Mary
Thanks for your reply, a few thoughts on it:
Nevertheless the principle objection to the Cirrus is that it reinforces the comfortable illusion that money can buy safety.
No: money doesn't buy safety, it buys capability.
Whether that is what you get in the Robin HR 200 in which I did my PPL, the Cirrus I fly now or the Eclipse jet to which a number of Cirrus owners (still COPA members, by the way!) have upgraded. The capability you need obviously depends on the missions you fly and the Cirrus suits what I need it for.
What does buy you safety as you use that capability is a close understanding of the aircraft, good maintenance and, above all, training and being current on all aspects of flying.
You never asked about this in your earlier post, so I didn't mention it, but I have been to two Cirrus Pilots Proficiency Program weekends, my wife and daughter have both done the excellent Partner in Command course and I have also done emergencies training in a full motion simulator, aerobatics and mountain flying training.
The extra gadgets loaded into your Cirrus have tempted you, for one, to do most of your flying IMC (I assume this means flying under enroute controllers guidance, and not necessarily in the clouds with no view at all), and most probably, to avoid fatigue on long journeys, on auto pilot most of the time.
Again no. My flying in airways isn't because the "gadgets have tempted me".
In common with many Cirrus pilots, I use my aircraft mainly for business travel (about 75% of my flying). Given that the aircraft is designed to operate safely and efficiently in airways under IFR, it is far safer and quicker to do that on the typical 300-400 mile flights I do. You might as well criticise pilots who fly twins or turbines in airways for the same reasons.
Sure, I use the autopilot in the cruise - that's what it's there for, but I hand fly a substantial proportion of departures, arrivals and approaches as set out in my earlier post and do that to IFR rather than VFR standards.
So the same problem of boredom, of fatigue, of reliance on all those expensive aids may surprise you into the kind of mistake made by the Asiana pilots flying into San Francisco on a CAVOK day. Not flying the aeroplane.
Blaming the equipment.
This is a real risk in the same way that a misread of the weather or a moment's inattention can kill a VFR pilot. But blame the equipment? No! Asiana was absolutely pilot error and, as I recall, the training regime carried a substantial part of the blame.
The way to counter this risk is by adhering to very clear operating procedures centred around the use of checklists and reminders and ensure that you stay ahead of the aircraft.
But nobody's perfect all the time and, like every other pilot, I've made my share of mistakes!
It is all very well to praise the get out of jail card when it saves your passengers. But the basic skills are still important, and tend to atrophy with reliance on automation.
CAPS is exactly that: a get out of jail card. Better not to get into jail in the first place but, if you do, better still not to die there.
I do agree that all flying skills atrophy with lack of use, not just hand flying skills but IFR disciplines as well. Currency and training are the only known antidote!