Let's take off into ice!

[Trapper John]

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

Meh, there's nothing blatant about it.

Piper used to have an ad showing a small piano in a Cherokee Six. I suppose you could look at that picture and say, "OMG, Piper wants you to fly over gross!"


Trapper John

 

[Cap'n Jack]

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

I've flown a C-152 in show storm (VFR visibility- but it was snowing). The mere presence of snow does not create icing- it is already ice so it can't accumulate on the airframe.

The mere presence of snow doesn't mean you are in icing conditions.

I note you didn't respond to the DANGEROUS inference Cessna makes with respect to the range of the Skycatcher.

I guess it's OK for Cessna to market the features of their product but not Cirrus?

 

[dmccormack]

Meh, there's nothing blatant about it.

Piper used to have an ad showing a small piano in a Cherokee Six. I suppose you could look at that picture and say, "OMG, Piper wants you to fly over gross!"


Trapper John

Pratt and Whitney engines provide awesome views from front row seats!!!

 

[n3089n]

I've flown a C-152 in show storm (VFR visibility- but it was snowing). The mere presence of snow does not create icing- it is already ice so it can't accumulate on the airframe.

The mere presence of snow doesn't mean you are in icing conditions.

I note you didn't respond to the DANGEROUS inference Cessna makes with respect to the range of the Skycatcher.

I guess it's OK for Cessna to market the features of their product but not Cirrus?

I believe all this discussion is worthwhile, and bragging claims by any manufacturer, including Cessna, should be cross-examined. I won't be arguing with you about it.

 

[Trapper John]

I believe all this discussion is worthwhile, and bragging claims by any manufacturer, including Cessna, should be cross-examined. I won't be arguing with you about it.

OK, if Cessna were to introduce a FIKI single, what kind of picture would you put in the ad, and what would the caption be?


Trapper John

 

[dmccormack]

OK, if Cessna were to introduce a FIKI single, what kind of picture would you put in the ad, and what would the caption be?


Trapper John

While others taxi, we soar.

Roads? Where you're going, you won't need "roads."

 

[n3089n]

OK, if Cessna were to introduce a FIKI single, what kind of picture would you put in the ad, and what would the caption be? Trapper John

Same as above,

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.

 

[SkyHog]

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

This shows that you know absolutely nothing about which you speak. Tell me, where's the known ice in the photo? I see snow. Snow means that there is usually not ice above.

Or are you going to try to argue that those are ice pellets, not snowflakes next?

 

[wabower]

Seems like you're the only one having problem with the ad anyway. Under the "gotta be smarter than what you're working with" section of the knowing your limitations as a pilot, this one seems pretty simple. If that ad causes you to tackle freezing rain in a Cirrus, you were a Darwin-list pilot anyway, so it doesn't matter which tool you use to obtain the inevitable result.

Say for a minute you worked for Cirrus. As you may have noticed (when your basher is in the shop for repairs) the company has grown to a position of prominence within the industry over the past decade and has developed a loyal following of owners. Evidently they have been able to achieve this industry position without any help from you and in spite of your efforts to subvert it. Many owners have elected to purchase the de-ice equipped but non-certified version of the 22, and have probably indicated some interest in a FIKI version of the airplane. These are the same owners who wanted a turbo, then an air-conditioned turbo, etc.

So you decide to offer a FIKI version, work your ass off to get it past the dogs at the FAA and finally get it certified.

Now your job is to create the ad that conveys the message. You going to take the picture on the beach?

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]

This shows that you know absolutely nothing about which you speak. Tell me, where's the known ice in the photo? I see snow. Snow means that there is usually not ice above.

Or are you going to try to argue that those are ice pellets, not snowflakes next?

Okay, then I guess I completely missed the point of the ad.

 

[dmccormack]

This shows that you know absolutely nothing about which you speak. Tell me, where's the known ice in the photo? I see snow. Snow means that there is usually not ice above.

Or are you going to try to argue that those are ice pellets, not snowflakes next?

Well, the ad's intent is to convey "Winter is no problem for you and your new Cirrus!"

Just like Ford's ads intend to convey "You'll have hot women giving you sultry looks as you drive your new Ford!"

 

[n3089n]

Seems like you're the only one having problem with the ad anyway. Under the "gotta be smarter than what you're working with" section of the knowing your limitations as a pilot, this one seems pretty simple. If that ad causes you to tackle freezing rain in a Cirrus, you were a Darwin-list pilot anyway, so it doesn't matter which tool you use to obtain the inevitable result.

