Let's take off into ice!

Can we get a MC opinion on spamming your own, worthless "Cessna is better than everything else" blog?

If not, I just might start a "Why not to buy Cessna" blog, and spam the hell out of the forums too.

Point 1: They're ugly, and only drug users fly them.
 
As I said before... both are fine products. But, be wary of claims by marketing folks. Cirrus is pushing something as the cure-all. I'm sure Cessna has done similar in the past though I don't have an example.
 
The guy obviously doesn't get it. For some reason he thinks he can elevate himself (and/or his product or services) by denigrating others. Attack ad sometimes works in politics, but seldom in business and are usually signs of desperation.

Several such hot-shots have surfaced recently. Almost makes you wonder if it's the result of in-breeding. The "Ignore" button is looking better with each succeeding post.

Cap'n Jack;435950]Lost another sale to Cirrus, have we?:smile:[/quote]
 
KennyFlys said:
As I said before... both are fine products. But, be wary of claims by marketing folks. Cirrus is pushing something as the cure-all. I'm sure Cessna has done similar in the past though I don't have an example.
Click to expand...

From the Wikipedia article on Cessna:

"Land-O-Matic – In 1956, Cessna introduced sprung-steel tricycle landing gear on the 172. The marketing department chose “Land-O-Matic” to imply that the these aircraft were much easier to land and take-off than the preceding conventional landing gear equipped Cessna 170. They even went as far as to say pilots could do “drive-up take-offs and drive-in landings"...."

Someone want to check the albedo on that kettle?

Ron Wanttaja
 
KennyFlys said:
I'm sure Cessna has done similar in the past though I don't have an example.
Click to expand...
How about from the present. This is from the current Cessna site.

Another benefit of learning from a Cessna Pilot Center is training in dependable Cessna aircraft, featuring the highly advanced Garmin G1000 glass cockpit. The G1000 flight deck package simplifies all primary flight, engine and sensor data for intuitive, at-a-glance awareness. Which makes learning to fly easier than ever.
Click to expand...
http://www.cessna.com/learn-to-fly/learn-from-the-best.html

Personally I don't have any problem with people initially learning to fly in a glass cockpit airplane just as I don't have a problem with someone learning getting their private in a Cirrus. However, I'm not sure that I would consider it "easier" and I'm pretty sure you have stated the same thing.

But it's really all just advertising. What do you expect them to say? :dunno:
 
Everskyward said:
How about from the present. This is from the current Cessna site.

http://www.cessna.com/learn-to-fly/learn-from-the-best.html

Personally I don't have any problem with people initially learning to fly in a glass cockpit airplane just as I don't have a problem with someone learning getting their private in a Cirrus. However, I'm not sure that I would consider it "easier" and I'm pretty sure you have stated the same thing.

But it's really all just advertising. What do you expect them to say? :dunno:
Click to expand...
I have, indeed. Without the Frasca sim we have, teaching primary in glass would be a royal pain in the tush.

I expect them to push whatever it is they are marketing. Again, I take such claims with a grain of salt. Even less when I have to counter their claims during my teaching.

When I worked for Konica, I had a customer who ran velum through their old copier's document feeder. It wasn't supposed to but it fed through just fine. It comes time to buy a new machine and their concern was if the new one would feed the velum. Salesman: "Of course it will!" They take delivery and begin using it. It won't feed velum.

I'm the lucky tech that gets to go out on the first call when they are complaining it won't feed paper. The call leaves out they are trying to feed paper equivalent to 10-12 pound stock. Basically, the salesman left me hung out to dry while I convince these people the machine was designed feed 20-22 pound stock as was the case with the old machine.

Sometimes, things work out a certain way. That doesn't mean they were intended to.
 
SkyHog said:
Can we get a MC opinion on spamming your own, worthless "Cessna is better than everything else" blog?
Click to expand...

Thou shall not link to one's own blog? If that's a rule here, please advise.

Lost another sale to Cirrus, have we?
Click to expand...

I do, in fact, sell Cessnas. And, also being an aircraft mechanic and flight instructor for more than half my life, I care a lot about safety and my customers too. During 53 on-site accident investigations, 33 of which were fatal, all of which were Cessnas, I picked through airplane rubble trying to find fault that wasn't the pilot's. And let me tell you, when the father of a child approaches you at an accident site to ask why their dad and daugher were killed, it gets you thinking.

