FIKI Cirrus

[jesse]

It's neither. Just goes to show that neither Jesse nor you know the airplane. Where's that ignore button..

Sadly, it does appear I know the P-Baron better. Comparing it to an airliner for weather capability is just nuts. Most airliners can go almost twice as high and way way faster.

I really do hope that you don't try to follow the airliners with that thing thinking you can get through / above / around the weather like they can.

Have you even bought a P-Baron yet? Even if you haven't--I can't see any reasonable person thinking that a P-Baron is as weather capable as any airliner. Surely they didn't teach you this at SimCom did they? Let me know what you think once you have one and are flying it. No stories about flying one, no pictures of you flying one, no tail number, and insane statements about its capability are somewhat suspicious.

The P-Baron is a hell of an airplane--I'd love to have one--but it is no airliner..and one must recognize that.

Attitude kills.

 

[Ted]

Okkay, I'm missing something. My (now former) boss tells me he routinely cruises in the low flight levels (up to about FL230 or so) in his turbonormalized A36, and prefers to be there, since nobody else is: they're either lower or higher. I would assume a turbocharged light twin or SR22 would have the same capability. Where does that analysis go wrong?

If anything, the turbonormalized unpressurized plane has some advantages over a pressurized plane because the turbos don't have to pressurize the cabin and feed the engine.

The problem with piston planes is that the turbos start running out of boost at higher altitudes. Even though the boost pressures we run are so low compared to what we're used to seeing, the pressure ratios (what actually matter) start to get pretty high, and turbos do have an RPM limit. Plus, the higher the pressure ratio means higher intake air temps, and you also don't have as much air to keep the engines cool up there (even though that air usually is colder). I've not personally flown planes up there, but I have run the engines enough to know that when you get into the high teens and into the 20s, they aren't as happy.

Where having turbos on a piston plane would've been really nice would've been like my flight coming home on Sunday night. Taking off and climbing up to 11,000 ft in the Aztec at gross meant that my last 3000 ft took a while (well, 500 fpm climb vs. the 1000 fpm I was seeing for the first few thousand feet), and of course once you get up there you've lost a bunch of manifold pressure and can't go as fast, but we were trying to catch tailwinds that weren't as good as forecast. If I had the turbo-normalized engines, I could've maintained my 25"/2500 RPM up to 11,000 ft and then run it at 23"/2300 RPM, which would've been nice. Although for that trip if I had turbos and O2 I probably would've gone up to 15,000, sucked on the O2, gotten slightly better winds, and let the people in back fall asleep (which they did anyway).

 

[Ted]

By the way: Jason, thanks for sparking this. It's been a very good and informative discussion, at least I think it has.

 

[jason]

As has already been pointed out, there's usually no systems differences between certified and non-certified ice protection - other than maybe some additional redundancy. In a light single or twin, that difference to me is immaterial.

Felix,

Have you read all of the relevant materials related to the Cirrus FIKI system? There are significant differences between it and the non-FIKI version.

1. Windshield protection
2. expanded surface protection
3. fluid level monitoring
4. ice detection lights
5. XMWX icing level displays on the G1000
6. redundant pumps (which you've mentioned)

This isn't just a "pay us more so you can say your certified type of thing". They've made it much more capable. Saying that there is usually no systems difference is just not accurate. The difference is that it has to meet certain requirements (testing) in order to be certified.

Also, a lot of people, including in this thread, just talk about FIKI vs non-FIKI. While a useful distinction, it's not _that_ important. A much more important distinction lies in the aircraft's 1) climb capability and 2) cruising altitude. This is often misunderstood, and it's not understood by many pilots who fly FIKI airplanes.

For example - unlike Tim, I have no problem flying my airplane though light to moderate icing. Yes, it is a piston aircraft, but that doesn't matter much since it has virtually the same de-ice systems as a King Air and it will climb very well on one engine with the weights I usually use and it will maintain an altitude higher than any terrain in the continental U.S. What makes all the difference between a light single or twin (like a SR22, Piper, etc.) and a plane you can use in just the same way as a regional jet are the the same two factors:

- Climb capability: Can the aircraft climb _above_ the ice quickly? My airplane can, the SR22 (non-turbo) or other NA singles or twins can't.

- Cruise altitude: Can the aircraft safely cruise above the ice? Again, the light twins or SR22s, even the turbo'd models, won't routinely cruise in the flight levels.

If you fly a FIKI plane and you can answer yes to both questions, congratulations, you're at the airline level in terms of wx capabilities. If you can't, you're not quite there. Bottom line - what's the point of a FIKI SR22? I don't see one, and if anything, we'll see more accidents because more pilots will fly FIKI planes without understanding factors 1 and 2 from above. FIKI won't make those pilots any safer because it is a matter of certification (with the same components and part numbers) and not systems.

