FIKI Cirrus

[flyingcheesehead]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jymSky7oBDM

I really like the way this is put up on the G1000/Perspective system. Time remaining at each flow level, with the current flow level highlighted.

Sounds like they also protect more of the leading edge, among other differences.

 

[PittsDriver]

In this marketing video, they called the non-certified, previously available de-ice capability the "inadvertant icing" system and the new one the "known icing" system. The implication there is that the new certified system should be used for launching off into actual known icing and not just escaping an inadvertent encounter. Then they go on to talk about greater utility and capability with the new system. These all sound like encouragements from Cirrus's marketing department for pilots to intentionally to take this new system off into icy weather.

Early on at Cirrus they oversold the safety benefit of the parachute which emboldened pilots to make hazardous decisions. IMO, they're doing it again. They summarized the differences in the non-certified system and the certified system and they all sound like nice improvements in the de-ice system. OK, it's certified; it's "more capable and more utility"; and maybe they discuss this in their new owner training but I'd love to see the decision criteria that spells out when I'd launch with this airplane when I shouldn't with the old system. The marketing hype in this video is touting such a distinction. For example, if there are actual PIREPs of ice on departure from the airport I'm getting ready to launch from - is it a go with this system? I'm not asking about the legality of it - just the safety of the decision. Would you take this plane up into PIREPs of ice?

Greater de-ice capability on small aircraft is a wonderful thing and I hope the industry keeps improving and adding this to more aircraft. Anything the industry does to encourage pilots to go off and intentionally fly in conditions conducive to airframe ice - that's bad.

 

[jason]

In this marketing video, they called the non-certified, previously available de-ice capability the "inadvertant icing" system and the new one the "known icing" system. The implication there is that the new certified system should be used for launching off into actual known icing and not just escaping an inadvertent encounter. Then they go on to talk about greater utility and capability with the new system. These all sound like encouragements from Cirrus's marketing department for pilots to intentionally to take this new system off into icy weather.

Early on at Cirrus they oversold the safety benefit of the parachute which emboldened pilots to make hazardous decisions. IMO, they're doing it again. They summarized the differences in the non-certified system and the certified system and they all sound like nice improvements in the de-ice system. OK, it's certified; it's "more capable and more utility"; and maybe they discuss this in their new owner training but I'd love to see the decision criteria that spells out when I'd launch with this airplane when I shouldn't with the old system. The marketing hype in this video is touting such a distinction. For example, if there are actual PIREPs of ice on departure from the airport I'm getting ready to launch from - is it a go with this system? I'm not asking about the legality of it - just the safety of the decision. Would you take this plane up into PIREPs of ice?

Greater de-ice capability on small aircraft is a wonderful thing and I hope the industry keeps improving and adding this to more aircraft. Anything the industry does to encourage pilots to go off and intentionally fly in conditions conducive to airframe ice - that's bad.

That's a bunch of crap. You're putting words there that never appeared in the video. I didn't take that away from the video at all. I can't, for the life of me, figure out how you did. The sound waves coming from the video must have been affected by the enormous chip on your shoulder.

At one point in the video he said (paraphrasing), "the new system gives you known ice capabilities, but most importantly gives you extra protection to get yourself out of the icing situation".

If you're trying to market your new safety system, how would you differentiate between the old system and the new system? It IS known ice certified. The old one wasn't. Do you simply call the old one the "old system"? That doesn't do their marketing department any favors.

Goood lord, people. Some of you just have it in for Cirrus.

 

[PittsDriver]

My point is that they both should be characterized as inadvertent icing systems. Any characterization that implies greater capability than that is going to encourage some pilots to use it in an unsafe manner. That's pretty dumb and in general I'm a big fan of people taking responsibility for their own actions and not trying to transfer the blame. But unfortunately we live in a world were people do stupid things because they were told they could. All I'm saying is that Cirrus, the company that cares more about your safety than any other aircraft manufacturer, should act like it in their marketing. No where in that video were there any cautions. Ice has brought down just about everything that flies at one time or another and if I'm flying a little single engine bug smasher, I'm not encountering any ice on purpose - whether there happens to be some POH wording to that effect or not.

 

[Ted]

The new system is no more misleading than any other current FIKI airplane in the regard of known icing vs. inadvertent icing. It has gone through the FIKI testing. The hardware IS different. They are differentiating between the two appropriately. If they hadn't gone through the certification process, they would be wrong in calling it known icing, but the testing it's gone through certifies it as known icing. That does NOT mean it's an identical system to others, but even people from Cirrus I've talked to have said "It's got its advantages and its disadvantages like any other system." That's realistic.

