I have read with interest your column, ON TOP, “What’s going on with the Cirrus?” in the June 2003 issue of the Flying magazine. As an owner of both a Cirrus SR20 and a Skylane 182S, I must disagree with your conclusions.
According to the Blue Book, a total of 941 Cessna 182S aircrafts were produced. Cessna claims the number to be 944. The 182S, regarded by many as one of the safest aircraft, was involved in 8 fatal accidents.
Cirrus has delivered 846 Cirri, consisting of 324 SR20 and 522 SR22. Cirrus was involved in 7 fatal accidents.
As you can see, the ratio of fatal accidents to the number of aircrafts produced is almost identical.
The same as you, I am wondering why such a tried true model as the 182S should, all of the sudden, have such a high rate of fatal accident. It is my feeling that these aircrafts are being delivered to customers, without adequate training, especially in regards to autopilots and the GPS systems.
I see that Cirrus has taken positive steps to remedy situation by requiring mandatory instructions and check-outs. Aircraft accidents are regrettable, and it is only by training and more training can accidents be avoided. When an aircraft is equipped with new equipments, training is required. I trust that Cessna will follow suit and mandate training.
Speaking of Cessna accidents: 5 fatalities as 2 cessnas collide
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-cplane18xjun18,0,7568004.story?coll=sfla-news-broward
Simon,
An excellent response to the increasingly curmudgeonly Richard Collins! Here’s hoping that Flying prints your letter.
Cheers,
Roger
Student pilot carrying two passengers?
In reply to:
An excellent response to the increasingly curmudgeonly Richard Collins!
Agreed! The best description I’ve heard for what Flying magazine has become is…
Grumpy old men writing about creaky old airplanes!
I respect what Richard Collins has done for aviation safety, but his “Mr. Cessna” act gets tiring, and his journalistic integrity is questionable at best.
I agree with all of this – and here is an interesting market signal. I deliberately did not review my Flying sub, for reasons similar to those related here. Yesterday in the mail I got a “professional courtesy” renewal offer, at something like 90 per cent off list price. This is what people in the magazine business call “buying circ.” It’s structurally similar to Publisher’s Clearing House, charity door-to-door sales, and similar offers, in that the magazines are literally paying agents to get them subscribers, rather than earning money on the subscription. Nearly all the time it’s a sign that the magazine is worried about meeting its “rate base” – that is, it doesn’t have as many real subscribers as it guaranteed to its advertisers, so it is packing the house.
For any libel lawyers looking on, it is conceivable that this is not Flying’s situation – maybe they were just extending me a professional courtesy! But assuming it indicates circ problems, it’s a good news/bad news situation. Bad news is general softening of market for any GA product. Good news is market reaction against what’s become a one-note product. (I do enjoy Lane Wallace as a writer, though. She almost makes up for those luxury-car reviews by the editor. But not quite – I didn’t renew, even at 90% off.)
Speaking of Collins… A few months ago I bought his video tape on VFR communications and was appalled at his sloppy folksy approach and the fact that he advocates his “conversational” method to others. I don’t think I heard a single “Over” in the whole thing.
Joe
In reply to:
I do enjoy Lane Wallace as a writer, though. She almost makes up for those luxury-car reviews by the editor.
Personally, I subscribe almost solely for Peter Garrison’s articles (Tehnicalities and Aftermath). I learn something almost every single month. At first Lane Wallace seemed to fill Gordon Baxter’s role of sentimental airplane lover, but after a few, I found her columns to be pretty predictable.
Steve
Steve, good point. I enjoy those Garrison columns too. I know and like Lane, which affects my view of her writing. Jim
I did not renew my subscription for the very reasons mentioned above. I felt that my time was better invested in making sure I read the other aviation periodicals I subscribe to (AOPA, IFR and Aviation Safety) as well as the very informative threads on the COPA forums.
If there is a "must read’ article in Flying I figure I can go to B&N and buy the single issue.
Jim
The columns of both Lane and Garrison are “predictably good”… enough for me to renew despite the two “oldsters” that habitually irritate me at the beginning of the magazine. So I start reading from the back!