So yes, I do sell Cessna's and what's more I have particular interest in air safety.

I never once said Cirrus is a bad plane. I do have heartburn over it being advertised and touted as the safest plane in the sky ESPECIALLY to new pilots, and its "safety record" and "ease of handling" often bragged about by new flight instructors, let alone Cirrus itself.

Who's doing the mud slinging on this forum? Instead of being so weirdly defensive, how about taking me up on the substance of an issue?

Or as Wayne suggests,
Several such hot-shots have surfaced recently. Almost makes you wonder if it's the result of in-breeding. The "Ignore" button is looking better with each succeeding post.
Click to expand...
...ignore me.

Here's a thoughtful reply...

They even went as far as to say pilots could do “drive-up take-offs and drive-in landings"
Click to expand...

Okay, but landings and flight into icing conditions are no where near the same. Furthermore, this ad was more than 40 years ago. You don't see Cessna or any responsible company taking safety lightly these days.

-Steve
 
Everskyward said:
Personally I don't have any problem with people initially learning to fly in a glass cockpit airplane...
Click to expand...

Two pieces of black construction paper and scotch tape before solo works wonders.
 
I recall when I learned to SCUBA dive, in 1971. We had to do such stupid stuff as show we could actually swim. With a weight belt on, no less. We learned to breath off a tank without a regulator attached. We had to have another student put our gear on the bottom of the deep end of the pool. We then had to free dive down in just our swimsuit, and come back up after putting on all our gear "down there". Later, I was a deck hand on a dive charter boat. The students coming along never had to show they could actually swim without a BC vest on, and indeed we ran into a few who actually admitted they "couldn't swim a stroke". The way diving was marketed to the masses was that with modern equipment, you did not need basic skills. To some extent, it must have been true, because diving grew, but fatalities, as I recall, did not.
I think, if marketing sells a technology, such as the G1000, or the bells and whistles of the Cirri, in such a way that people who don't have the drive or the aptitude to do something ie. flying safely, then shame on them. Much was said in the "other thread" about primary training in a Cirrus. For the right student, it's fine. But the armed forces start people off in a much more advanced plane than that. Those people are driven to drive the fastest, most complicated planes in the world. They have the mindset to learn in the advanced planes. The guy who does a discovery flight and decides to become a VFR Sunday afternoon pilot, maybe not. A fast, slippery plane requires a level of proficiency that your average C-152 does not require.
I've flown the same old tired C-172 for the past 12 years. Given the opportunity to fly a Cirrus, I'd jump on it. Would having a few hundred hours in a Cessna help? Absolutely.
I hope Cirrus sells a million planes (Cessna too). I hate to see them sell the airplane as something so easy to fly, that it doesn't take any sense at all to fly it safely. People are lulled nowadays into thinking that technology can relieve them of the responsibility of staying proficient, or even learning the basics of whatever it is they are trying to do.
 
SkyHog said:
Can we get a MC opinion on spamming your own, worthless "Cessna is better than everything else" blog?
Click to expand...

With regard to spamming, as far as I know, there is no way to contact me or buy anything on my blog. Nothing's for sale nor are there any ads or commercial links. It's about me and my thoughts, less any way to reach me.

So, that's spam, how??
 
Keith Lane said:
People are lulled nowadays into thinking that technology can relieve them of the responsibility of staying proficient, or even learning the basics of whatever it is they are trying to do.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty good summation of something I've been saying.
 
Cirrus gets known ice certified. To advertise this they show a picture of their airplane with some snow? Man....shouldn't you be spending your time on selling airplanes? I can assure you that bashing Cirrus on here isn't going to sell you many airplanes.
 
jesse said:
Cirrus gets known ice certified. To advertise this they show a picture of their airplane with some snow? Man....shouldn't you be spending your time on selling airplanes? I can assure you that bashing Cirrus on here isn't going to sell you many airplanes.
Click to expand...
Define the difference between bashing the product versus bashing the marketing folks who may be selling false promises.
 
