Jaap,
The article in question is copyrighted material, so it can’t be posted in any section of the Forum without the consent of the publisher. Having read the article, I can tell you that it doesn’t contain anything about Cirrus that hasn’t been discussed extensively on the Forum. But if you’re keen to read the article, you could do worse than to subscribe to http://www.aviationconsumer.com/Aviation Consumer (an excellent publication), which gives you on-line access to the article in question as well as an extensive collection of past articles.
Cheers,
Roger
PS: We also waited a couple of years for our SR20, and I can assure you it was well worth the wait!
Since it was the repost that set me off, I apologize to Wynn.
Not that I expect this to make any difference, but: the only additional information between your first testy post and your subsequent apology is the name of the person who made the suggestion for Casey Jones’s repost – me – and not the fact that he was acting on someone else’s suggestion. The very first line of his post said:
In reply to:
This is a re-post of a post I made in the members forum. It was requested that I post this here so that non-members could see the depths that some Spam-can sellers can/will/are going to.
Roger: Aviation Consumer and Paul B. have been very up front with COPA. If I recall correctly, we have requested and received permission to post their articles in the past with the limitation that we not do so until the next issue hits the street. (I am not recommending that anyone post the Av. Consumer article without permission. It is inappropriate and against the COPA Forum policy.) However, if anyone wants to go to the trouble, Paul is both accessible and reasonable.
They have often spoken with us prior to publishing an article and aired their opinions with us. We have often agreed to disagree on issues or conclusions. On several occasions, we have referred them to others who have more expertise or facts than we did, including Cirrus Design. To Paul’s credit, he has always spoken with those people/organizations. While I am certainly no expert on journalistic ethics, they seem to go above and beyond in trying to investigate and publish a balanced piece (Jim or Rick?) When they requested a list of owners meeting certain requirements, we searched our database and randomly picked owners who both met their requirements and had agreed to have their names given to third parties.
While we don’t endorse the publication (or any other), they have treated us very fairly.
the only additional information between your first testy post and your subsequent apology is the name of the person who made the suggestion for Casey Jones’s repost
Without a name it becomes one of those “they say” and I can’t hold “them” responsible. With a name, especially yours since you did write the Cirrus book (Free Flight, which I read) and you do write for the Atlantic Monthly, I have someone accountable.
Since you want to keep the discussion going, why is the Cessna ad any worse than the Cirrus one? Cirrus advertises the safety of a plane with a parachute even though under actual conditions it has never been successfully deployed and has failed at least once. Even the Cirrus demonstration meant to restore faith in the system only worked once out of 3 initial attempts. It sees to me that the only way for Cessna to fight what it considers a misleading ad is to point out the errors in the ad, which by your definition is a negative campaign and a bad thing. FTC campaigns against scams are negative. Anti smoking campaigns are negative. Negative can be as effective and as ethical as positive.
In reply to: (RE CAPS in your post)
“…and has failed at least once…”
This stmt has not been proven true at this point, especially the failure mode you are trying to imply (that the system did not work ONCE ACTIVATED). I suggest you wait for the NTSB final report. You may be surprised at the conclusions…
A word to the wise: It’s quite unlikely that making sexist comments will help persuade others of the merits of your position. This is, after all, the twenty-first century.
Anything that involves spam is dropping a few levels to me. I also don’t think copyright infringement is too cool. Oh, and while this weenie is at it… name calling is right down there as well!
Are you saying that the pilots didn’t try to activate the chute even though they reported to ATC while still in the air that they did activate it. According to the preliminary report witnesses reported the chute didn’t deploy until the plane contacted the ground. And the pilots still say they tried to activate the chute but it didn’t deploy in the air. Yes I would be very suprised at any conclusion which says the chute did not fail.
How’s it going with your efforts to sell your Cirrus share? Everything you post indicates that you’d be very much happier without it. And if you’re happy, we’re happy.
You guys give Art a break. I too do not see anything wrong with the Cessna marketing efforts. I own 3 new car dealerships and can promise that is very common among auto manufacturers. We can actually get the names of current Ford or Chrysler order holders and solicit them to buy our product. Also, the product bashing is constant in the auto industry. I am part of the “Cirrus Church” and have been for 4 years but I agree that the “sensitivity level” is too high among members. Enjoy your posts Art.
Walt
How’s it going with your efforts to sell your Cirrus share?
I offered my half to Marty but he wasn’t interested. Right now with the CAPS and trim SBs still not done a new alternator installation pending and the autopilot back at STEC (it has been 9 months and I have yet to have a fully functional autopilot). I view my chances of selling at the moment fairly slim. The plane looks but when I list all of the problems with the plane people rapidly lose interest.
He has a lot of problems with a brand new plane. Something not very common with cars. And the worst thing is; if he bought a - Cessna - Commander - Lancair or other he might have had (part of) the same problems !
I even heard lots of rumours the 1970-1980 Cessna were much better than they are now !
Cheer Art up, A flightschool at Glendale AZ had a brand new 182, that had flown only 10 hours in 1 year !. The complete wing had to be replaced.
I would be grounded on Prozac ®, but Art is still (sometimes) in the flying bussiness…
So right, give the guy a brake and maybe horror stories of other brands can cheer him up (just a little).
Walt, Aviation Consumer editor Paul Bertorelli has a different opinion about the “common knowledge” status of copyrighted materials in his magazine (click hereclick here). It was to this publication that my question alluded.
Is it your argument that it is somehow immoral to sell a Cessna because it’s not a Cirrus?
Hardly! Many people have owned Cessnas and gone on to become useful and productive members of society.[:)]
But seriously… no one has proposed that Cessna’s approach is immoral. It’s just a bit sad when such a fine company with such a distinguished history of technological innovation feels that they must take that route.
It’s just a bit sad when such a fine company with such a distinguished history of technological innovation feels that they must take that route.
Roger,
While I agree that this “marketing” message falls somewhere between shoddy and chicanerous, I’d be slow to pin the blame directly on Cessna. While I don’t know much about their distributor structure, this smells more like the singular effort of a rogue dealer rather than a corporate campaign.
I just noticed that the “Cessna Spam” you posted was an offer to dump your current contract position with Cirrus. Ahem…yea…I would agree that is rather predatory marketing, though I still stand by my comments in other post.