-Felix

I don't think anybody in this thread is confused on those topics. It doesn't make any of the points less accurate. It is a tool in the tool box. You have to take it, along with the capabilities of the airplane, into account when making any decisions. This is no different than any discussion involving aviation. It is simply stupid to think that FIKI vs. non-FIKI will make it alright to fly through whatever you want. I haven't seen a single person in this thread even come close to making that statement.

 

[jason]

By the way: Jason, thanks for sparking this. It's been a very good and informative discussion, at least I think it has.

LOL

Well, like anything on this board. The discussion of a new capability/price point that should be good for GA in general has turned into a discussion as to whether or not some pilots will use it to kill themselves. (SPOILER ALERT: the answer to that question is always yes)

 

[gismo]

Many aircraft have had available both certified and non-certified versions of ice protection. Late model Mooney's come to mind. The difference in price is substantial and I wouldn't fly a certified airplane into anything I wouldn't fly the non-certified version. Richard Collins has espoused the same view in the past as well. And, with the latest clarifications from the FAA on the legal issues of "known icing" and "icing conditions", I just can't see that the certified system is worth the difference.

The value comes in three forms, some of which vary from one STC to another.

First is the legal side. If your airplane is limited by the words "flight in known icing conditions" on a mandatory placard and/or in the POH limitations section the FAA could sanction you for making what many of us to be a flight with acceptable risk such as one involving a climb through a 2000 ft thick cloud layer with the bases at 2000 AGL with a freezing level at 3000 AGL and 40F at 1000 AGL with no forecast of freezing precip but a forecast for light icing in the clouds backed up by a PIREP of the same. This is something that many IFR singles can do safely with plenty of outs but it's a violation if you get caught and the FAA want's to press it. With a FIKI Cirrus it's not much if any safer, but it's unarguably more legal.

Second is the extra capabilities. A redundant source of power for the system, and maybe more protected areas like the windshield. With my taildragger experience I'm fairly comfortable making a landing without being able to see out front but I can tell you it's very convenient to be able to see straight ahead during the approach and landing, especially in challenging weather.

Third is the testing. Since no testing protocol could ever be claimed to comprehensively cover all worst case scenarios this isn't a guarantee that the deice will handle whatever conditions you encounter but it does mean that a wide range of conditions you can reasonably expect have been checked.

It's certainly possible that none of these are worth the cost to you, but I'm certain that this isn't true for all of Cirrus' customers.

 

[Trapper John]

Okkay, I'm missing something. My (now former) boss tells me he routinely cruises in the low flight levels (up to about FL230 or so) in his turbonormalized A36, and prefers to be there, since nobody else is: they're either lower or higher. I would assume a turbocharged light twin or SR22 would have the same capability. Where does that analysis go wrong?

I think you're right on the mark. An A-36TC has the same ceiling as a P-Baron...

If rate of climb and ceiling are the key metrics, a B-56 TC Turbo Baron with a ceiling of 32,000 ft would be a better choice than a P Baron. Not that I think being at 32,000 ft with no pressurization is a very good idea.

I'd be happy as can be with any of the three, though.


Trapper John

 

[jason]

I think you're right on the mark. An A-36TC has the same ceiling as a P-Baron...

If rate of climb and ceiling are the key metrics, a B-56 TC Turbo Baron with a ceiling of 32,000 ft would be a better choice than a P Baron. Not that I think being at 32,000 ft with no pressurization is a very good idea.

I'd be happy as can be with any of the three, though.


Trapper John

Well, if you're going to go there it should also be pointed out that a Turbo SR22 also has the same service ceiling as the P Baron.

That's not to say that it will get there as quickly or with as much weight or minus one engine, but if you're only talking about cruising above the ice then the capabilities are the same for both platforms.

EDIT: FWIW, the Turbo SR22 can also maintain 1000 FPM climb rates up to FL250. (source: http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2007/cirrus0703.html)

 

[Ted]

If an SR22 turbo loses an engine, then you're definitely not going to have a very good climb rate.

 

[jason]

If an SR22 turbo loses an engine, then you're definitely not going to have a very good climb rate.

Ha!

I even said that in my post.

 

[Ted]

Ha!

I even said that in my post.

Sure enough, I missed it! It was hidden and didn't have a wink to fully indicate the joke.

 

[Walt]

I was out doing some instrument proficiency last Friday. I thought my FIKI and stormscope equipped airplane could handle most any problem that was thrown my way. Center called me up and requested that I report any sightings of falling space debis to them immediately. This was not a joke. Just when you think you got all the problems covered...

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Fun discussion!

I flew a TN A-36 for almost 5 years before moving to the P-Baron which is essentially a K-ice plane (although the cert. reads a bit differently than that.) If one is going to fly in in the high teens to low 20s, they will encounter icing conditions even in Summer.

K-ice, just gives one extra time to deal with icing conditions; that is, it gives one more options. Those options still have to be weighed and prudently considered. One still needs to have outs, they just have more time to get to those outs.

