Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Cirrus

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Cirrus - OT

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

sportav8r(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:42 am Post subject: Cirrus - OT

Is it just me, or is this make of aircraft involved in a lot of

accidents since its debut?  Whenever I see ad ad for Cirrus touting

their parachute, I think, "It's a good thing you have one, because in

that aircraft, it's likely you'll need it one day."



And then there's this brilliant piece of reporting from Fox regarding

yesterday's crash in NYC: "The parachute apparently did not engage

after the crash." (stated twice).



Apparently, the ballistic chute isn't supposed to "engage" until after

you crash.  Maybe it's like a visual ELT to help find the wreckage.

To the emergency responders, I'm sure an undeployed ballistic chute is

an imminent threat.



NORAD is proud of themselves for scrambling fighters within 10 minutes

to all our major cities.  "Sends a message to the terrorists."  Just

who/what were they hoping to find?  And what did they think they could

do about it - down every aircraft over a major city that isn't on an

IFR flight plan?



Okay- preaching to the choir here, but I do NOT feel safer knowing

that fighters were scrambled while I could have been innocently and

ignorantly tooling around the patch yesterday.  This kind of knee-jerk

reaction needs a serious policy review, but since it plays well with

the voters, I suppose we will never see an end of it.   End of rant,

but I do wonder about those Cirrus aircraft...  I could swear they

have a corner on the accident market, but I've no hard numbers to back

that assumption up.



-Stormy



do not archive

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:01 am Post subject: Re: Cirrus - OT

//Okay- preaching to the choir here, but I do NOT feel safer knowing that fighters were scrambled while I could have been innocently and ignorantly tooling around the patch yesterday.  This kind of knee-jerk reaction needs a serious policy review, but since it plays well with//



Damned if you do and Damned if you don't. Read the Sept. 11th report and the heap of criticism for lack of response. Thent hey respond and they get criticized for responding. 



At the time, the interest of an innocent or ignorant pilot tooling around probably were outweighed by the interests of the larger population.

BTW, I just got into work (I'm a...umm... Journalist) and saw the same "after" comment in AP copy on our Web site. I just changed it, obviously.



Do not archive

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

ronlee(at)pcisys.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:56 am Post subject: Cirrus - OT

 	  Quote: 	
		  Is it just me, or is this make of aircraft involved in a lot of

accidents since its debut?  Whenever I see ad ad for Cirrus touting

their parachute, I think, "It's a good thing you have one, because in

that aircraft, it's likely you'll need it one day."


	




My first thought after hearing it was a Cirrus was of another inept

Cirrus pilot tempting Darwinism and losing.  After hearing about the

2000' wide VFR corridor there I think that my initial perception was

accurate.



I have no desire to fly with a Cirrus pilot anymore than I would a

VW driver.  Note all the ads that show a VW being safe because it

survives side impacts yet all that suggests is that VW drivers cannot

drive defensively.



Ron Lee



Do not archive

Terry Watson

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 290
Location: Seattle, WA USA

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:44 am Post subject: Cirrus - OT

Bill,



Regarding your comments on the accident rate of the Cirrus, the last thing I

saw professing to be based on hard numbers did indicate a higher rate for

the Cirrus than say the typical Cessna or Piper. I believe it was attributed

to them being relatively high performance, and that maybe they were being

sold to affluent newcomers to flying -- sort of a substitute for a Bonanza.

The parachute system seems to be more appealing to non or new flyers than

experienced pilots.



Another reason the Cirrus accident numbers may seem higher is that every

time one comes down under a parachute and saves all on board it makes the

news. And there have been several such incidents, and at least a couple of

failures where the chute was apparently fired too low, or not attempted at

all. 



It almost sounds like the start of a joke but it's often too tragic to be

funny.... "Two doctors in a Bonanza ..." See the "Never Again" in the

current AOPA Flyer. 



I get to fly right seat in my friends SR-22 on occasion. It's a great

airplane with climb & cruise performance in the same ballpark as an RV with

twice the fuel flow. If I were buying instead of building, and I could

afford one, it would likely be my first choice.



As for NORAD launching their fighters, good for them, and I'm glad it wasn't

necessary with the 20-20 hindsight of knowing that this time an airplane

flying into a high rise building in New York wasn't part of coordinated

attack. 



