One more try, just because this quote makes it such a good starting point:
sorry but if a pilot looses a healthy aircraft on instruments he should not be there!
Great sentiment! And so right, in an ideal world. However, those pilots ARE up there. Have a look at the accident statistics and you see that they are up there in all kinds of aircraft - Cessnas, Pipers, Airbii, Twin Otters and, yes, Cirrii. So our first point of discussion becomes:
1. Do Cirrus pilots have a higher percentage of "losing a healthy aircraft" than pilots of other aircraft? This has been analyzed quite a bit. The only person to present actual numbers in this thread so far has been Rick. The answer (not only from Rick, but from all who have actually looked at the numbers) seems to be: No, Cirrus pilots do not have a higher percentage of doing dumb stuff than the rest of GA. Anyone (and especially mad_jock), feel free to present numbers showing otherwise. Until you do, just claiming something doesn't make it so.
So, as regrettable as it might be, pilots do end up there. In all kinds of airplanes. We can debate how training and regulation might change that. We can also debate which manufacturers involve themselves much in training and which don't. But leaving that discussion aside and accepting the fact that pilots DO mess up in "healthy" airplanes, the next point of discussion now becomes:
2. Should pilots "losing a perfectly healthy aircraft" be left to crash and die or is there something wrong with offering them a way out? Frankly, I'm not even willing to debate that. I consider myself a master cynic, but that exceeds my limits.
Finally, the big hit with some folks in this thread:
3. Are innocent bystanders more endangered by our pilot WHO HAS LOST IT ("it" being control of the aircraft) going down in a high-energy impact at full speed, or at a tiny fraction of that energy under parachute, with a loud bang announcing its opening? Again, the answer is kind of obvious.
So, here we are. Unless someone can prove with actual numbers that a Cirrus somehow changes the propensity of pilots to do dumb stuff (which Rick has tried - and failed), we're left with
a) questions/problems applying to aviation in general, but not specific to the Cirrus.
b) questions around a safety device that has the chance to change the outcome of something that pilots get themselves into with disturbing regularity regardless of what aircraft they fly. Change the outcome both for those in the aircraft AND outside, I might add.
We can see that already by the data given on the cirrius site.
Sorry, I can't. Help me, please.
Its just that they decided to remove the instructional and commercial GA flights out of the data so that it looks as if the accident rate is below the average.
They did? How do you know? Why don't you put back in what you consider missing and show us those new numbers? I can't see what you seem to see. I don't know all these numbers by heart. Help me, please.
Thanks!