In the A-36, if I got ice on the plane, it pretty much stayed there unless I got to warmer conditions. Sublimation took a long time if it was below freezing. In the Baron, I can use boots to pop most ice off the leading edge of the wing. One has a minimum speed to stop accumulation behind the boots. I've seldom gotten much ice behind the boots--it can happen.

On long trips I often found icing conditions on some part of the trip that could limit the A-36 where having deicing systems would allow it. Not all trips, but most. That is, there was a thin layer one needed to climb or descend through but enroute, one could find a level where there wasn't icing. If that wasn't the case, one just didn't go.

I will launch if I can climb up on top, have reasonable conditions enroute and if I can get down reasonably through icing conditions. If ceilings are real low on departure, I weigh that more heavily just as I would an IMC departure. If icing conditions prevail to the ground at my destination, that also weighs more heavily. If there is moderate or higher icing conditions at my point of departure or arrival as reported by similar or larger aircraft, that can be a no-gp unless those conditions are isolated and can be avoided.

K-ice can open up a lot of options. Most times I can quickly get through icing condtions or get around them. Where I can't, if they are light, I will still go. In the A-36, if I saw I was going to be climbing or descending through anything significant, that was reason to cancel. If flying up north or over mountain in winter, K-ice can really make a difference. I've often gone into Wisconsin or departed in conditions where I wouldn't have gone in the A-36. Once in OSH there was snow and ice on the taxiways with strong winds. The twin allowed me to use differential thurst of maneuver the plane on the ground.

I can see a K-ice Sirus just like the Mooney or A-36. One just has to really plan the departure and arrival more prudently. Look at the enroute portion to be sure they can stay our of icing for more than short periods.

The only time I slog along in icing conditions is when there is a clear out and I don't want to change altitudes immediately. If I can descend or climb a bit and immediately be out, I may stay where I am if the systems are handling things well. Most of the time, its a matter of using the systems in the climb or on the descent with the enroute portion being fine. I've had a few times enroute where I stayed at an altitude where I was getting ice, but it wasn't accumulating beyond what the systems could handle and I could immediately get out if need be. But the current altitude was good and conditions were isolated or I was setting up for a descent and didn't want to climb first if I didn't need to.

Just like all things, one can develop good judgement here and not push the capabilities of the plane while still making some flights a non K-ice plane just wouldn't be suiltable for. And it's not just the plane; it's the judgement and proficiency of the pilot with that plane also <g>

Best,

Dave

 

[KennyFlys]

If it's certified for "known icing conditions" then even the FAA agrees that it's OK, which means you're probably not a loon. It does, however, mean that you have a more difficult go/no-go decision, as some types of ice are not suitable for any airplane to fly into.


Let's see them, then. Find me NTSB reports of high-performance, known-ice equipped light aircraft that were brought down by ice while attempting to break through a layer.


Kenny,

Your entire argument here is bogus. A "knowledgeable and proficient pilot" WILL NOT "remain at levels with known icing" in *any* size aircraft. FIKI systems allow you to climb and descend through icing layers, period. They are NOT meant for you to loiter at an altitude with ice for as long as you want. For that reason, turbos are an excellent addition to a small known-ice aircraft as they give you more outs in the upward direction.

There seems to be some forgetting of the numerous discussions here where pilots have bought more airplane than they were capable of flying. The Cirrus gets a bad rap because of it just as it happen with the Bonanza.

I wrote that last line in a bit of a rush this morning. My apologies. What I should have said was "not even a knowledgable and experienced pilot would remain in known icing" with such an equipped airplane. Going back to my prior comment, this plane and those similar to it are often purchased by those with "more dollars than sense." Hence, they are more likely to take chances with an airplane because it is so equipped. Another post eluded to this concept.

I hear what you're saying with regard to a turbo giving "more outs in an upward direction." That's a good thing. But, will it be used? I fear there are times it will not; probably by those pilots who would choose to fly when it would be better to simply remain grounded.

 

[Ted]

Kenny, once again you seem to be against the technology because of the pilots who we stereotype as being the ones who buy that technology and/or plane. Regardless of whether or not the stereotype is correct, this is backwards.

 

[jason]

I am sick to death of this "more money than sense" OWT that always perpetuates the pilot community. Somebody show me the statistics to back it up or just stop spreading this bu****it. It's a tremendous disservice to the GA community.

Some guy/gal (be they rich or poor) killing himself/herself with lack of common sense is simply NOT a reason to keep tools out of the hands of pilots that will use them wisely to complete their missions.

 

[KennyFlys]

Kenny, once again you seem to be against the technology because of the pilots who we stereotype as being the ones who buy that technology and/or plane. Regardless of whether or not the stereotype is correct, this is backwards.