The thing to worry about now is the reaction of the uninformed wondering

about why "we" let small airplanes within 20 miles of a city anyway.



Terry

Do not archive






Is it just me, or is this make of aircraft involved in a lot of

accidents since its debut?  Whenever I see ad ad for Cirrus touting

their parachute, I think, "It's a good thing you have one, because in

that aircraft, it's likely you'll need it one day."



And then there's this brilliant piece of reporting from Fox regarding

yesterday's crash in NYC: "The parachute apparently did not engage

after the crash." (stated twice).



Apparently, the ballistic chute isn't supposed to "engage" until after

you crash.  Maybe it's like a visual ELT to help find the wreckage.

To the emergency responders, I'm sure an undeployed ballistic chute is

an imminent threat.



NORAD is proud of themselves for scrambling fighters within 10 minutes

to all our major cities.  "Sends a message to the terrorists."  Just

who/what were they hoping to find?  And what did they think they could

do about it - down every aircraft over a major city that isn't on an

IFR flight plan?



Okay- preaching to the choir here, but I do NOT feel safer knowing

that fighters were scrambled while I could have been innocently and

ignorantly tooling around the patch yesterday.  This kind of knee-jerk

reaction needs a serious policy review, but since it plays well with

the voters, I suppose we will never see an end of it.   End of rant,

but I do wonder about those Cirrus aircraft...  I could swear they

have a corner on the accident market, but I've no hard numbers to back

that assumption up.



-Stormy



do not archive

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:57 am Post subject: Re: Cirrus - OT

One of the things we, as pilots, are going to have to do -- whether we like it or not -- is to NOT adopt an attitude that people don't have a right to ask the question about "why we let small planes near cities" 



Yes, they're uninformed. But consider the stupid pilot as the same as the drunk driver. Both represent a threat to public safety.  And it certainly makes sense to ask why we allow drunk drivers on the road.



Sure, we don't say "why do we allow cars on the road," but this isn't a game of who can come up with the better logic or metaphor, it's a job of INFORMING the uninformed, not mocking them. So we all have a personal stake in being part of the educational process that doesn't just shut them up, but brings them over to our side.



Regarding the Cirrus situation,  being a Minnesota company and all and me being in the media and all, I've lobbied for a look at their marketing strategies for years. Years. No luck. Today we actually have a reporter joining the othre million reporters pursuing it.



Before I got to work today, our reporter was alreayd pursuing the "is it a safe plane" angle. Wrong angle. It's a great, great plane. But if you go back and look at that original James Fallows' story on Cirrus many years ago in Atlantic Monthly, it's not hard to see what the problem is. 



In fact, the head of the Cirrus owners  in 2003



"Flying is still a mental game. It may be a strange paradox that all of this added safety is attracting people who should not be flying, period," said Mike Radomsky, a Houston, Texas, pilot and president of the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association"



There is no question in my mind that lack of appropriate training is at the heart of their safety record. Too many pilots fit the Cory Lidle profile.



Get license in FEbruary

Buy Cirrus in July

Dead in October



Someone's going to connect the dots pretty soon, and when they do, I hope everyone is ready with a good defense of the sport pilot rules that are aimed at getting even more pilots in the air with even less training. Fortunately, they're in lighter planes.  But I think it's still a legitimate concern until the rules prove otherwise.



My $.02.



Bob

St. Paul



Do not archive

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

sportav8r(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:13 am Post subject: Cirrus - OT

 	  Quote: 	
		   At the time, the interest of an innocent or ignorant pilot tooling around probably were outweighed by the interests of the larger population.

Bob, I guess my point was that it's a difficult-to-impossible task to
	


sort out friendlies from threats in a "9/11/01 redux" scenario.  The

skies might swarm with angry interceptor aircraft, but who's going to

call the bogies for them?  And by what criteria?



Take-home message: secure the (commercial) cockpit and arm the flight

crews.  Write off the (perceived) threat from GA aircraft as being

both small, from a kilo-tonnage standpoint, and indefensible but not

worth the bother (as are, one would judge by the measures _not_ taken,

the Ryder truck threat, the container freight threat, the explosive

vest threat, and so on, ad nauseam).  Life is risky and the world a

dangerous place.  Government can mitigate some risks but never secure

against all possible harms.  Vote out any demagogues who would imply

otherwise.



