Ben
I have no doubt that the Cirrus is a great aeroplane; the benefits of the equipment are, I think, unarguable, and I would love to have access to one for when i'd like to go touring. However, you did say that "I propose that the CAA ban flight above 1,500feet if you have no Mode Charlie" and I think it's unrealistic, and somewhat unhelpful, to expect the rest of aviation to change to fit equipment that most will not have for years, if ever.
Thanks for your reasoned response and for treating me decently, I apologise if my original post looked like it was intended to provoke a response! In a way it was, but I did not intend it to offend or cross any "netequette".
I have always been known as a bit of a forward thinker and as an "unreasonable man" in the George Bernard Shaw definition "A reasonable man adapts himself to the world, and unreasonable man adapts the world to himself; its only through unreasonable men that we ever make progress".....
I am also new to aviation, having only been flying since April 2001 and having only got 730 hours or so.... mostly in a Cirrus. So I can take a fresh look so to speak. I do appreciate the value of "stick and rudder" uninstrumented flight, and would never want that to disappear, and a lot of Cirrus drivers are the same. (Did you know the Cirrus CEO just bought a Chipmunk??!)
I think the real issue here is one of airspace and available ATC services. I honestly believe that the comblination of new generation aircraft like the Cirrus and possibly others, together with small airfields around Europe could be used as an effective personal transportation infrastructure, but changes need to be made to make this safe and effective.
The fact is that my SR22 IFR to Brussels National from Denham, can do it in basically the same time as a BMI from heathrow, and at a third of the cost. Now that might not be the right route, but in the UK routes such as Norwich to Exeter, or Southend to Oxford, or Southampton to Hull, just beg for an efficient air transportation system, travelling these routes any other way is pure hell.
I think one day I would like to get a study done that looks at the cost of upgrading the roads and railways, compared with the costs of changing the regulations to allow small aircraft & small airport operations to really work, and the effect on the UK transportation infrastructure.
Sure you would need special "airways" (called Victor Airways in the US) proper radar services, GPS approachs, single pilot, single engine commercial operations etc. but it could all be done very easily. Much easier than enlarging the M25!
Imagine a world where clearances were automatically relayed to your aircraft, where traffic seperation was built into the autopilot, where every little airfield in the country was as well equipped as the average motorway service station.
In this world, (that I would love to see happen) then I am sure that the use of non mode C transponders would be confined to smaller areas designated open FIR and that the airspace structure of the skys was much different, with a large amount given over to non-Class A public cat operations.
It was in the context of such a dream that I made the "flippant" comment that we should ban non-mode C traffic above a particular altitude. I kinda thought it might make a start.....
I would like to see GA taken seriously and be more than a "hobby", if it was then I am sure that the knock on effect, in a larger GA economy, for those that just fly for fun would be better cheaper equipment, more facilities and better safety.
Its in the interest of all flyers everywhere to see growth and change, the alternative is stagnation and decay. So lets support companies like Cirrus, who have been bold enough to change things, I would like to see flying in the 21st century change as much as it did in the 20th. How about you?
Ian
[INTENDED TO BE TWO SEPERATE REPLYS, BUT PPRUNE IS JOINING THEM TOGETHER]
<hr>
Mr Wolfie
The whole SIPS (side impact protection system) nonsense was promoted by Volvo and aimed at drivers who wanted technology to make up for their own lack of observational skills and ability, and to still have the best chance of walking away from the accident that they just caused by pulling out of a side road into traffic.
I can assure you that no Cirrus driver I know takes a light hearted approach to risks. We are probably more careful than most, and more worried, more anxious, which is why we fly CAPS equipped aircraft in the first place.
The fact is that your analogy has some interesting parallels in it. When seat belts and airbags were added to cars, they decreased injuries and fatalities. But the \"old school\" were of the thinking \"I don\\\'t need my seatbelt as I am such a good driver that I will not have a crash\"
In road traffic I think you will find your position hard to prove - namely that the existance of SIPS made Volvo drivers cause more accidents.....
What I meant by my comment :
You will probably come out the worst after all the Cirrus will pull its CAPS and walk away....
Was meant as a simple statement of fact, If I loose a wing or a fin in a mid-air, I may still have some options that may keep me alive. I never intend to be in that situation. I also never intend to crash my car. But I still put my seatbelt on.
Ian