If you want to correct the problem, be up front with those you see with a problem. There have been threads here where a board member has encountered another pilot on their field who demonstrated less than safe performance. There concern was what to do about it.

Unlike you, I have to be out there flying with those who are in my responsibility. If I spot someone doing something so unsafe, I'll take some step to intervene. If they happen to come to me or to anyone at our school, we set a path for them to follow in order to improve their skills. If they refuse to follow our advice, they don't get the necessary endorsement or otherwise. Unfortunately, there are some CFIs out there who will just for the few bucks and flight time.

I'm telling you what I've observed. I speak the truth of what I observe and my opinion of it. I'll also tell you it scares the hell out of me there are pilots out there flying in serious conditions without the necessary skill level. If my speaking of these things upsets you, that's not my problem.

Meanwhile, who here is going to get upset because of those who speak of the drunk drivers on the road who keep offending and yet return to the road to offend again? The difference between the unskilled pilot and the drunk? That would be the difference between the stupid and those committing a criminal act while being stupid.

 

[KennyFlys]

I am sick to death of this "more money than sense" OWT that always perpetuates the pilot community. Somebody show me the statistics to back it up or just stop spreading this bu****it. It's a tremendous disservice to the GA community.

Some guy/gal (be they rick or poor) killing himself/herself with lack of common sense is simply NOT a reason to keep tools out of the hands of pilots that will use them wisely to complete their missions.

Jason, you need to reread my posts. I'm not at all opposed to GPS or any technology. I'm opposed to relying on a tool without the adequate skills to not only fly without that technology but to perform in conditions the rating allows. I'm speaking of learning to fly instruments with the basics and remaining proficient in them. I'm speaking of those who begin to lean on that technology, that being GPS and autopilot while making coupled approaches in low IMC.

As far as accident reports, here are some low-time to just under 3,000 hour pilots flying a Cirrus (non-model specific) in IMC. I chose only fatal accidents and only with factual reports, none are with only preliminary reports. I picked those that indicated only IFR or IMC. They indicate IFR or marginal VFR. The total list contained 32 records. The list starts on 4/28/05 and ends on 1/30/09(preliminary only) Twelve are listed here.:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC08FA138&rpt=fa 190 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX07FA062&rpt=fa 210 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC07FA037&rpt=fa 1600 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX07FA021&rpt=fa 890 Hours, Limited Icing Protection
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN06FA131&rpt=fa 580 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI06FA245&rpt=fa 2570 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI06FA186&rpt=fa 2800 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA06FA050&rpt=fa 650 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL06FA029&rpt=fa 780 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI06FA043&rpt=fa 272 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX05FA088&rpt=fa 472 Hours, Limited Icing Protection
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD05FA032&rpt=fa 483 Hours

How much more evidence is needed? Go back and check out the probable cause reports. I may read those on another evening.

 

[jason]

Jason, you need to reread my posts. I'm not at all opposed to GPS or any technology. I'm opposed to relying on a tool without the adequate skills to not only fly without that technology but to perform in conditions the rating allows. I'm speaking of learning to fly instruments with the basics and remaining proficient in them. I'm speaking of those who begin to lean on that technology, that being GPS and autopilot while making coupled approaches in low IMC.

Ok, but what does any of that have to do with this thread? Cirrus is producing a FIKI airplane. I don't remember anybody saying that they hope a bunch of stupid rich people go out and buy these things.

Please show me the posts where somebody said it was a good idea to head out in one of these things without the proper training, experience or judgement. Or the posts where people said that you could head out in one of these airplanes and fly through whatever mother nature threw your way.

Please show me the posts where people said that it wasn't necessary to stay proficient.

As far as accident reports, here are some low-time to just under 3,000 hour pilots flying a Cirrus (non-model specific) in IMC. I chose only fatal accidents and only with factual reports, none are with only preliminary reports. I picked those that indicated only IFR or IMC. They indicate IFR or marginal VFR. The total list contained 32 records. The list starts on 4/28/05 and ends on 1/30/09(preliminary only) Twelve are listed here.:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC08FA138&rpt=fa 190 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX07FA062&rpt=fa 210 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC07FA037&rpt=fa 1600 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX07FA021&rpt=fa 890 Hours, Limited Icing Protection
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN06FA131&rpt=fa 580 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI06FA245&rpt=fa 2570 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI06FA186&rpt=fa 2800 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA06FA050&rpt=fa 650 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL06FA029&rpt=fa 780 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI06FA043&rpt=fa 272 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX05FA088&rpt=fa 472 Hours, Limited Icing Protection
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD05FA032&rpt=fa 483 Hours

How much more evidence is needed? Go back and check out the probable cause reports. I may read those on another evening.

12 accidents in four years? This is your epidemic? How many Cherokees or Cessnas were lost in that same time frame under similar conditions? How many fuel starvation accidents claimed lives in those four years?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Uh, Kenny - NOT ONE of those is a known-ice equipped light airplane. Try again.