In reply to:
I don’t think I heard a single “Over” in the whole thing.
You use “Over”??
- Mike.
In reply to:
You use “Over”??
Not as much as I should.
In reply to:
Not as much as I should.
Interesting! I believe that it is generally overused. In almost all ATC comms, it’s perfectly clear when the sentence ends, so saying “Over” violates the principals of “Short and Sweet” bandwidth-preservation that I value on the radio.
Personally, I almost never use “Over” except when I’m talking to Flight Watch (especially when listening over a VOR, or when they report that they’re having trouble hearing me), when it seems to be appropriate.
Just MHO…
- Mike.
In reply to:
Personally, I almost never use “Over” except when I’m talking to Flight Watch (especially when listening over a VOR, or when they report that they’re having trouble hearing me), when it seems to be appropriate.
I guess 4000 hours of military flying, a lot of it on talking on HF, has given me some bad habits.
I agree that dropping an “Over” now and then is a venial sin, at best, but Collins’ yeps, okays, etc., in reply to clearances, often without even identifying himself, are sloppy and eliminate the extra margin of safety a readback gives you. (I know, I know, controllers aren’t responsible for correcting bad readbacks, but they will if they notice.)
Joe
In reply to:
Collins’ yeps, okays, etc., in reply to clearances, often without even identifying himself, are sloppy and eliminate the extra margin of safety a readback gives you.
Joe,
I agree completely. I haven’t heard the VFR tapes you mentioned, but I do believe that the structured, proven words we’ve been trained to use work well. I reserve “relaxed chat” for controllers who are VERY “not busy” - usually far from home (the east coast) or late at night; or, on rare occasions, when they start first.
There are a few conventional phrases I don’t use - I’ve changed them, having heard or experienced confusion as a result of their use. For example, a common response to, “One Sierra Papa, descend and maintain five thousand” is “One Sierra Papa leaving seven thousand for five thousand”.
The word “for” can be heard as “four” – doesn’t make sense in this example, but I’ve heard that lead to confusion. I didn’t like “leaving seven descending to five thousand” because it’s longer, and “to” and “two” are still heard the same way. So now I say “leaving seven to maintain five thousand”. Haven’t heard any complaints, and it’s unambiguous. On the other hand, I haven’t heard anyone else use that, either.
I guess one of the things I love about instrument flying is that there’s no shortage of detail to think about - suits my personality very nicely! [;)]
- Mike.
In reply to:
I didn’t like “leaving seven descending to five thousand” because it’s longer, and “to” and “two” are still heard the same way. So now I say “leaving seven to maintain five thousand”.
Mike,
Yet another datapoint: I try to use “Leaving seven [thousand] descending five thousand”; it avoids the “to” that you had in your example.
Steve
In reply to:
One Sierra Papa
Mike,
Reminds me of a flight (with flight following) from CT to GA, where you could hear the differences in tone/attitude as I travelled south.
Nearing the Atlanta GA area, I heard one controller saying
“Okay one suga pop, descend and…”
Wouldn’t hear that in the Northeast.
Walt
In reply to:
The word “for” can be heard as “four”
Or the time I confirmed my assigned transponder, 4444.
“four, four, four, four, for four Alpha Zulu” [:)]
Walt
In reply to:
There are a few conventional phrases I don’t use - I’ve changed them, having heard or experienced confusion as a result of their use. For example, a common response to, “One Sierra Papa, descend and maintain five thousand” is “One Sierra Papa leaving seven thousand for five thousand”.
The word “for” can be heard as “four” – doesn’t make sense in this example, but I’ve heard that lead to confusion. I didn’t like “leaving seven descending to five thousand” because it’s longer, and “to” and “two” are still heard the same way. So now I say “leaving seven to maintain five thousand”.
You can actually shorten even that considerably, because you no longer have to report leaving your previous altitude, as long as you’re in radar contact with a previously-verified Mode C.
In response to “Cirrus Two Papa Lima, descend and maintain five thousand” I simply respond “Five thousand, Two Papa Lima.”
That’s all that’s required, and you’ll note this is the way the pros do it these days. Try it - you’ll like it! And so will the controller.