Here is a question and suggestion: Does Cirrus provide CAPs simulation with new ownership familiarization? If not, I would suggest new owners be provided with “actual” CAPs simulator training for that hope-it-never-happens possibility.
Any thoughts from actual owners along this line?
I would hope if Cirrus thinks it is a good enough idea to have a simulator at Sun 'n Fun and CPPP they would certainly think it is imperative to have one for initial factory transition training.
[blue]Hey Art, If you sell your plane will you stop posting? [/blue]
No, but he will change his log-on name to “Joe Mazza.” 
Come on guys!!! Duh! Follow the yellow brick road! Are you all so cynical that EVERYTHING has to be spelled out? Come on guys, please think a little.
(No disrespect intended to anyone, just frustration.)
Yes, That was one of the main reasons they built it. However, the opportunity to bring it to SNF and CPPP so numerous pilots who have not had the benefit of using it in transition training is too good to pass up.
In reply to:
However, the opportunity to bring it to SNF and CPPP so numerous pilots who have not had the benefit of using it in transition training is too good to pass up.
Add to this the fact that this was unsolicited and you have a lesson to all manufacturers about the value of ethics in business. I predict that Cirrus will actually gain market share because of this CAPS problem, because long after the problem is solved the way they handled the problem will remain as an incentive to buy Cirrus products.
Come on guys!!! Duh! Follow the yellow brick road! Are you all so cynical that EVERYTHING has to be spelled out? Come on guys, please think a little.
No disrespect intended to anyone, just frustration.)
Yes, That was one of the main reasons they built it. However, the opportunity to bring it to SNF and CPPP so numerous pilots who have not had the benefit of using it in transition training is too good to pass up.
I would ask why. Since Cirrus now knows that they have a basic flaw in the parachute deployment system, I would assume they will stop delivering planes until it is fixed (especially since they are not spin resistant and the only certified recovery is the parachute). The people who need this training are the 300+ owners of existing planes that have defective parachutes.
That is precisely what I was implying in my response but could not state since I had no basis to make such a statement. Sorry if that was not obvious. Cirrus would not build a simulator to serve the aftermarket and not use it proactively with new owners. Plaintiffs’ lawyers would be licking their collective chops.
Absolutely concur. First class so far, by all accounts.
In reply to:
Add to this the fact that [the simulator] was unsolicited…
Please allow me to correct the moron who posted this. Hey - wait. That was me! [:$]
In fact, COPA did suggest the idea of a simulator to Cirrus. And I’m sure Cirrus saw the idea discussed here on the forum. So credit should go to COPA and our members for the idea and to Cirrus for immediately implementing it.
PHUUUULEEEZZZ! The fixed the thing, and of course they built the simulator to use it. What do you think they are just going to let it sit around and gather dust? Geez. Mike
Art, come on! Actually, the test on the new plane was flawless - so why should Cirrus stop delivering new airplanes?
What they should do, and according to Mike, ARE doing, is looking into the reason for the failure of the older plane and designing a fix that will for sure work. Seems pretty responsible to me.
Now Art, I respect everyone who posts their opinions and personally like the spice it provides. On most issues I feel that if we can get people to think about the issues, they well be better, more prepared pilots. On other issues, it is just entertaining.
I’ll tee one up for you: What is your beef? If you dislike your plane so much, why don’t you just sell it? If the chance that the CAPS may fail is the issue, then your choice is to give up flying, because you won’t find another plane with it. (Yes there are theoretically 152s and 172s, but since the 'chute is made by BRS, I’m sure that you won’t trust them either.)
I am not an apologizer nor do I have any affiliation with CDC, but I do recognize that they are acting very responsibly. I love my plane and I know it is safer than my 172, with or without the chute. If I was worried, I’d keep it on the ground and wait for a fix, the fix I know CDC to be working on. Why don’t we give them a reasonable amount of time to investigate, engineer, test and then announce the fix before any more merciless attacks?
Art, I’ll go one further, I will offer to buy your airplane for the Cirrus list price you paid less $35 an hour for usage and any damage or unusual wear and tear. You have 24 hours.
Marty
ROFLMAO
Art, I’ll go one further, I will offer to buy your airplane for the Cirrus list price you paid less $35 an hour for usage and any damage or unusual wear and tear. You have 24 hours.
I just sent your offer to my partner. If he agrees the plane is yours. It cost $240,500 and has less than 70 hours.
Sorry! My bad.
Art,
Are you going to sell your COPA membership to Marty too?
Mark
I’d think that given your ability to see the negatives in the plane, convincing your partner to sell should be a slam-dunk!
Hey Art, If you sell your plane will you stop posting?
Lets hope so!
I’d think that given your ability to see the negatives in the plane, convincing your partner to sell should be a slam-dunk!
I think he is already convinced, I just don’t know if he is ready to move this quickly. (He spends the winter in Florida and after waiting 2 years for the plane he only flew it during training and from DLH to GAI.)
Hey Art, If you sell your plane will you stop posting?
I promise.