As far as accident reports, here are some low-time to just under 3,000 hour pilots flying a Cirrus (non-model specific) in IMC. I chose only fatal accidents and only with factual reports, none are with only preliminary reports. I picked those that indicated only IFR or IMC. They indicate IFR or marginal VFR. The total list contained 32 records. The list starts on 4/28/05 and ends on 1/30/09(preliminary only) Twelve are listed here.:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC08FA138&rpt=fa 190 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX07FA062&rpt=fa 210 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC07FA037&rpt=fa 1600 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX07FA021&rpt=fa 890 Hours, Limited Icing Protection
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN06FA131&rpt=fa 580 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI06FA245&rpt=fa 2570 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI06FA186&rpt=fa 2800 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA06FA050&rpt=fa 650 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL06FA029&rpt=fa 780 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI06FA043&rpt=fa 272 Hours
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX05FA088&rpt=fa 472 Hours, Limited Icing Protection
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD05FA032&rpt=fa 483 Hours

How much more evidence is needed? Go back and check out the probable cause reports. I may read those on another evening.

 

[KennyFlys]

12 accidents in four years? This is your epidemic? How many Cherokees or Cessnas were lost in that same time frame under similar conditions? How many fuel starvation accidents claimed lives in those four years?

Please read the details on the criteria on how I arrived at just those twelve accidents in one make of aircraft in only four yours. Just those twelve point to flights where the pilot was likely unqualified in conditions that also included a high performance aircraft. There were many more I could draw from that fit the same but I was selective to a tighter criteria.

If you like, I could stretch it to several other similar make and model ASEL HP aircraft? But, I don't think that's really necessary. If I did add Piper and Cessna to it, I'm sure the number would be considerably greater even in the same time period given the much larger number of aircraft in service.

 

[KennyFlys]

Uh, Kenny - NOT ONE of those is a known-ice equipped light airplane. Try again.

Since FIKI is not yet approved, that would not be possible. Nor, was it my goal. There is another point eluded to in earlier posts.

 

[jason]

Please read the details on the criteria on how I arrived at just those twelve accidents in one make of aircraft in only four yours. Just those twelve point to flights where the pilot was likely unqualified in conditions that also included a high performance aircraft. There were many more I could draw from that fit the same but I was selective to a tighter criteria.

If you like, I could stretch it to several other similar make and model ASEL HP aircraft? But, I don't think that's really necessary. If I did add Piper and Cessna to it, I'm sure the number would be considerably greater even in the same time period given the much larger number of aircraft in service.

Sigh...

My points are two fold.

1) You've hijacked my thread to talk about something that isn't even relevant to the original post. I was talking about an exciting development for GA. You're talking about pilots with too much airplane and not enough sense (again and again and again...we get it already).
2) You have yet to prove that such accidents happen at a higher rate than any other type of accident, and thus necessitate your endless diatribes on the subject.

Anybody can find accidents to prove any point. If I were arguing against alcohol I could find accidents that involve pilots getting drunk and picking up girls at local bars before heading out to the airport to "show them a good time". I didn't ask you to show me a list of accidents. I asked you to show me the statistics. Show me how accidents caused by low time pilots in late model HP airplanes happen at a higher rate than, say, fuel starvation or VFR into IMC.

 

[KennyFlys]

Sigh...

My points are two fold.

1) You've hijacked my thread to talk about something that isn't even relevant to the original post. I was talking about an exciting development for GA. You're talking about pilots with too much airplane and not enough sense (again and again and again...we get it already).
2) You have yet to prove that such accidents happen at a higher rate than any other type of accident, and thus necessitate your endless diatribes on the subject.

Anybody can find accidents to prove any point. If I were arguing against alcohol I could find accidents that involve pilots getting drunk and picking up girls at local bars before heading out to the airport to "show them a good time". I didn't ask you to show me a list of accidents. I asked you to show me the statistics. Show me how accidents caused by low time pilots in late model HP airplanes happen at a higher rate than, say, fuel starvation or VFR into IMC.

My purpose was not to hijack your thread. I made a valid point... there are unqualified pilots obtaining such equipped aircraft and getting themselves into situations from which they cannot recover. If that point upsets you, my apologies. That was not my intent. But, my intent was to point out where such things can lead and in fact have done so. If you disagree, I can't help you. If you do agree and my point still ticks you off, good. Do something about it. Don't let yourself become one of those statistics.

I still find it interesting that I can "bash" drunk drivers all day long and no one gets upset. I "bash" stupid pilots who have or may end up dead and I'm a bad person for it. I don't get it!

In the next couple days, I'll contact ASF and ask them to do a more specific search to get some comparisons you ask of. I can't get that from the AOPA or NTSB sites.

 

[gprellwitz]

Here's what Cirrus said when they rolled this out. Note the second paragraph!