If pilots then choose to take away from this video or certification "Hey! I can launch into hazardous conditions now!" then that is that pilot's own stupid fault, just as it was for the parachute. None of our piston aircraft have the sort of weather capabilities that the big jets have. People who think otherwise are delusional. All of these extra safety features are there to provide you with additional outs when things really get bad. Someone stupid enough to think that is encouragement to put yourself into situations where things get really bad will get what he/she deserves.

 

[jason]

My point is that they both should be characterized as inadvertent icing systems. Any characterization that implies greater capability than that is going to encourage some pilots to use it in an unsafe manner. That's pretty dumb and in general I'm a big fan of people taking responsibility for their own actions and not trying to transfer the blame. But unfortunately we live in a world were people do stupid things because they were told they could. All I'm saying is that Cirrus, the company that cares more about your safety than any other aircraft manufacturer, should act like it in their marketing. No where in that video were there any cautions. Ice has brought down just about everything that flies at one time or another and if I'm flying a little single engine bug smasher, I'm not encountering any ice on purpose - whether there happens to be some POH wording to that effect or not.

Then we must also shut down the helmet companies. As Jerry Seinfeld said (paraphrasing once again), "the only purpose of the helmet is to protect a brain that is functioning so poorly as to put itself into a situation so dangerous that it required the use of the helmet".

So, using your logic, we should immediately close down all helmet companies. After all, giving somebody a helmet may give them a false sense of invincibility. To say that the "helmet protects your brain from damage" may actually be telling them that it's a good idea to go out and bang their head off of a wall at 100 mph. I mean, hey, they've got the helmet. Why not?

Regardless of whether or not you teach them to perform the activity safely. Regardless of whose fault it would be were they to make that choice, we simply can't trust them to make that judgment call.

Some would say that having an airplane with the capabilities of a Pitts gives one the ability to get themselves into trouble. I assume that nobody has ever gone out and pushed their Pitts outside of its flight envelope? Making an airplane that can do that is simply dangerous. If that could happen, perhaps we shouldn't be selling those either. After all, somebody may make a poor decision after listening to a Pitts salesman. We simply can't allow that to happen.

So, please explain to me how allowing somebody to buy a FIKI Cirrus and allowing somebody to buy a Pitts is any different? Couldn't the stupid rich guy get himself into trouble with either if they were to use them improperly? It's all about the decision making.

 

[SkyHog]

Then we must also shut down the helmet companies. As Jerry Seinfeld said (paraphrasing once again), "the only purpose of the helmet is to protect a brain that is functioning so poorly as to put itself into a situation so dangerous that it required the use of the helmet".

So, using your logic, we should immediately close down all helmet companies. After all, giving somebody a helmet may give them a false sense of invincibility. To say that the "helmet protects your brain from damage" may actually be telling them that it's a good idea to go out and bang their head off of a wall at 100 mph. I mean, hey, they've got the helmet. Why not?

Regardless of whether or not you teach them to perform the activity safely. Regardless of whose fault it would be were they to make that choice, we simply can't trust them to make that judgment call.

Some would say that having an airplane with the capabilities of a Pitts gives one the ability to get themselves into trouble. I assume that nobody has ever gone out and pushed their Pitts outside of its flight envelope? Making an airplane that can do that is simply dangerous. If that could happen, perhaps we shouldn't be selling those either. After all, somebody may make a poor decision after listening to a Pitts salesman. We simply can't allow that to happen.

So, please explain to me how allowing somebody to buy a FIKI Cirrus and allowing somebody to buy a Pitts is any different? Couldn't the stupid rich guy get himself into trouble with either if they were to use them improperly? It's all about the decision making.

This is, by far, the most well thought out and intelligent post in this thread.

Like it or not, folks, this is America. Some people do dumb things, and we're allowed to do dumb things. Giving people the option to do dumb things with more safety and therefore more chances of survival is a good thing, not a bad thing.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

“Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.”

John Wayne quote


Best,


Dave

 

[Ted]

This is, by far, the most well thought out and intelligent post in this thread.

+1. Jason, that was excellent.

 

[jason]

“Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.”

John Wayne quote


Best,


Dave

Thanks, Dave. I love it. That one's getting socked away.

