Is there any argument that could change your mind?
Not sure who that is addressed to, but if it is me, I don’t have my mind made up about any of this. This is just a discussion on a GA forum…
It is unfortunate that any criticism of anything happening in a Cirrus is labelled as “Cirrus bashing” by Cirrus pilots. This observation has been made countless times over the years.
I never heard about problems regarding insurance and Cirrus in europe.
One data point posted further back.
I also know from talking to insurers that certain individuals are refused insurance; it tends to require a couple of prangs. One guy I knew personally had two forced landings, over some years, and could not get insurance (he retired from flying anyway AFAIK).
It is certain that a single chute pull, or a single forced landing, will leave you insurable, though possibly on modified terms. It is equally likely that a few incidents will make you uninsurable on any acceptable terms.
The situation is probably different in the US, where some insurer(s) have openly stated that they will not modify terms following a chute pull. That makes sense (after one incident, not multiple ones) because for sure they saved a lot of money on payouts for potential passenger deaths or injuries. AFAIK no European insurer has stated such a position, and it would not be usual for them to do that. Also insurers vary a lot around Europe.
suffice to say that when I flew twins there was a similar trope amongst single engine pilots who would delight in explaining how “the second engine is only good for carrying you to the scene of an accident.”
Yes; that one still goes on, but again one can have a debate around it, and we’ve had plenty of them here. A pilot with a poor currency is probably less likely to die in a SEP.
This is fair enough, and thankfully it doesn’t get labelled as “twin pilot bashing” and it might be interesting to ask exactly why. I think it is because the two communities are different. MEP owners enjoy their planes and the greater safety, with the smarter ones being aware of the need for currency.
Cirrus owners enjoy the additional escape route their chute gives them, the better family acceptance, etc, but somehow their community has become sensitised to any criticism. My guess would be that this sensitisation is the work of elements within their behind-paywall forum, COPA. I’ve seen some stuff that goes on in the public part of it and the behaviour of the mods was atrocious. I also think that the preacher-style delivery of “pull early, pull often” was done in a way which easily attracted ridicule from the wider GA community. They are going to have to live with that. If you over-simplify any message for ease of absorption, you run the risk of people picking holes in it.
Anybody who has worked in a large company has been exposed to people who continually try to promote their own relevance, whether or not it exists in any given situation. In my experience these individuals often apply simple mantras (often ‘important transformational technology’) to a wide variety of issues. After a while it gets on people’s nerves, especially when they have seen this tendency before and now find it boring 
Peter you are right that Cirrus owners have been overly sensitive in the past. Non-cirrus owners have also been overly critical.
BTW, all owner associations charge a fee and restrict access to their forums. Isn’t calling paywall all the time getting a bit old? Cirrus actually has a basic publicly available forum that you use right? Your experience wasn’t good there but that doesn’t condemn the entire forum or association right?
Insurers are actually the same he world over. There is no big difference between US and Europe as the underwriters are the same. If risks increased after a chute pull, any insurer would increase prices.
Not sure who that is addressed to, but if it is me, I don’t have my mind made up about any of this. This is just a discussion on a GA forum…
I meant regarding AF447, „muppets“ etc…
It’s ok!
I still never understand the obsession with some people and Cirrus pilots. It is just a plane, and a very successful one. In my experience, their pilots are no worse, or better, than the general owner pilot population. In general, owner pilots are not great and this is reflected in the accident stats. Airline ops are much safer and going on about AF {447} is just taking a single complex example and overplaying it.
Thank you, you wrote with much fewer words much better what I was trying to say.
Peter wrote:
My guess would be that this sensitisation is the work of elements within their behind-paywall forum, COPA.
That sounds rather like a conspiracy theory.
The paid site is a deep dive into Cirrus specific topics, relevant to ownership and operation, it’s hardly the DaVinci code….
The open areas of the site are more relevant to the non owner, and give you a flavour of the extent of the research and safety culture.
This for example.
Peter wrote:
Cirrus owners enjoy the additional escape route their chute gives them, the better family acceptance, etc, but somehow their community has become sensitised to any criticism. My guess would be that this sensitisation is the work of elements within their behind-paywall forum, COPA.
I don’t think there is any room for conspiration theory here. What happens can be well explained purely by looking at economic interests:
Every memebr of the “Cirrus-Ecosystem” has made a substantial Investment. Owners are paying high prices for their planes (which are excellent ones but this excellence Comes at a high Price premium over types with similar Performance). Flight schools and maintenance shops are paying training courses and royalty fees. All These Investments only make sense if the prices for used planes are kept high and the “Cirrus myth” is kept alive so that customers are willing to pay premium prices for this product.
COPA is not a pro bono club but the advocacy organisation for this ecosystem. Of course, part of what COPA does is also helping to keep Cirrus pilots alive – would be bad for the value of the Investment if too many of them crash and die – but noone should expect any neutral assessment of cons or any neutral statement of safety from them. W/o any conspiracy: It’s just not their role!
Good old fanboys in other words 
LeSving wrote:
Good old fanboys in other words
I am yet to see a type-association forum that isn’t. People own a TBM, PA46, Bonanza or Cirrus. They gather in one place. Obviously it tends to be supportive of the type. They are also typically the best place to access online experience to help with problems. Cirrus is not unique in this at all.
Absolutely: As soon as you have bought a TBM, PA46, Bonanza, etc. it is also in your best and only economic interest to let it shine as bright as possible because every negative news is a hit on your resale value. (ok, big exception is of course the PA46 because the Malibu simply is the best SEP ever built and therefore writing something bad about it would be outright wrong ;-)))
The only difference with Cirrus is, that this fact becomes very visible as the Cirrus community is pretty big, very outspoken and it contains many commercial members: For me it is great to know that I own the best SEP in the world and the thought that the resell value should actually increase over time is comforting but not essential.
If I had invested tenthousands of $$$ to become a “Certified PA46 platinium something Center”, it would be a pretty straight forward business decision to invest some more money into spreading the myth every pilot that doesn’t fly a Malibu must be completely nuts or at least weary of life. Messaging that thought not only to pilots but even more important to families of pilots, again, is not the most stupid way to spend Marketing Money…
