It is not "more complicated" to leave flaps alone when an engine fails. One less step for me in that critical moment than you.

The payoff is full span flaps which allow very slow speed and very high speed.

Another payoff is full roll control all the way into the stall with no worry of aileron induced wing stall.


It was called the Diamond.

Mike C.

Which, BTW, has never happened in an Cirrus after 7 million flight hours.

I don't believe there has ever been a passenger initiated chute deployment in a Cirrus.

Mike C.

I remembered that accident now, as it was back when I had my SR22, so I was paying close attention to everything Cirrus back then.

He's just talking about "making airplane comparisons on BT". Attempting to compare a 10 year old X to a new Y forces on to dismiss things that don't matter "only to that person".

Interesting observation/statement. In my limited experience on this board, and with a/c in general, the folks here seem pretty well informed, and for the most part have done their homework/research. May not agree, but individually, and for own needs, have done homework. Consider that many frequent posters no longer own Beech aircraft, but continue to participate largely due to the quality of the conversation.

Cirrus is a marketing machine. Aesthetically, and to an extent ergonomically, they have it nailed. Their message is nailed. Their website, videos & print material are top shelf. Have said before, look & feel is like a high-end European sports car. Lots of curb appeal. Their market success cannot be denied.

So if "BT is not representative of the market that Cirrus is after", is it because BTers are, as you stated earlier, looking primarily at used a/c, or is it because many BTers have done a lot of homework on mission, a/c capabilities, etc. and decided that despite the great look & feel, that there are planes more suited to their mission, needs and preferences than the Cirrus?

Aspects of this current raging debate about the SF50 and its real utility is a great example.

We BT'ers are "research junkies". We love forums because they are full of information. I glean more info from forums than any other medium because you have instant feedback from others. I can't read magazine articles on anything because I instantly pick up on the authors "slant"

I research everything a lot. Most folks don't.

Cirrus has never produced the best, they have always produced a competative product with one or two unique features that is tightly tied into the marketing message. Started with the chute, then became glass cockpits, then Garmin Perspective (dual ADHRS, only one at the time in a piton plane), then envelop protection....
In almost every catagory since Cirrus started, Columbia 400, Beech Bonanza performed better. This is still true today when you add in Mooney. However, none of them have the history of continous "safety" improvements. It is this incremental focus, which has been tightly tied to the marketing which created the "Volvo" image of the company.
It is this very intangible aspect which will likely make the SF50 successful, the only question is if this marketing message can survive long enough for Cirrus to actually make the SF50 competative to the SETP in the same general price point.

BT tends to focus on what is "best" and blame any lack of safety on the pilot. We tend to discpount the oh sh** factor.

Tim

My first airplane in 2007 was an SR22. Why? No Beechtalk. ABS had a supposed forum that nobody participated in because it was so poorly designed.

Then I found BT, was one of the first to join and a few months later I had a Bonanza.

I have lots of pilot buddies. Non are on BT or even know what BT is.

I thought there was another just last year, where the pilot was in control on short final, there was some turbulence so the wife pulled the chute, then they got hung up in power lines just feet off the ground. But maybe I'm not remembering the facts correctly.

That activation was not passenger initiated.

From the NTSB report:

"The pilot told the right seat passenger to pull the emergency parachute handle"

I don't believe there has EVER been a passenger initiated chute activation in a Cirrus, that is, a passenger who DECIDES to pull the chute and does so.

It is already hard enough for a trained pilot to decide when to pull the chute, hard enough they don't do it when they should, so expecting a passenger, not in command of the aircraft, to know when to do that, is expecting a lot. Thus the "chute deals with incapacitated pilot" concept is theoretical, never been done in practice.

Mike C.

The only airplane designed to survive cumulo-granite.

That activation was not passenger initiated.

From the NTSB report:

"The pilot told the right seat passenger to pull the emergency parachute handle"

I don't believe there has EVER been a passenger initiated chute activation in a Cirrus, that is, a passenger who DECIDES to pull the chute and does so.

It is already hard enough for a trained pilot to decide when to pull the chute, hard enough they don't do it when they should, so expecting a passenger, not in command of the aircraft, to know when to do that, is expecting a lot. Thus the "chute deals with incapacitated pilot" concept is theoretical, never been done in practice.

Mike C.

I was on a half dozen forums before I bought a used Cirrus SR20 G2 in 2009. What sold my wife on me buying the Cirrus was the safety message included in the marketing. She had the stats which showed the pilot was the principle cause of accidents; she had all the data on engine failures, she analyzed it all. At the end of the day, her defining statement was, Cirrus provides a culture of safety that you as the pilot have the choice to ignore; but safety is in your face. Versus the Lancair (my preferred choice); the pilot has to consciously think of safety and select it as an available option.

You will notice on the improved safety record of Cirrus in the past few years. What is the change? Basically, the change is to stop ignoring the safety features in the decision matrix which have been there for years.

Tim

The only airplane designed to survive cumulo-granite.