 

[PittsDriver]

So, please explain to me how allowing somebody to buy a FIKI Cirrus and allowing somebody to buy a Pitts is any different? Couldn't the stupid rich guy get himself into trouble with either if they were to use them improperly? It's all about the decision making.

OK - go back and read my posts - I never said anything about "allowing" people to do anything. I never said they shouldn't make the aircraft as safe as it could be. I even said in one post that improved de-ice is a great thing and I hope it shows up on more and more aircraft. None of my posting was a slam on the quality of the aircraft or the improvement in it. It looks like a fine system and I'm particularly impressed with the G1000 integration of the controls. My complaint is with the Cirrus marketing department for how it's positioned. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

Your helmet analogy was therefore totally off point. If you want to use helmets for comparison to what Cirrus is doing you'd do it this way. You have a pretty decent helmet now and I notice you typically ride about 15 - 20 mph over the limit. We know you want to really be riding about 30 over the limit when you're on your hot new crotch rocket so here's a new and improved helmet - go for it. See, not about the helmet technology - just they way it's marketed. I think Cirrus is building a fine product with some great new features and I think I've mistakenly given the impression to a few of you that I'm bashing the product. Not my point at all. It's all about the marketing message. For a company that obviously cares about improving the safety of light aircraft, they just can't seem to help themselves from overstating what it's capable of. Great product but shame on them if it gets people hurt flying into more ice than the airplane can handle.

So I'll ask the question again that no one has answered. Tell me where the line is between the weather you'd fly the non-certified Cirrus and when you'd fly the certified Cirrus? Of course the certified plane is better (in this case) but how's that change the way you use it?

I may ride a Pitts mostly these days but I have several hundred hours of piston single w/certified FIKI TKS time mostly flying in the NE US. The point I'm making is not an academic one but one from experience and, on an occasion or two, surviving icing when the outcome wasn't assured. So, one more time, marketing a deice solution for anything more than inadvertent encounters is just irresponsible. But feel free to feel differently and ask yourself which position is the safer one?

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Since you're being complimentary, this is my favorite quote by the Duke:

“Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.”

Best,

Dave

 

[Trapper John]

My complaint is with the Cirrus marketing department for how it's positioned. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

For a company that obviously cares about improving the safety of light aircraft, they just can't seem to help themselves from overstating what it's capable of.

Fair point, but Cirrus is hardly the first GA manufacturer guilty of taking a few liberties for the sake of sales and marketing. Cessna's "Land-O-Matic" tricycle gear ads from the '50s come to mind. And Piper's wildly optimistic performance specs from the '60s (and they're not the only ones that did it). I'd venture a guess that more pilots have gotten themselves in trouble by trying to get out of short fields (or in, even) by believing what the book says than any weather-capability advertising by anyone.


Trapper John

 

[jason]

OK - go back and read my posts - I never said anything about "allowing" people to do anything. I never said they shouldn't make the aircraft as safe as it could be. I even said in one post that improved de-ice is a great thing and I hope it shows up on more and more aircraft. None of my posting was a slam on the quality of the aircraft or the improvement in it. It looks like a fine system and I'm particularly impressed with the G1000 integration of the controls. My complaint is with the Cirrus marketing department for how it's positioned. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

Your helmet analogy was therefore totally off point. If you want to use helmets for comparison to what Cirrus is doing you'd do it this way. You have a pretty decent helmet now and I notice you typically ride about 15 - 20 mph over the limit. We know you want to really be riding about 30 over the limit when you're on your hot new crotch rocket so here's a new and improved helmet - go for it. See, not about the helmet technology - just they way it's marketed. I think Cirrus is building a fine product with some great new features and I think I've mistakenly given the impression to a few of you that I'm bashing the product. Not my point at all. It's all about the marketing message. For a company that obviously cares about improving the safety of light aircraft, they just can't seem to help themselves from overstating what it's capable of. Great product but shame on them if it gets people hurt flying into more ice than the airplane can handle.

A company (any company) has one mission. To sell their product. I simply don't see the messages that you see being delivered in their marketing materials. I really don't. Cirrus has put WAY more time into safety and training programs than any other manufacturer.

I'll draw a comparison again. If you were selling a Pitts, what would your marketing message be? Would you have a video of an airplane sitting on the ramp or would you have a video of the airplane doing a hammerhead? Keep in mind that the content of that message puts food on the table for your kids.

"Pitts, they're great as long as you fly them straight and level"

They're not marketing it as known ice because they're encouraging people to head of into freezing rain. They're marketing it as known ice because that's the level of FAA certification that they've attained. They're not trying to trick people.

