I agree with everything you wrote, and put well, except the above. We see many stories of the pilot croaking and a passenger being coached to an OK landing without further mishap. Are there statistics on this? My guess is that more incidents turn out OK for passengers than not. I tell passengers they could put the airplane down on an airport if they had to.

To those who say Cirrus encourages mediocre pilots, I say, remember Bonanza were "Doctor Killers!" That was all about people with more money than skill, thinking their machines would look after them. That was in "The Good Old Days." Now there's something more sexy for those people, and they are attracted to it. Decent pilots should not be put off Cirrus because of poor pilots any more than they should have been put off by the doctor killer in the past.

I looked at the Cirrus before I settled on the Bonanza. I couldn't get kayaks in it, and the wheel pants are very tight, meaning I'd be less comfortable on grass or poor asphalt or concrete.

Ashley

When all is said and done, Jason is right. Cirrus knows their target market and they're doing a good job selling to it. Most of us just don't fit into their target market.

Some of the posts on this thread are the very reason that GA is dying. Bashing other pilots and those who want to become pilots will never help our cause.

Why do y'all continue to bash J.C. over his piloting skills? That's not what this discussion (or any discussion) should be about. Quit harping on his approach into Aspen. None of us are perfect pilots and all can be critiqued for our mistakes in some way. In my opinion, a good landing is one that you can walk away from (I think I read that somewhere ).

That's quite evident. Guy pulls chute because he loses an instrument when he could have used other systems(the autopilot fer chrissakes!)to fly plane and fails at what every instrument pilot is taught. Chute fails and guy tries to commit suicide by descending at 2500-3000 feet per minute to break out of clouds with a known low ceiling and fails at that. Breaks out and decides he may as well live. Are these the folks getting upset because of the hassle of airline flying and buying Cirrus?

This is counterintuitive. (Which doesn't, per se, mean it's incorrect.)
But if it were true--that accidents/flight hour increase with experience--it would be reflected in insurance rates, which would increase with TT and TIT.

Surprised nobody has raised the analogy of the chute to the ejection seat . . .

Don't know about today, but in my Paleocene era, the seats were not 100% even when operated within their envelope . . .

. . . And that raises the other issue . . . both ejection seats and the safety chute MUST be used within a specific flight environment.

The Cirrus chute is not a "beginning of take off roll to taxi speed system" and how many pilots have busted their a$$ below 2500' when the chute wouldn't have mattered.

The argument required to sell your wife on the idea of an airplane, and the airplane you have to live with may be two separate issues.

Personally I would not even consider the trade of my V35B with state of art Garmin, the KFC200 and standby alternator.

The only thing the chute would "buy" me is a nite over mountains solution, and I DON'T do that anymore.

edited to correct for "fat finger" typing

That's quite evident. Guy pulls chute because he loses an instrument when he could have used other systems(the autopilot fer chrissakes!)to fly plane and fails at what every instrument pilot is taught. Chute fails and guy tries to commit suicide by descending at 2500-3000 feet per minute to break out of clouds with a known low ceiling and fails at that. Breaks out and decides he may as well live. Are these the folks getting upset because of the hassle of airline flying and buying Cirrus?

I agree with everything you wrote, and put well, except the above.

Ashley

I guess the only thing left to do is change the website to CIRRUS TALK

Actually, I see this thread as being more about corporate/product marketing than airplane design. There is no question that after 43 years the Beech 36 design is not only relevant but outstanding; properly outfitted nothing can touch it. But Beech doesn't sell it properly outfitted and the sales figures tell the tale.

Close, 500' and less than 120 knots. All the pulls within the envelope have saved lives, 69 lives to be exact.

The incident this week of the guy who pulled and didn't work is the first time within the envelope - thankfully he survived. I'm due for a repack in September, I'm not doing anything until this one is explained.

I didn't buy the plane for the chute but it sure is a nice feature, I'm not taking it out!

Last point is that the Cirrus has a Critical wing which requires relatively high speed and precise landings - sloppy pilots will have prop-strikes. I could land my beautiful Bonanza without paying attention and look like a rock star nine times out of ten.

Anyway, let's hope this emergence from bankruptcy brings our beloved Beechcraft back into the 21st century.

I don't get why things have to become so contentious. Sales numbers speak for themselves. Jason is on the money like it or not. Bonanzas and Barons are great planes but there is no getting around the technology gap. General aviation will never attract Gen X, Gen Y or anyone who grew up accepting high tech as a given with old school planes. They will have no desire to pony up based on nostalgia!

I guess the only thing left to do is change the website to CIRRUS TALK. Burns Moore

I can only imagine at this coming Monday's Cirrus sales meeting, "hey guys did you see what all of the Beechtalk members were saying about the future of Beech" and how Cirrus was kicking their butt.

Also, maybe at the Beech sales meeting they also read the posts, and can get a pair and come forward with a more competitive product.

I hope Beech can rise up and accept the challenge, we are all better in the long run.

The sales / marketing / engineering teams at Beech need to read this thread and wake up! That would be a start... We all want to see Beech survive.

Actually Alejandro, speed and alt are only two parts of the 3 part dynamic.

Rate of Descent is by far the most significant factor: Think about 500 feet and a 1000'/min descent after a close in turn to final or departure stall. Is it going to work . . ? It'll deploy but won't reduce the descent rate.

You have expertly defined the short comings of emergency escape devices:

They are of no value if not deployed within a sometimes narrow window. I am not being confrontational; just defining issues that have as yet not been discussed.

I grew up in the dawn of the zero/zero seat, and guess what, they really weren't. Lost a fair number of pilots until the Naval Safety Center spent a lot of class room time discussing the "real" parameters.