Say for a minute you worked for Cirrus. As you may have noticed (when your basher is in the shop for repairs) the company has grown to a position of prominence within the industry over the past decade and has developed a loyal following of owners. Evidently they have been able to achieve this industry position without any help from you and in spite of your efforts to subvert it. Many owners have elected to purchase the de-ice equipped but non-certified version of the 22, and have probably indicated some interest in a FIKI version of the airplane. These are the same owners who wanted a turbo, then an air-conditioned turbo, etc.

So you decide to offer a FIKI version, work your ass off to get it past the dogs at the FAA and finally get it certified.

Now your job is to create the ad that conveys the message. You going to take the picture on the beach?

Good argument!

 

[n3089n]

Well, the ad's intent is to convey "Winter is no problem for you and your new Cirrus!"

Exactly, and it's exactly what I don't like about the ad. Very many of these planes are sold and target-marketed, through flight instructor referrals, to new pilots and first-time airplane owners.

"Winter is no problem for you and your new Cirrus!" This is not the message I believe should be emphasized.

 

[Trapper John]

If that ad causes you to tackle freezing rain in a Cirrus, you were a Darwin-list pilot anyway, so it doesn't matter which tool you use to obtain the inevitable result.

Thank you!!!


Trapper John

 

[jason]

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

Come on. Seriously. How do you convey that in a single picture?

The fact is that it's snowing out and the airplane is shut down...parked on the ground. I say that the ad is much closer to saying "well, it's icy out so let's stay here parked on the ground" than it is to saying "we're good to launch into freezing rain".

Edit: By the way "known ice" is the wording that the FAA uses. It's what they worked so hard to certify. They certainly have every right to use it in their advertising.

 

[TMetzinger]

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. -Steve

And from an enforcement standpoint, that's a valid message. From a safety standpoint, it's variably valid.

If Scott D were to say that there'd be a 3000 foot layer with light icing probable on my departure, I would go in a FIKI airplane where I wouldn't in a naked airplane.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I believe all this discussion is worthwhile, and bragging claims by any manufacturer, including Cessna, should be cross-examined. I won't be arguing with you about it.

So why only pick on Cirrus?

 

[PittsDriver]

Okay, then I guess I completely missed the point of the ad.

Dude, that's not the only thing you missed the point on. Your blog about accident statistics comparisons between Cessna and Cirrus was malarky. Listen, I'm there with you that Cirrus marketing does a poor job of balancing how they position the safety innovations of their product. But to say that Cessna skews their safety statistics and then go make up your own methodology (one that's been discredited by the Nall report for years) and say that you're 3x more likely to die in a Cirrus than a Cessna is malarky. The only comparison that makes sense is one in which the aircraft are used in a similar manner by pilots with similar qualifications. Including all the training fleet data on the Cessna side vs. all the hard utility travel on the Cirrus side is just "making numbers lie."

And that stuff you have about comparing how Cessnas come down in a 800fpm descent than while Cirrus's drift down under a parachute at 1600fpm? Apparently your view of why airplanes come down in emergencies is a pretty narrow and unrealistic set of scenarios. What about ice, disorientation, catastrophic engine failure that leaves you with no forward visibility? You fail to account for the forward momentum of the Cessna (60+ kts?) vs. no significant forward momentum of the Cirrus. Have you ever hit anything substantial at 60kts?

I don't know you or what your motives are but if you're at all interested in the reputation of Cessnas, I'd stick to talking about what's great about them instead of bashing the competition. The Cessna 350/400 aircraft are far superior to the SR22 and there's a great deal of good stuff to talk about there. And who knows, you might end up working for the guys you bashed and then what's your credibility? Marketing "fear of the other guys" is usually not a good strategy in any case.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

<SNIP>
I don't know you or what your motives are but if you're at all interested in the reputation of Cessnas, I'd stick to talking about what's great about them instead of bashing the competition. The Cessna 350/400 aircraft are far superior to the SR22 and there's a great deal of good stuff to talk about there. And who knows, you might end up working for the guys you bashed and then what's your credibility? Marketing "fear of the other guys" is usually not a good strategy in any case.

Whole heartedly agree. There are many fewer manufacturers of aircraft than lab equipment (my industry). Old co-workers are with the competition. People working for the competitors come work for us. It's pretty easy to get a bad rep in such a small market space.

Are the Cessna 350/400 any better? I don't know. PittsDriver thinks so and his opinion means something to me. Cessna never brought one to my airport and offered me a ride the way the Cirrus people did. This is at a Cessna Flight Center too! Relationships are a much better way to sell aircraft.

If you wanted to sell me a plane, a better way would have been to join POA, say "Hello and BTW- I'm the Cessna Rep for XXX territory (or however Cessna sets up their distribution). Please feel to contact me about your Cessna questions".

As the local POA Cessna expert you would become respected and have a better chance of selling to me.