Addressing a live global media audience, Cirrus Chairman Alan Klapmeier enthused “Known Ice Protection completes the picture for many when it comes to reliable, personal transportation. It can allow operations on marginal weather days when icing forecasts would otherwise preclude travel. This means a Cirrus customer gets more utility and ultimately more capability from their airplane investment.”

Klapmeier continued, “An important issue to address up front is although the airplane has completed testing to show it’s safe to fly in FAA known icing conditions, no one should ever think that this means they can drone along impervious to nature in icing conditions — nature always wins! Of course proper training and decision making is essential for flight safety. ”

Sounds to me like we all agree with Klapmeier!

Oh, and further down in the article they also talk about the limitations. I think that Kent will agree that Klapmeier has always had a keen interest in safety through education.

Ian Bentley, Vice President of Products and Services added, “This is probably the most extensively tested known-ice package ever developed for general aviation. The Cirrus Known Ice Protection certification program had the same icing envelope and followed similar testing protocols as airliners under FAR Part 25.” A word of caution followed, “Known Ice Protection approval does not create an ‘all weather’ airplane, a perhaps overused term in aviation. Even airliners and corporate aircraft cancel flights for weather – particularly winter weather. A broad knowledge of weather operations and flight experience in your Cirrus is always necessary.”

Cirrus now offers additional support for pilots with an on-line “Icing Awareness” training program focused on the Cirrus “known ice” airplanes. This will be required for Cirrus known-ice pilots and recommended for all pilots. Additionally, Cirrus will offer supplies of TKS fluid in volume (33 and 50-gallons), shipped to you through www.cirrusconnection.com.

 

[jason]

My purpose was not to hijack your thread. I made a valid point... there are unqualified pilots obtaining such equipped aircraft and getting themselves into situations from which they cannot recover. If that point upsets you, my apologies. That was not my intent. But, my intent was to point out where such things can lead and in fact have done so. If you disagree, I can't help you. If you do agree and my point still ticks you off, good. Do something about it. Don't let yourself become one of those statistics.

I still find it interesting that I can "bash" drunk drivers all day long and no one gets upset. I "bash" stupid pilots who have or may end up dead and I'm a bad person for it. I don't get it!

My issue is simply that the point may or may not be valid. Of course "some" pilots do get themselves into trouble. The contention, however, that this is some sort of growing problem that we have to protect ourselves from just has no basis. Any evidence that you have to prove it at this point is anecdotal at best.

The bottom like is that I'm not a fan of stupid pilot tricks. The thing is that I don't discriminate. To me, the pilot that loads his 172 over gross and takes off on a hot summer day is just as bad as the guy that buys himself too much airplane. If any of us were in a situation to stop either from happening I feel that we would should. That said, you still haven't given any of us a reason to believe that the second scenario is any more likely than the first.

Of course somebody could use this feature and this airframe to get themselves into trouble. That doesn't mean that the airplane shouldn't be created or sold. For somebody that holds their conservative values so dear, I don't understand why you find it necessary to say who can and can't make their own choices in their own airplanes. You talk about it as if Cirrus shouldn't be producing FIKI airplanes because somebody just might come along and do something stupid with it. The annoying part is that you always make that point when it comes to advanced features and technology (FIKI, GPS, autopilots, etc). As if somebody couldn't make choices just as stupid in a Cessna 150.

Technology isn't the reason that these pilots are getting themselves into trouble. Lack of training and poor judgment is....that's no different than it was 50 years ago. That's why I don't understand why you chose this thread to make your point. It's not the FIKI...it's the pilot. It's not the glass panel...it's the pilot. It's not the autopilot...it's the pilot. Quit blaming the technology for pilots making poor decisions.

In the next couple days, I'll contact ASF and ask them to do a more specific search to get some comparisons you ask of. I can't get that from the AOPA or NTSB sites.

I look forward to hearing what they have to say.

 

[Ted]

For somebody that holds their conservative values so dear, I don't understand why you find it necessary to say who can and can't make their own choices in their own airplanes. You talk about it as if Cirrus shouldn't be producing FIKI airplanes because somebody just might come along and do something stupid with it. The annoying part is that you always make that point when it comes to advanced features and technology (FIKI, GPS, autopilots, etc). As if somebody couldn't make choices just as stupid in a Cessna 150.

Jason hit it on the head. Kenny, you say these things that are clearly anti-technology, and then claim you're not against technology, just against people who aren't properly trained in its use. You would benefit from taking a hard look at what you're trying to say and choosing your words more carefully, because I haven't seen a single person on this thread (or any other where we have problems with your views) come to your aid. To me, that indicates that I'm not the only one who's getting this impression.