KennyFlys said:
Define the difference between bashing the product versus bashing the marketing folks who may be selling false promises.
Click to expand...
I said bashing Cirrus. He is bashing Cirrus. There is no way around that. The marketing folks are not being unreasonable. Their advertisements seem very reasonable to me.
 
jesse said:
I said bashing Cirrus. He is bashing Cirrus. There is no way around that. The marketing folks are not being unreasonable. Their advertisements seem very reasonable to me.
Click to expand...
I said "false promises." I guess "false hope" would be a better descriptor.

As someone was said in a thread when this first came about, I think the FIKI marketing might lead someone to make a jump they might not ought to.
 
KennyFlys said:
I said "false promises." I guess "false hope" would be a better descriptor.

As someone was said in a thread when this first came about, I think the FIKI marketing might lead someone to make a jump they might not ought to.
Click to expand...
So you suggest Cirrus doesn't market the fact that they have a FIKI bird?

Or do you suggest they just don't have a FIKI bird?

Perhaps they should have just stuck with a non-certified system with less alcohol, a single pump, and a non-protected windshield. Tell me how that'd be safer....

Seriously guys.. Relax. Cirrus is coming out with new products that are getting us new pilots. They are marketing their products and none of it seems unreasonable. Don't read into something that isn't there. Cirrus is damn good about getting their new owners the proper training.
 
How is the Cirrus marketing dept touting its FAA certified FIKI airplane any worse than the countless flight schools telling potential customers they will teach them to fly in clouds by instructors that have ZERO time in IMC? Sorry Kenny, the weakness in aviation is training not the advertisements of successful companies.

Not trying to continue this war of words, but it's just advertising. I see nothing illegal, immoral or fattening in Cirrus' claims.
 
Lance, it's really a combination of both. There are lesser experienced pilots who are sold airplanes with claims that its ability will go beyond what is required for the pilot.

I can teach and prepare a pilot for the private pilot certificate and they will pass. I can take them forward and get them quite proficient in preparation for the instrument practical. I can also instill in them to the best of my ability for the need to forever continue acquiring proficiency... not just in basic pilot skills but in obtaining instrument proficiency on a regular basis then practicing it.

But, once they leave me it's all up to them. They become subject to whatever influences they encounter. Not all of them are good. I believe the Cirrus FIKI does give false hope to lesser experienced pilots or those who exhibit a combination of the five hazardous attitudes.
 
jesse said:
Seriously guys.. Relax. Cirrus is coming out with new products that are getting us new pilots. They are marketing their products and none of it seems unreasonable. Don't read into something that isn't there. Cirrus is damn good about getting their new owners the proper training.
Click to expand...
I said the other day that Cirrus does have an excellent program. But, I'd like to know how many complete it along with how many continue to seek out proficiency. Those numbers are no more available than those to back up my claims of late which are based only on my observation.
 
wabower said:
But without the sermon, hell-fire and damnation.
Click to expand...
If folks didn't battle me on such an opinion, I wouldn't say so much.

Sometimes, someone needs the tar beat out of them lest their funeral be planned in lieu of.
 
n3089n said:
“The machine does not isolate man from the great problems of nature but plunges him more deeply into them.”

Shame on you Cirrus for this kind of advertising:
http://stevewilsonblog.com/2009/04/18/were-protected--now-lets-go-find-some-ice.aspxhttp://stevewilsonblog.com/2009/04/18/were-protected-–now-lets-go-find-some-ice.aspx
Click to expand...

And what's wrong with Cirrus advertising that they have a known-ice system? :dunno:

Or are you just jealous because Cessna doesn't make a known-ice single any more? :dunno:
 
Lance F said:
How is the Cirrus marketing dept touting its FAA certified FIKI airplane any worse than the countless flight schools telling potential customers they will teach them to fly in clouds by instructors that have ZERO time in IMC? Sorry Kenny, the weakness in aviation is training not the advertisements of successful companies.

Not trying to continue this war of words, but it's just advertising. I see nothing illegal, immoral or fattening in Cirrus' claims.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen and read about in many years of providing flight training, I'd qualify the "weakness in aviation" as much more the failure of pilots to continually impliment the perishable skills taught to them in training, rather than any big weakness in the training, even if only to minimum FAA standards.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
And what's wrong with Cirrus advertising that they have a known-ice system? :dunno:

Or are you just jealous because Cessna doesn't make a known-ice single any more? :dunno:
Click to expand...