Examples-
If Dr. Chien were nearby he'd be my AME in 2 seconds (or less)
If I need computer help- I'd pay Jesse for his time.
There's a couple of mechanics on the Red board I'd take my plane to, if I only had a plane.

 

[n3089n]

Dude, that's not the only thing you missed the point on.

I wasn't serious.

Listen, I'm there with you that Cirrus marketing does a poor job of balancing how they position the safety innovations of their product.

Yes and, it's clever, and apparently well received reading this thread.

But to say that Cessna skews their safety statistics and then go make up your own methodology (one that's been discredited by the Nall report for years) and say that you're 3x more likely to die in a Cirrus than a Cessna is malarky. The only comparison that makes sense is one in which the aircraft are used in a similar manner by pilots with similar qualifications. Including all the training fleet data on the Cessna side vs. all the hard utility travel on the Cirrus side is just "making numbers lie."

You mean Cirrus. I did NOT say anything about chance. I did not say three times more likely or anything about the future. I said, "Cirrus occupants were killed three times more frequently than those in Cessna planes..." I showed the facts that three times the number of people were (past tense) killed in the Cirrus in the same number of hours flown as Cessna. This is straightforward.

The only comparison that makes sense is one in which the aircraft are used in a similar manner by pilots with similar qualifications. Including all the training fleet data on the Cessna side vs. all the hard utility travel on the Cirrus side is just "making numbers lie."

This is precisely why I did not include minor accidents and the older fleet of Cessnas. Btw, Cirrus does because it improves their story. And, with well over 10 million hours flown over ten years, the averages are reliable.

And that stuff you have about comparing how Cessnas come down in a 800fpm descent than while Cirrus's drift down under a parachute at 1600fpm? Apparently your view of why airplanes come down in emergencies is a pretty narrow and unrealistic set of scenarios. What about ice, disorientation, catastrophic engine failure that leaves you with no forward visibility? You fail to account for the forward momentum of the Cessna (60+ kts?) vs. no significant forward momentum of the Cirrus. Have you ever hit anything substantial at 60kts?

Since when does a gliding Cessna at touchdown strike the ground at a perpendicular angle? By the way, stall speed of the Cessna at gross weight is less then 50 knots. Forward speed becomes a problem if the pilot is unable to avoid hitting a vertical object.

I don't know you or what your motives are

Right. It's the candid analysis and discussion of safety. btw, My blog is personal without phone number or email.

but if you're at all interested in the reputation of Cessnas, I'd stick to talking about what's great about them instead of bashing the competition.

I'm sorry you and others feel that way. Never mind the countless slow Cessna and pop can remarks. But, if I'm bashing something, it's the manner of marketing. Not the plane. And certainly nothing personal.

The Cessna 350/400 aircraft are far superior to the SR22 and there's a great deal of good stuff to talk about there. And who knows, you might end up working for the guys you bashed and then what's your credibility?

I honestly don't expect this to be a problem.

 

[n3089n]

If you wanted to sell me a plane, a better way would have been to join POA, say "Hello and BTW- I'm the Cessna Rep for XXX territory (or however Cessna sets up their distribution). Please feel to contact me about your Cessna questions".

I am not here asking for anyone's business. btw, it was a POA member that first referred to my blog this weekend. I joined POA to enter the discussion since I became the subject of it. Then, I posted this and another or two threads that seem to me to have been pretty worthwhile discussions.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I am not here asking for anyone's business. btw, it was a POA member that first referred to my blog this weekend. I joined POA to enter the discussion since I became the subject of it. Then, I posted this and another or two threads that seem to me to have been pretty worthwhile discussions.

Congratulations- you won't get business from me at least.

A person would have to be a pretty lousy pilot to fall simply fly a Cirrus into ice based on that ad- s/he'd likely kill themselves another way first.

 

[n3089n]

Congratulations- you won't get business from me at least.

A person would have to be a pretty lousy pilot to fall simply fly a Cirrus into ice based on that ad- s/he'd likely kill themselves another way first.

Based on that single ad, I agree with you. And, I think you said it well here:

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.

 

[JeffDG]

Congratulations- you won't get business from me at least.

A person would have to be a pretty lousy pilot to fall simply fly a Cirrus into ice based on that ad- s/he'd likely kill themselves another way first.

Kinda like if they were to advertise a C-172 as "IFR Certified" and then someone claiming that your brand-new PP-ASEL flew it into clouds because of the ad.

In the middle of the book work for the IR now, and even at this point, I know damn well enough to avoid ice, regardless of whether the plane is FIKI certified or not. That said, if ice is encountered inadvertently, I'd be pretty glad if I had the equipment to deal with it. Just like I'm happy to have gyro instruments when flying VFR.