It scares me as well that there are pilots who are unqualified going out and doing stupid things with airplanes. While I'm not an instructor, I have flown with a number of them. What scares me just as much as these unqualified pilots is your attitude, which is not beneficial to your students. Your students are trusting you to give them good information and teach them how to be good pilots, but your statements (at least according to you) are at best unclear to those of us who are pilots with varying levels of experience. At worst (and the way a number of us are interpreting it), they're against the use of technology that helps everyone who can use it properly and saves lives. How do you expect a low time student pilot to come to a different conclusion? Maybe you explain this better in person than on the computer, but I can't make that assumption. The "you're not a CFI" argument doesn't work either, because CFIs disagree with you, too.

If you make a statement to an individual and that individual understands you improperly, it's your fault. So, just as I consider it my fault if you misinterpret what I say (as you have), it is your fault if we misunderstand what you say. That is one of the first rules of public speaking (at least as I was taught).

I'm really getting sick of these comments. And yes, Kenny, you did hijack Jason's thread.

 

[jmaynard]

My purpose was not to hijack your thread. I made a valid point... there are unqualified pilots obtaining such equipped aircraft and getting themselves into situations from which they cannot recover. If that point upsets you, my apologies. That was not my intent. But, my intent was to point out where such things can lead and in fact have done so. If you disagree, I can't help you. If you do agree and my point still ticks you off, good. Do something about it. Don't let yourself become one of those statistics.

Okkay, fine. You've made your point. It's one that nobody I've seen on this forum would disagree with; in fact, lots of folks have agreed with it, rather emphatically. Could you PLEASE move on now? Your Johnny one-note postings are getting tiresome.

I'm not going to rip the GNS430W or the TruTrak autopilot it's coupled to out of my Zodiac, no matter what you say. I'm going to use the thing to lower my workload as a pilot, and thereby improve safety by letting me concentrate on the other things I have to do. Should I find myself with the ability to fly IFR legally, it will get used for that, too - just as the FAA expects me to, and just as I'll be tested on during the checkride. If it breaks - and it has - then I'll use every other tool in the toolbox to complete the flight safely.

More tools, not less, improve safety. Yes, that means the pilot has to remain proficient in all of them. That's part of being a pilot. There has not been a soul who's written on this topic who has disagreed with that proposition.

 

[Trapper John]

If you disagree, I can't help you. If you do agree and my point still ticks you off, good. Do something about it. Don't let yourself become one of those statistics.

Please Kenny, save us from ourselves!


Trapper John

 

[taters]

I can tell you from regrettable/valuable personal experience that the laminar flow wing on the Cirrus is the scariest thing in the world when ice gets involved.Even with a TRACE of ice(even with De-Ice selected) you will lose 30 kts and and be praying the whole way down the glideslope with 85 % power applied...its like somebody put the brakes on. I hope the new system works well and prevents accidents...but doesnt give a false sense of security to people who should keep there butts on the ground ...especially the newer pilots/customers that Cirrus has a knack for attracting .I have flown in ice in many certified and non certifed aircraft and I have never felt "Good" , "OK" " Very Calm" "Content"..etc. in any kind of icing conditions but I felt particularly like a flying dead man in the Cirrus.. I guess my point here is that Cirrus is trying to remove "THE FEAR"...and that in itself is a very powerful life-saving thing.
BTW/my 2 cents.... I would highly recommend a FIKI Beech-A36TC over a Cirrus. For approx. the same price you get twice the aircraft and 5 times the quality.
SAFE LANDINGS!!! http://www.weepingwings.com/docs/A36_Known_Ice.pdf

 

[PittsDriver]

Looking at the difference between the standard TKS and FIKI Cirrus, there is definitely a change, and on a number of twins it's similar. Saying the difference is immaterial is wrong.

I guess it depends on what you think is material. I never said there wasn't a difference in the systems. Adding capacity, windshield de-ice, ice lights, two speeds - all that stuff is good stuff. I just said those differences won't get me launched off into icing weather when a non-certified plane would ground me. To all of you guys that are extolling the virtues of certified systems, are you saying that you'd fly those airplanes in conditions you wouldn't fly a non-certified plane? If if the answer is yes, perhaps you'd expand on that a little and tell me how a certified system improves your mission success rate over that of a non-certified system. Exactly what are those conditions that draw the line between what you'd fly in vs. what you won't with a non-certified FIKI bird?

As for the legality of this issue, it has substantially changed in the last few weeks. If you haven't seen the January 16, 2009 letter from the FAA Chief Counsel, this might make interesting reading:

http://www.chesavtraining.com/forums/files/legal-counsel-response-to-known-icing_283.pdf

 

[KennyFlys]

Would someone start reading what I've written? Geeze. NOT ONCE, have I said I was against technology. Not in this thread, not in any thread. Dang, someone learn to read!

Again, I pose the question... Why is it ok to talk down stupid, drunk drivers but not ok to talk down stupid, non-proficient pilots? Maybe I'm striking a nerve that's close to home for some?

