler bearings, which he said did not meet
the
specifications of FAA TSO-C70a. "Tarver" declared that the problem was so
bad that he expected that the Cirrus would never receive a type
certificate.
"Tom Sixkiller" said that the problem was caused by the Klapmeiers'
religious beliefs. "Steven P. McNicoll" declared that the crashes were
caused by high taxes.

A third proposal developed by a consortium of world famous flight
instructors headed by "CJ Campbell" was immediately dismissed as being
based
on a pack of lies. Although no one can now find a copy of the proposal,
rumor has it that the world famous flight instructors wanted Cirrus to
give
a brand new Cirrus SR22 airplane to every flight instructor.

The owner of the Alexis Park Inn posted ads requesting Cirrus parts that
he
can hang on the walls of his new 'Cirrus Suite.' He not only posted those
ads, he cross-posted them, posted them again, and then added them to his
Usenet signature.

The Internet Oracle could not be reached for comment.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:OiQhc.2643$aQ6.415323@attbi_s51...

Two data points that don't mean much: The only two guys I have personally
known to have bought a Cirrus PRECISELY fit this description. Both guys
have tons of money, not enough free time to stay current, and fly
complicated, long-distance flights on the rare occasions they fly at all.

What's the group-think on this one? Is Cirrus just good at attracting
crappy pilots? Or is there something else at work here?

The pilot in the Florida incident had 600 hours in type, an instrument
rating, and was a co-founder of the Cirrus Pilots Association. That hardly
sounds like someone who does not stay current or who flies only on rare
occasions.

"C J Campbell" wrote:
What's the group-think on this one? Is Cirrus just good
at attracting crappy pilots? Or is there something else at
work here?

The pilot in the Florida incident had 600 hours in type,
an instrument rating, and was a co-founder of the Cirrus
Pilots Association. That hardly sounds like someone who
does not stay current or who flies only on rare occasions.

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

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.

I think you've nailed it, Dan.

All that "gee whiz!" stuff in the panel, along with the nice handling and
extra speed, must make regular Spam Can pilots feel pretty much
invulnerable. After all, they've got a 3-axis autopilot, traffic avoidance,
moving map GPS, and -- if all else fails -- the 'chute to fall back on.

I know *I* would feel much safer in such a capable aircraft -- but I'd also
be tempted to push my personal flight envelope in compensation.

I also believe that many pilots who can afford the expense of a new Cirrus
are hard-driving, over-worked, successful folks, with little time for simple
things like pattern work, and little tolerance for not getting there on
time.

All of this seems to add up to a lethal concoction. Too bad -- insurance
rates on those planes were *finally* starting to come down a bit.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay,

All of this seems to add up to a lethal concoction.


Uh, just ONE of the THREE recent accidents ended with fatalities?

But we have to rationalize those 40 year old spam cans we own
somehow...


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

But we have to rationalize those 40 year old spam cans we own
somehow...

Don't get me wrong -- I'd take an SR-22 in a heartbeat. If I could afford
the insurance.

But I'd be very cautious with it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Jay,

All of this seems to add up to a lethal concoction.


Uh, just ONE of the THREE recent accidents ended with fatalities?

But we have to rationalize those 40 year old spam cans we own
somehow...

Speak for yourself. My spam can was built in 1999. Still, that was during
the last century....

"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.

"fuji" wrote in message
...



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?
snip
Cirrus salesmen, on the other hand, advertise their craft as safe and
easy
to fly.

I think it is a fault with the aircraft if it is beyond the capabilities of
pilots flying it, which may well be the case. However, I have seen nothing
that proves to me that the pilots are poorly trained or incapable. I, like
many others, have a suspicion that this may be the case, but no proof. In
fact, some of the pilots involved seem to me to be people who fly a lot.

The Cirrus has poor stall/spin recovery capabilities. It is difficult to get
the Cirrus to enter a stall, but not impossible, as some of these accidents
have demonstrated. Given that the parachute will not deploy if the airplane
is too close to the ground, the airplane itself is a slippery design that
can easily get away from the pilot, the flaps are too small, and the
airplane cannot recover from even an incipient spin, I would say that low
level flight in the Cirrus must be far more dangerous than it is in most
other aircraft. The Cirrus has a death zone in its normal operating
envelope. This aircraft cannot be safely operated below 900' AGL. What would
the Florida pilot, for example, have done if he had lost his instruments
and/or become spatially disoriented (whichever happened) at 600' AGL instead
of 1000' AGL? He would have died, that's what.

Furthermore, the odd trim button, unfamiliarity with the instruments which
also keep the pilots' eyes more focused in the cockpit than they probably
should be, high speed and slippery design contribute to create more
opportunities for CFIT accidents.

Add to these the demonstrably poor quality control at the factory and the
fact that few maintenance people have any experience whatsoever working on
these airplanes. You are going to get a lot of maintenance problems. A pilot
who is distracted by something going wrong -- perhaps it is only minor, but
a distraction nonetheless, in the soup or at night, over mountainous
terrain, or maybe coming in for a landing where the field is at IMC
minimums, etc., and he may be somewhat behind the airplane anyway after a
long and tiring flight (anyone disagree here that you easily get behind the
airplane in a Cirrus?), and you start to get a serious chain of events that
can lead to a fatal accident. He is too low to deploy the chute safely,
trying to slow the airplane down to get back control, maybe climb steeply to
avoid a sudden obstacle, and now you have four dead people.

Cirrus is not that big of a company. In a litigation environment where
Cessna can pay an award of $480 million for a bogus claim about the seat
tracks failing, I think Cirrus stock would be a high risk investment, to say
the least. Perhaps someone else will pick up the type certificate and
continue manufacturing, but the history is not that good.

You are an FAA guy, seeing these accidents. Comes now Cirrus with its
petition to increase the airframe life limit of the SR22 beyond the
ridiculous 4030 hours it now has. All your life you have been told to err on
the conservative side. Meanwhile you have people in your own organization
suggesting that you ground the entire fleet until Cirrus figures out what is
going wrong. What is your decision likely to be?

Personally, I enjoyed the one Cirrus flight I took. Realistically, though, I
think the Klapmeiers may be the worst thing to happen to general aviation
since Jim Bede. They took new and promising technology and made it
disreputable, probably setting general aviation back more than 20 years. I
think that is unforgivable.

"C J Campbell" wrote:

The Cirrus has poor stall/spin recovery capabilities. It is difficult to get
the Cirrus to enter a stall, but not impossible, as some of these accidents
have demonstrated. Given that the parachute will not deploy if the airplane
is too close to the ground, the airplane itself is a slippery design that
can easily get away from the pilot, the flaps are too small, and the
airplane cannot recover from even an incipient spin, I would say that low
level flight in the Cirrus must be far more dangerous than it is in most
other aircraft. The Cirrus has a death zone in its normal operating
envelope. This aircraft cannot be safely operated below 900' AGL.

I am not sure that the last sentence makes sense. Even if all the
other attributes are correct (I have never flown a Cirrus), what is
unsafe about flying an approach at proper airspeeds.

I doubt that I could recover from a low level stall/spin (base to
final). That does not make it unsafe. I just don't get into that
flight mode.

Ron Lee