 

[steingar]

I would hope that anyone purchasing a new Cirrus would have sufficient training to know that taking off into known icing in a piston single is foolish at best. Thus the advertising may be foolish, since we should all know better. Certainly nothing to get your panties in a wad over.

 

[PittsDriver]

You mean Cirrus. I did NOT say anything about chance. I did not say three times more likely or anything about the future. I said, "Cirrus occupants were killed three times more frequently than those in Cessna planes..." I showed the facts that three times the number of people were (past tense) killed in the Cirrus in the same number of hours flown as Cessna. This is straightforward.

And if I include all the hours 3 year olds ride big wheels up and down driveways all over the country with the universe of bike accidents you'll see that Schwinns are down right lethal. The last time I checked the Nall report, serious traveling aircraft have a higher fatality rate, period. Regardless of who makes them. If you include all the aircraft that Cessna makes that come with training wheels that fly 90% of their flights in the pattern with a CFI onboard, you're going to get the same result as the big wheel comparison. What's the accident record of C210s? What's that? The worst in the industry? Now how in the world did that happen? Who died in one? Scott Crossfield? That Scott Crossfield!?! Jeez, who'd want to own an aircraft made by the company that killed him? That's of course a ridiculous statement but no worse than many you make on your web site.

Since when does a gliding Cessna at touchdown strike the ground at a perpendicular angle? By the way, stall speed of the Cessna at gross weight is less then 50 knots. Forward speed becomes a problem if the pilot is unable to avoid hitting a vertical object.

The vertical speed isn't a problem in either case - both are very survivable returns to earth if all you're looking at is vertical speed. But you just forgot to mention that sometimes airplanes in emergencies have to return to earth where there are trees and buildings and all other manner of inconvenient obstacles. Sometimes they even return to earth without a functioning pilot onboard. Were you at least snickering to yourself when you wrote about how an unskilled passenger has a better chance of landing a Cessna than popping the 'chute on a Cirrus?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm sorry you and others feel that way. Never mind the countless slow Cessna and pop can remarks. But, if I'm bashing something, it's the manner of marketing. Not the plane.

Not sure who you think is saying that stuff, but it ain't the Cirrus people. If you mention another airplane to them, they'll say "That's a great airplane, but here's why ours is better."

Fer chrissakes, Alan Klapmeier owned a C182 (and not any Cirrus) until... Well, not very long ago. 2006 IIRC. The Board of Directors didn't like that - One of them once said, "But what if you get killed in a Cessna? That's going to look REALLY bad!" To which he replied, "Would it look any better if I got killed in a Cirrus?"

So, seriously, get over the inferiority complex, and sell YOUR planes.

 

[PittsDriver]

Someone who makes up their own methodology for an aircraft safety opinion should immediately set off the reader's BS detector. ASF and the Nall Report, the NTSB, Richard Collins, John and Martha King, et. al. and about 100 years of research into why aircraft mishaps occur have left us with a pretty good basis for determining risk. Why invent your own? Every middle schooler can explain to you how statistics can be made to look like anything you want if you fudge enough and the real test is in defending your rationale. Your objective is obvious - sowing fear vs. enlightenment.

A BRS is a safety feature. The blue button is another safety feature. Airbag seat belts, TKS, TCAD, Terrain are all safety features. There's no point in asserting that these make the aircraft less safe. There is however, an emerging body of research from the field of human psychology about the topic of risk compensation. This is the natural tendency toward a personal, acceptable level of risk in some activity. The assertion is that people will do riskier things than they used to if some added margin of safety is available to them. The case studied has to do with improvements in sport parachute rip cord reliability. When improvements were introduced, people just started opening lower because they perceived that a lower opening offered them similar risk/excitement to jumps with older technology. I think this tendency plays out in aviation every day and those that market safety features in aircraft should be aware of it and act responsibly.

In any case, that's a discussion of pilot behavior - not product safety.

 

[SkyHog]

I can't believe people are still feeding this guy. The sooner we all just see him for what he is and stop responding, the sooner he'll go back to his blog and falling plane sales.

 

[wabower]

I've been begging for thread ignore (like the other boards have) for six months. Evidently they don't think it's important here.

I can't believe people are still feeding this guy. The sooner we all just see him for what he is and stop responding, the sooner he'll go back to his blog and falling plane sales.

 

[jason]

There is an automatic thread ignore option already built in to the board. It must be manually deactivated every time a thread is viewed. The deactivator is currently sitting squarely atop of your mouse.

 

[bbchien]

In any case, that's a discussion of pilot behavior - not product safety.

This post, distilled into one sentence: If you build a wider tractor, the farmer merely takes it further up the hill......