I'd prefer the old freedom to the much-vaunted new security.  My $.02,

but worth somewhat more.



-Stormy    do not archive



Friends don't let friends drive a Cirrus <g>

 	  Quote:

bootless(at)earthlink.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:33 am Post subject: Cirrus - OT

Good post.

Maybe it's time to bring John Deakin's post-9/11 Pelican's Perch column 

that so thoroughly analyzed the difference between transport-class jets 

versus biz and GA planes in terms of inflicted damage ...

Bill Boyd wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

> At the time, the interest of an innocent or ignorant pilot tooling 

> around probably were outweighed by the interests of the larger 

> population.

 Bob, I guess my point was that it's a difficult-to-impossible task to

 sort out friendlies from threats in a "9/11/01 redux" scenario.  The

 skies might swarm with angry interceptor aircraft, but who's going to

 call the bogies for them?  And by what criteria?

 Take-home message: secure the (commercial) cockpit and arm the flight

 crews.  Write off the (perceived) threat from GA aircraft as being

 both small, from a kilo-tonnage standpoint, and indefensible but not

 worth the bother (as are, one would judge by the measures _not_ taken,

 the Ryder truck threat, the container freight threat, the explosive

 vest threat, and so on, ad nauseam).  Life is risky and the world a

 dangerous place.  Government can mitigate some risks but never secure

 against all possible harms.  Vote out any demagogues who would imply

 otherwise.

 I'd prefer the old freedom to the much-vaunted new security.  My $.02,

 but worth somewhat more.

 -Stormy    do not archive

 Friends don't let friends drive a Cirrus <g>

>

>

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:45 am Post subject: Re: Cirrus - OT

[quote="sportav8r(at)gmail.com"] 	  Quote: 	
		   

Bob, I guess my point was that it's a difficult-to-impossible task to



sort out friendlies from threats in a "9/11/01 redux" scenario. 	




True enough, but success or failure at doing so isn't going to mean anything if your resources are sitting on Cape Cod. Keep in mind, at the time, nobody knew what was going on...so a decision to put the assets where you might need them seems to me like a logical choice.  Cities don't just have one firehouse downtown for a reason.  



We have no evidence at all, frankly, that some F-18s were up making life miserable for a bunch of GA pilots or anybody else. Or that they weren't.



My takeaway? Keep your options for action open. If that means putting an F-18 over Chicago for a few hours, it's OK with me.



Isn't that why we  have them?



Do not archive

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

sportav8r(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:14 am Post subject: Cirrus - OT

Terry, you and Bob Collins make good points.  This thread has given me

a chance to hear and think, as well as to vent, and I'm glad it has

not degenerated (so far).



My late brother in law used to sell Beechcraft.  He referred to the

Bonanza as the Fork-Tailed Doctor Killer, and warned me not to act

like my typical brethren if ever I learned to fly.  Point well taken.



-Stormy



do not archive



On 10/12/06, Terry Watson <terry(at)tcwatson.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Bill,



 Regarding your comments on the accident rate of the Cirrus, the last thing I

 saw professing to be based on hard numbers did indicate a higher rate for

 the Cirrus than say the typical Cessna or Piper. I believe it was attributed

 to them being relatively high performance, and that maybe they were being

 sold to affluent newcomers to flying -- sort of a substitute for a Bonanza.

 The parachute system seems to be more appealing to non or new flyers than

 experienced pilots.



 Another reason the Cirrus accident numbers may seem higher is that every

 time one comes down under a parachute and saves all on board it makes the

 news. And there have been several such incidents, and at least a couple of

 failures where the chute was apparently fired too low, or not attempted at

 all.



 It almost sounds like the start of a joke but it's often too tragic to be

 funny.... "Two doctors in a Bonanza ..." See the "Never Again" in the

 current AOPA Flyer.

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:18 am Post subject: Re: Cirrus - OT

Indeed, the accident in New York -- and the Cirrus accidents -- reminds me that low-time Warrior/Cessna 172 pilots (like ME) who are building RVs, need to spend a LOT of time..... a LOT of time ... in transition training. 