I think it's because saying the plane has a known-ice system means * is telling pilots they can take off into ice they know is there, .....or something. :dunno:


(* = The FAA?)
 
n3089n said:
Thou shall not link to one's own blog? If that's a rule here, please advise.
Click to expand...
Not a rule, just in poor taste, the number of times you have done it this weekend alone


n3089n said:
I do, in fact, sell Cessnas. And, also being an aircraft mechanic and flight instructor for more than half my life, I care a lot about safety and my customers too. During 53 on-site accident investigations, 33 of which were fatal, all of which were Cessnas, I picked through airplane rubble trying to find fault that wasn't the pilot's. And let me tell you, when the father of a child approaches you at an accident site to ask why their dad and daugher were killed, it gets you thinking.

So yes, I do sell Cessna's and what's more I have particular interest in air safety.
Click to expand...
You do have a funny way of selling. It tends to turn off people. A sales rep is supposed to listen to their customer- you've been annoying them more than listening. I'd think twice (or more) before purchasing a plane from you.

You posted a response earlier about Cory Lidle and his CFI flying into a building in a NYC "box canyon" and implied this happened due to Cirrus' advertising.


n3089n said:
I never once said Cirrus is a bad plane. I do have heartburn over it being advertised and touted as the safest plane in the sky ESPECIALLY to new pilots, and its "safety record" and "ease of handling" often bragged about by new flight instructors, let alone Cirrus itself.

Who's doing the mud slinging on this forum? Instead of being so weirdly defensive, how about taking me up on the substance of an issue?
Click to expand...
If someone is a brand new 0-hour student- I can see them being taken by this advertisement. By the time they get done with their 40-80 hours, they will know the ad is mere puffery. The majority of POA members recognize the ad as such and perhaps smile when they see it.



n3089n said:
Okay, but landings and flight into icing conditions are no where near the same. Furthermore, this ad was more than 40 years ago. You don't see Cessna or any responsible company taking safety lightly these days.

-Steve
Click to expand...
I do at least one landing for every takeoff (sometimes two or three:P). I have never been in icing conditions. Landings are very important to me.

Let's talk about marketing and safety. Do you really believe the Sky Catcher can fly from Eastern Nebraska to Denver non-stop? This is designed as a trainer- as someone's first plane according to the Cessna web site
http://www.cessna.com/single-engine/skycatcher/skycatcher-overview.html

Yet the range map published by Cessna lets me believe I can fly to Denver from Lincoln without stopping (for fuel at least). It's gotta be right- Cessna said so.

I'm being sarcastic- I know about head winds, VFR fuel minimums, etc. But I did just that flight in a plane with a similar radius of operation- I still stopped for fuel 1/2 way- just to be safe.

If you want to sell me a plane, put your listings in the classified section. Don't beat on the competition- tell me why your product is better.
 

Attachments

  • Cessna range.jpg
    Cessna range.jpg
    231.6 KB · Views: 14
flyingcheesehead said:
And what's wrong with Cirrus advertising that they have a known-ice system? :dunno:

Or are you just jealous because Cessna doesn't make a known-ice single any more? :dunno:
Click to expand...

Yeah, advertising should be very up front and non-hype, like in the good ole days:

landomatic.jpg


Here's how it works: You use ridiculous ad claims to build up market share. Once that's achieved, you sit back and take potshots at the newcomers and their ridiculous claims.
 
Steve, you have to learn that dissing everyone else is not good business. I realize you might have a few glass panel 172s to turn over and business is tough, but you can't expect your "diss 'em all (others)" strategy to work.

Meanwhile, the guys who are building relationships are the few who are making the new aircraft sales. Think Alarus. Think Cirrus. Think Matrix. Think A36. You have two more to diss. Get busy.

Sigh.
 
Last edited:
I just want to point out that there's nothing in the Cirrus add that says "let's go play in ice". It's a FIKI airplane, and I'd give it the same respect (and fly it the same way) as any other FIKI piston single. That is to say - Respect the weather, fly with every intention of avoiding icing, and get the heck out the minute you get any. Hmm, that's the same way I'd fly a 182, now that I think about it.
 
TMetzinger said:
I just want to point out that there's nothing in the Cirrus add that says "let's go play in ice". It's a FIKI airplane, and I'd give it the same respect (and fly it the same way) as any other FIKI piston single. That is to say - Respect the weather, fly with every intention of avoiding icing, and get the heck out the minute you get any. Hmm, that's the same way I'd fly a 182, now that I think about it.
Click to expand...