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Would someone start reading what I've written? Geeze. NOT ONCE, have I said I was against technology. Not in this thread, not in any thread. Dang, someone learn to read!

Again, I pose the question... Why is it ok to talk down stupid, drunk drivers but not ok to talk down stupid, non-proficient pilots? Maybe I'm striking a nerve that's close to home for some?

Because the fact that they're drunk drivers has absolutely nothing to do with what kind of tires they have on their car, for example. Yet you insist on linking the equivalent of the two for reasons that defy explanation.

 

[KennyFlys]

Because the fact that they're drunk drivers has absolutely nothing to do with what kind of tires they have on their car, for example. Yet you insist on linking the equivalent of the two for reasons that defy explanation.

I'm comparing stupidity. Pure and simple.

Go find a paper bag to argue with. I'm done here. SO many people are getting upset with this comment I made. Like I said, maybe it touches a nerve. GOOD! Don't become one of those statistics. But, I'm betting a good number of those upset the most... are those who are very close to that level.

If you're instrument rated and do nothing more than fly six approaches every six months to remain current, you ARE at that level. If you argue you do the approaches to remain current but you have no intention to fly in IMC, why spend the money on being current? You shouldn't be where that potential exist.

Look, if what I said ticks people off... I really don't care. But stop the lies that I'm opposed to technology. How the hell do you think I found the precise point to begin a photo flight along a river, today? I used GPS. But, guess what? I backed it up with a VOR!

If you want me to kiss ass on this issue, it won't happen. I'll kiss up when a student comes to look at the school while I explain how we work and the standards we set for ourselves and our equipment. During training when it comes to doing what's necessary and doing it right? I'll cut some slack as they start out and continue to improve. But, when it comes to safety issues and saving "skin, tin and ticket", I'm very hard core about it. I won't kiss up to anyone on that one. Not my students and certainly not anyone I'm not responsible for.

 

[Everskyward]

Because the fact that they're drunk drivers has absolutely nothing to do with what kind of tires they have on their car, for example.

Another analogy would be that it doesn't matter if the drunk is driving a Ferrari or an Escort. It has nothing to do with the car, other than the fact that the Ferrari can go a little faster than the Escort...

 

[Trapper John]

I'm comparing stupidity. Pure and simple.

Huh?

Go find a paper bag to argue with. I'm done here. SO many people are getting upset with this comment I made. Like I said, maybe it touches a nerve. GOOD! Don't become one of those statistics. But, I'm betting a good number of those upset the most... are those who are very close to that level.

OK, so anyone that disagrees with you is inferior. All-righty, then! Or could it possibly be that your audience doesn't respond well to proselytizing?

If you're instrument rated and do nothing more than fly six approaches every six months to remain current, you ARE at that level. If you argue you do the approaches to remain current but you have no intention to fly in IMC, why spend the money on being current? You shouldn't be where that potential exist.

Who are you to tell people what they should or shouldn't do with their ratings and certificates?

Look, if what I said ticks people off... I really don't care. But stop the lies that I'm opposed to technology. How the hell do you think I found the precise point to begin a photo flight along a river, today? I used GPS. But, guess what? I backed it up with a VOR!

It's a conspiracy!

If you want me to kiss ass on this issue, it won't happen. I'll kiss up when a student comes to look at the school while I explain how we work and the standards we set for ourselves and our equipment. During training when it comes to doing what's necessary and doing it right? I'll cut some slack as they start out and continue to improve. But, when it comes to safety issues and saving "skin, tin and ticket", I'm very hard core about it. I won't kiss up to anyone on that one. Not my students and certainly not anyone I'm not responsible for.

Thanks for sharing...


Trapper John

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Another analogy would be that it doesn't matter if the drunk is driving a Ferrari or an Escort. It has nothing to do with the car, other than the fact that the Ferrari can go a little faster than the Escort...

Exactly.

I'm really not sure what else there is to say about the matter.

 

[SkyHog]

Would someone start reading what I've written? Geeze. NOT ONCE, have I said I was against technology. Not in this thread, not in any thread. Dang, someone learn to read!

Again, I pose the question... Why is it ok to talk down stupid, drunk drivers but not ok to talk down stupid, non-proficient pilots? Maybe I'm striking a nerve that's close to home for some?

As to the anti-technology thing....

15 Hours, Kenny. That's all I gotta say.

 

[Ted]

Ken, seeing as everyone who's spoken (including CFIs) disagrees with you but you're claiming that you aren't saying what we all find you to be saying, it would seem to me that your communication skills could use some improvement.

In the mean time, I am scared that you are a CFI.

 

[jmaynard]

I won't kiss up to anyone on that one. Not my students and certainly not anyone I'm not responsible for.

Nobody's asking you to kiss up to anyone. What we're all saying is that you're coming across as being anti-technology. Your words are blaming the problem on the tool, not the user. If that's not what you mean, then perhaps you should find another way to say what you're really trying to get across.