Always makes me pause and think, "Am I *really* going to be able to fly this thing safely."

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

recapen(at)earthlink.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:50 am Post subject: Cirrus - OT

I think that this is what we should derive.......



I have had transition training - and time before and after....and I know I'm not ready yet.....I'm glad that I have some time to get ready while I'm finishing my plane



--

Ollie Washburn

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 56
Location: Central Florida

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:23 pm Post subject: Cirrus - OT

A guy flys into the side of a building and it's the planes fault?? Come on

 	  Quote: 	
		   [Original Message]

 From: Bob Collins <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>

 To: <rv-list(at)matronics.com>

 Date: 10/12/2006 2:07:43 PM

 Subject: Re: Cirrus - OT

 One of the things we, as pilots, are going to have to do -- whether we

like it or not -- is to adopt an attitude that people don't have a right to

ask the question about "why we let small planes near cities" 

 	  Quote: 	

 Yes, they're uninformed. But consider the stupid pilot as the same as the

drunk driver. Both represent a threat to public safety.  And it certainly

makes sense to ask why we allow drunk drivers on the road.

 	  Quote: 	

 Sure, we don't say "why do we allow cars on the road," but this isn't a

game of who can come up with the better logic or metaphor, it's a job of

INFORMING the uninformed, not mocking them. So we all have a personal stake

in being part of the educational process that doesn't just shut them up,

but brings them over to our side.

 	  Quote: 	

 Regarding the Cirrus situation,  being a Minnesota company and all and me

being in the media and all, I've lobbied for a look at their marketing

strategies for years. Years. No luck. Today we actually have a reporter

joining the othre million reporters pursuing it.

 	  Quote: 	

 Before I got to work today, our reporter was alreayd pursuing the "is it

a safe plane" angle. Wrong angle. It's a great, great plane. But if you go

back and look at that original James Fallows' story on Cirrus many years

ago in Atlantic Monthly, it's not hard to see what the problem is. 

 	  Quote: 	

 In fact, the head of the Cirrus owners  in 2003

 "Flying is still a mental game. It may be a strange paradox that all of

this added safety is attracting people who should not be flying, period,"

said Mike Radomsky, a Houston, Texas, pilot and president of the Cirrus

Owners and Pilots Association"

 	  Quote: 	

 There is no question in my mind that lack of appropriate training is at

the heart of their safety record. Too many pilots fit the Cory Lidle

profile.

 	  Quote: 	

 Get license in FEbruary

 Buy Cirrus in July

 Dead in October

 Someone's going to connect the dots pretty soon, and when they do, I hope

everyone is ready with a good defense of the sport pilot rules that are

aimed at getting even more pilots in the air with even less training.

Fortunately, they're in lighter planes.  But I think it's still a

legitimate concern until the rules prove otherwise.

 	  Quote: 	

 My $.02.

 Bob

 St. Paul

 Do not archive

 --------

 Bob Collins

 St. Paul, Minn.

 RV Builder's Hotline (free!)

 http://home.comcast.net/~rvnewsletter/

 Read this topic online here:

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=67372#67372

_________________
Ollie RV6-A & Rans S7S
Central FL

rv7(at)b4.ca
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:19 pm Post subject: Cirrus - OT

RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net

 	  Quote: 	
		   Someone's going to connect the dots pretty soon, and when they do,

 I hope everyone is ready with a good defense of the sport pilot rules

 that are aimed at getting even more pilots in the air with even less

 training. Fortunately, they're in lighter planes.  But I think it's

 still a legitimate concern until the rules prove otherwise.


	


Ever since they introduced the Recreational Pilot Permit in Canada, i've

wondered the exact same thing.  As far as i'm concerned, all the RPP and

Sport Pilot permits do is "dumb down" the priviledge of getting a pilot's

license.  It may get more people in the air, but it looks more and more

like the tradeoff is less capable pilots.



Just my $0.02.



-Rob



Do not archive

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:21 pm Post subject: Re: Cirrus - OT

I read the list ont he WEb site and the post is pretty much indeciperhable, but if you're rebutting some point that I made about a plane being at fault, well,  I certainly never said that. The words speak for themselves, hopefully. We have a role as pilots to educate the uninformed.  Well, if we really give a rip.

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum