Jump to content

Well, not good reading.


Mcstealth

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, N6758N said:

Wow, really?! Doesn't seem like the 'chute saves that many lives to me then...

They have done a good safety marketing job. However, I think the effect has been that it oversimplifies flying. In the sense that an average pilot who bought into the "safety" marketing of an airplane, that is prone to loss of control, is a recipe for disaster.  Perceived safety from systems such as CAPS don't change the outcome much. Perception is very different from reality. This is the conclusion I draw from the statistics.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, PTK said:

They have done a good safety marketing job. However, I think the effect has been that it oversimplifies flying. In the sense that an average pilot in an airplane that is prone to loss of control is a recipe for disaster.  Perceived "safety" from systems such as CAPS don't change the outcome much. This is the conclusion I draw from the statistics.

Never thought I'd say I agree with Peter :D

The problem is inexperienced pilots with money that buy these airplanes with the thought process being, "If I get into trouble, I can just pull my chute" 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funny thing is that there are so few new planes that interest me. I don't want de-ice or FIKI capability. I don't need 300 knots in the 20s. I don't want or need a giant two screen G1000 system. I get that they are more hand built than cars, but I bet a lot of cost could be brought down as well. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2017 at 8:53 PM, M20Doc said:

With all of that said, why is Trump intent on renegotiating NAFTA with Canada and Mexico?  It would appear that more of America's jobs have been moved to Asia in the name of corporate profits, than to Canada where our cost of living and wage scales are very similar.

Clarence

Canadian dairy subsidies are the devil :D D: :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike Bush spoke at a semina a couple years ago at OSH.  He said FAR23 requirements many times are not optional and a SR22 annual will usually run 1/3rd more than traditional aircraft. Someone asked what a traditional aircraft was, he said "A36".

for example, the parachute and Reefing cutters. The clutch servo torque measurement, etc all the stuff in the "airworthiness limitations" section of the AMM are hard times. 

Edited by jetdriven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While they are certainly more costly to maintain than other higher performance piston airframes, it's not hurting sales.  Cirrus doesn't seem to suffer a CB club.  We take care of a growing number of Cirrus airframes while others are stalled or shrinking.

Clarence

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fleet we've got is the fleet we'll have. We're not going back to the 70's when they made thousands of airplanes a year. Fortunately our steeds are stout and will carry us through for some time.

I feel very strongly that I am not the aircraft's owner but it's caretaker. My mission is to keep it intact and flying for the next generation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.