The equation is simple. More airplanes sold = good for GA. Let the buyer judge for themselves what FIKI means for them.

So I'll ask the question again that no one has answered. Tell me where the line is between the weather you'd fly the non-certified Cirrus and when you'd fly the certified Cirrus? Of course the certified plane is better (in this case) but how's that change the way you use it?

Nobody has answered that question because there is no clear answer.

I can answer another question, however....

Q: If the s**t really hit the fan, which of these two systems would you want installed on your airplane?

A: The FIKI system. It's not because it would make a difference in my go/no-go decision. It's simply because it's the most redundant, most thoroughly tested and most complete system that they sell and that's the one I want under me when I need it.

I may ride a Pitts mostly these days but I have several hundred hours of piston single w/certified FIKI TKS time mostly flying in the NE US. The point I'm making is not an academic one but one from experience and, on an occasion or two, surviving icing when the outcome wasn't assured. So, one more time, marketing a deice solution for anything more than inadvertent encounters is just irresponsible. But feel free to feel differently and ask yourself which position is the safer one?

They're not marketing it as anything else. Calling it "known ice" isn't telling anybody what to do. It's a designation. The same designation, by the way, that is used by other manufacturers and aftermarket installers. Are you also mad at Mooney for their irresponsible behavior? If you have a problem with the designation, then call the FAA. Don't blame Cirrus.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In this marketing video, they called the non-certified, previously available de-ice capability the "inadvertant icing" system and the new one the "known icing" system. The implication there is that the new certified system should be used for launching off into actual known icing and not just escaping an inadvertent encounter. Then they go on to talk about greater utility and capability with the new system. These all sound like encouragements from Cirrus's marketing department for pilots to intentionally to take this new system off into icy weather.

Ummm... Yeah. Hence, "Known Icing." What's your issue? Are you saying that there is never ever ever no way no how any situation in whicn anyone should ever take a small airplane through a layer of ice?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

So I'll ask the question again that no one has answered. Tell me where the line is between the weather you'd fly the non-certified Cirrus and when you'd fly the certified Cirrus? Of course the certified plane is better (in this case) but how's that change the way you use it?

Actually, I did answer it. Right here.

 

[PittsDriver]

Ummm... Yeah. Hence, "Known Icing." What's your issue? Are you saying that there is never ever ever no way no how any situation in whicn anyone should ever take a small airplane through a layer of ice?

...on purpose. Maybe I'm just getting soft but yeah, taking small piston planes intentionally into ice is my idea of unacceptably dangerous. The case you pointed out about punching up through a thin layer is one that I've used myself in the past but it's not often that the conditions are that well known and that benign, especially here in the northeast US. And truth be told, legal issue aside, pilots of non-certified deice equipped planes will often launch off in that circumstance as well with confidence. But more often we're stuck at lower altitudes in the 4 - 7 range where we're in and out of it all the way - especially through the Philly/NY airspace where you often have no altitude flexibility. The TKS aircraft I flew had a 9 gal. tank (the new Cirrus system is 8 gal.) which at high flow was only good for about 30 minutes. That to me is still an escape system.

From what I understand, Cirrus has some new and focused training on winter flying with the new system. Hopefully they'll do a good job of educating new owners on the practical use of the system.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

...on purpose. Maybe I'm just getting soft but yeah, taking small piston planes intentionally into ice is my idea of unacceptably dangerous.

Really, ice scares the crap out of me, but climbing through a layer and cruising in the clear would be OK with me. I would probably want the turbo as well, though, to make that climb easier and faster as well as be able to get higher.

But more often we're stuck at lower altitudes in the 4 - 7 range where we're in and out of it all the way - especially through the Philly/NY airspace where you often have no altitude flexibility. The TKS aircraft I flew had a 9 gal. tank (the new Cirrus system is 8 gal.) which at high flow was only good for about 30 minutes. That to me is still an escape system.

And that is not a flight I'd make - Slogging through the crap at 4-7 for the whole flight, with TKS. That's one thing I don't like about TKS, it's practically designed to fail on every flight over a particular length. I wish it was possible to get boots that weeped fluid at their trailing edges for the best of both worlds!

From what I understand, Cirrus has some new and focused training on winter flying with the new system. Hopefully they'll do a good job of educating new owners on the practical use of the system.

Even more importantly, I hope those owners LISTEN!!!