Peter,

They are doing all of those things and they are doing a far better job of marketing and selling in the plain old fashioned sense than the others. If you are interested in seeing how persuasive they can be to pilots, and to non pilots, about GA flying as well as their product call one of their salesmen and go have a look. But I warn you in advance it can be dangerous to your pocketbook. The legacy manufacturers are still focused on selling to the ever shrinking pool of enthusiasts and businesses that already see the benefits of GA. Cirrus is focused on expanding the market. So, many of the planes they sell are to people who never even look at the competition.

This is market and sales not order taking. Those who worry about the future of GA should look hard at Cirrus and what they are doing. Despite the talk about the flattened incomes of the middle class there has never been more affluence and disposable income around the world. They see this and are focused on it. It is the affluent who can, and will, buy these expensive airplanes. But they have to be exposed to the convenience - and safety - because they aren't enthusiasts (at least not yet) they are pragmatists.

Tony and others, quite a refreshing discussion.

As an owner/operator of a Cirrus SR22, my experience was part of that expanded market.

I was attracted to their airplane in 2001 when I didn't have a private license, had never sat in a Cirrus, and never looked at a competitive airplane. I was hooked by the integrated navigation and information display, the engineering aesthetic, and the safety features, especially the parachute. But it was the community of COPA that supported me and convinced me to become an owner and pilot. From there, I undertook to learn to fly, picked up my plane with 65 hours total, extended the Cirrus factory transition training to 29 hours total, had an instrument rating by 200 hours, and established my own personal limitations for flying. I thought everybody did that. Not!

Unfortunately, the early high Cirrus accident rate illustrated that human factors overwhelmed the engineering and safety features of that era. In those early years, most accident pilots had several hundred hours of flight experience -- but low time-in-type. Shocked me into action. It wasn't the newbies; but it was the pilot!

Please appreciate that your community in ABS and especially BPPP served as models for the COPA community and its safety programs. We stood on the shoulders of giants to make progress.

Cheers
Rick

In the Cirrus community, reporting training activity happens as part of the renewal process for Cirrus Standardized Instructor Pilots (CSIPs). I haven't seen an aggregate number of hours of additional training, but it certainly would be interesting to learn more.

Tom, as I've said to you and others, COPA built on the success of ABS and CPPP. Thanks to your pioneering community.


Cheers
Rick

And COPA continues to participate in the Type Club Coalition. COPA benefited from the sharing of best practices within ABS and BPPP, so we know the value of learning from others. Yet, the TCC still has not reached critical mass or activity. I haven't seen any communications since our last meeting at AirVenture in 2013. We keep trying . . .


Cheers
Rick

I have yet to make a flight in the 421 without at least one small mistake. I catch them with stage checklists. Lots going on. Love the challenge of the perfect flight. I'm still trying :)

Hi, Rick. EAA pulled most of its resources from the TCC and I did not have time to do it all alone. I regretfully resigned as TCC chairman last October. I am hearing occasional word, however, that EAA may be renewing its support, and I know they have secured the head of the Cessna 195 Association as a chairman. I hope the TCC restart works and we will get the training best practices site we set out to develop several years ago.

Were you able to participate in the NTSB meeting after our referral, from the meeting at Oshkosh last year?

One of my goals with the TCC was for ABS and BPPP to benefit from and emulate COPA's Critical Decision Making program for Beechcraft pilots. Please let me know (asf@bonanza.org) how I can get access to the CDM modules, and what COPA needs for BPPP to learn from you. We'll do it with or without the TCC.

Great job developing the culture of safety among Cirrus owners. You are indeed the giants now. Thanks!

I am literally ROTFLMAO.

I do not disagree.

It has been obvious for a very long time that the PIC is the source of the bulk of the accidents.

PS. If I had flown a Cirrus for the past 32 years I would have NEVER pulled the chute.

Only a tiny percentage of Cirrus planes have deployed their parachutes.

I wouldn't have, either. But I'm sure glad it's there in case I need to this year.

Works for me.

Here's another safety related question for the BT Cirrus-istas:

Having a second engine, on-board wx, or icing gear enables pilots to attempt flight conditions they might avoid otherwise. Does the 'chute encourage you to do stuff you wouldn't do if you didn't have it?

Like flying over water..... mountains.... night time VFR with a single engine?

My impression is that pilots buy the cirrus particularly for those sorts of missions. The chute has been used in all sorts of awkward scenarios and thus far has performed very well. You can argue whether it's perfect or merely great in those scenarios but it clearly works very well.

Charles, agreed.

I also believe that due to the enhanced safety features of the cirrus, situational awareness, airbags, and chute that a properly trained pilot has a very good chance at a positive outcome. The stats are starting to bear that out now I believe.

[quote="Peter Timmins"]Here's another safety related question for the BT Cirrus-istas:

Having a second engine, on-board wx, or icing gear enables pilots to attempt flight conditions they might avoid otherwise. Does the 'chute encourage you to do stuff you wouldn't do if you didn't have it?

Like flying over water..... mountains.... night time VFR with a single engine?[/quote

Used to have a F33A. Now a Cirrus...as my business airplane.

Water? No, not really. Parachute doesn't float particularly well.
Mountains: Yes. I used to fly mountains without it, but I feel more comfortable with it. So, I guess, yes and no. I used to fly mountains with the sure and certain knowledge that if I lost my engine the risk of a bad outcome was relatively high. Now I fly mountains knowing that I have a backup which can reduce that risk.
Night: That one is huge. I used to fly the Bo at night and was always aware that, again, the possibility of a bad outcome was higher with an engine out. Now I have a great deal more confidence. If you flew around Apalachicola at night you would understand what I mean.

Now...is that a bad thing? I surely don't think so. It just means that in the unlikely event of an engine out under those conditions my chances of survival are much higher. And let's face it, if you have a single, you are going to probably take those risks if you are to get much utility out of our traveling machines. And if you decide to not take those risks without two engines...well that adds a whole 'nother level of risk that has been hammered to death in other threads.

Oh, and to Jim who never would have pulled a parachute in 35 years...me too! Never. However, if I get in a pickle tomorrow, I would pull mine without hesitation or doubt. Even if I got there by doing dumb things.

Mistakes while flying should not impose a death sentence. Especially for my wife.


Jim