The rather amusing thing about this is that the picture of the airplane sitting in snow means the likelihood of ice may be less than if it were raining.
 
dmccormack said:
Yeah, advertising should be very up front and non-hype, like in the good ole days
Click to expand...

You're not seriously dragging out a 50 year old ad and holding it up as an example by todays standards are you? This is from a time when soldiers were ordered to march toward ground-zero in Nevada, Johns-Manville was raining asbestos down around most of central Jersey and saying it was good for everyone, and kids were being encouraged openly to smoke cigarettes.

Cirrus just seems to have a habitual problem with how to balance marketing a safer product with encouragement to use it responsibly. Apparently, they're not aware of the information available on risk compensation as pertains to human behavior.
 
PittsDriver said:
You're not seriously dragging out a 50 year old ad and holding it up as an example by todays standards are you? This is from a time when soldiers were ordered to march toward ground-zero in Nevada, Johns-Manville was raining asbestos down around most of central Jersey and saying it was good for everyone, and kids were being encouraged openly to smoke cigarettes.

Cirrus just seems to have a habitual problem with how to balance marketing a safer product with encouragement to use it responsibly. Apparently, they're not aware of the information available on risk compensation as pertains to human behavior.
Click to expand...

I dragged out the ad to prove that hyperbole is nothing new, and that any consumer still needs to evaluate advertising claims in the cold light of reason.

The Advertised Cessna 172 could never be driven, and Cessna folks knew that even 50 years ago.

My father was at the Enewetak Atoll and a few other tests aboard ships, but he died before the whole recognition thing started.
 
And sometimes it's better to STFU and give it a rest. Quixote isn't remembered as much for his opinions as for being stupid enough to think he could win a sword-fight with a windmill.

The rest of the pilot world may never be trained-up to your personal standards, but nothing you're going to say on an internet forum is going to change that. Do the best you can with the students you have, try to encourage those you can and don't bear the weight of the world on your shoulders about the great unwashed who didn't hear the message or drink the koolade. If they crash it's not your fault and we aren't going to hold you responsible.

KennyFlys;436056]If folks didn't battle me on such an opinion, I wouldn't say so much.

Sometimes, someone needs the tar beat out of them lest their funeral be planned in lieu of.[/quote]
 
"Saigon......I'm still in Saigon........."
 
Please point out the place in the ad where it says that flying into ice is a good idea...or even ok.

They've expanded the capability of their aircraft. How would you propose that they market that capability?
 
FlyNE said:
Please point out the place in the ad where it says that flying into ice is a good idea...or even ok.

They've expanded the capability of their aircraft. How would you propose that they market that capability?
Click to expand...

The photograph shows the Cirrus poised for flight into inferred IMC conditions with snow and known ice. It's a blatant inference that with "KNOWN ICE PROTECTION", now you are able to takeoff into icing, where before you could not. That Cirrus advertises this “expanded capability”, as you put it, to takeoff into known ice means it's good.

If the ad positioned the aircraft in flight, where the pilot was able to safely navigate to improved options thereby ensuring the safe outcome of a flight, by all means, I'd have no problem with it.

Thanks for the comment on my blog too.

-Steve
 
n3089n said:
The photograph shows the Cirrus poised for flight into inferred IMC conditions with snow and known ice. It's a blatant inference that with "KNOWN ICE PROTECTION", now you are able to takeoff into icing, where before you could not. That Cirrus advertises this “expanded capability”, as you put it, to takeoff into known ice means it's good.

If the ad positioned the aircraft in flight, where the pilot was able to safely navigate to improved options thereby ensuring the safe outcome of a flight, by all means, I'd have no problem with it.

Thanks for the comment on my blog too.

-Steve
Click to expand...

It's not the fault of Cirrus that the FAA uses Flight Into Known Icing conditions in its description of the STC'ed capability.

I suppose if the FAA called it "Stuff that gives you time to rescue your sorry a%% after blundering into ice...." maybe the marketers would have to make another ad.

But -- seriously -- it's an ad. Who's running out and buying a FIKI bird and taking off into ice? How many NTSB's record, "Owner believed he was impervious to disaster due to FIKI advertisement..."?

(Cue Ben Stien) Anyone? Anyone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top