Cirrus Details FIKI Approval; Outlines Marketing Strategies for 2009
Still facing reduced production (eight aircraft per week from 16), Cirrus had some good news in the form of FAA approval for flight into known icing (FIKI). In a press ‘Webinar’ on Monday, company management also outlined a series of marketing strategies for the coming year, including defining a series of option-package levels (S, GS and GTS); expanded application of the Perspective by Garmin avionics platform; an X-Edition program designed to enhance the aesthetics and afford buyers more input into the design of their aircraft; and a CMX all-inclusive maintenance program charged to the customer in 100-hour increments. The new TKS-based FIKI-approved system involves up to eight gallons of fluid (twice the amount of the existing system) enabling 2.5 hours of endurance at normal flow rates; a series of cautions and warnings through the Perspective integrated avionics; and icing forecasts now available through the airplane’s XM weather system. In addition, the approval for flight into known icing is dependent on the pilot receiving appropriate training. Cirrus Chairman Alan Klapmeier forcefully delivered the message that the system is meant as an escape from inadvertent flight into icing–not a carte blanche for continuous operation in icing conditions. Because the new FIKI-approved system is substantially different from existing systems (required warning annunciators, larger reservoirs, new pumps, more robust fluid flow, more panels added, etc.), current Cirrus aircraft–even those with TKS anti-icing systems–cannot be retrofitted for FIKI approval. Finally, the CMX maintenance program replaces free maintenance offered to 2008 buyers. The bad news is that there is a one-time registration fee for the program ranging from $2,900 to $3,900 depending on aircraft model; and a charge of $3,179 to $3,667 per 100 hours covered. The good news is that the program mirrors the maintenance service plans (MSPs) offered for business jets, which takes the guesswork out of maintenance budgeting and ultimately increases the resale value of the airplane. For more information on the options packages and the X-Edition styling details–and prices for all the new models and their options–go to cirrusdesign.com.
Oh dear lord. The TKS system gives responsible pilots more options and capability. Just like the TKS systems on the Hawker and Citation II. No one is saying you should go and cruise around in the ice forever. Regardless of what aircraft you’re in, recip, turboprop, or jet, it’s still up to the pilot to make the decisions and use the equipment properly. I don’t see you jumping up and down, blasting Mooney for their TKS equipped aircraft. Cirrus is marketing their product, discussing things the aircraft is legally capable of doing. Would you suggest that car makers should be ashamed for showing their high performance cars doing slow motion four wheel drifts in commercials?
The Cirrus ad did NOT say, “Don’t attempt this, these are professional test pilots.”
Actually, I have a Mooney, known-ice plane for sale, and I’m not encouraging anyone to takeoff into icing conditions with it like Cirrus’s ad infers is okay.
I believe my blog post with its comments are worth sincere consideration.
Accident reports show that some Cirrus customers are not nearly as experienced and knowledgeable as you probably are.
Cirrus customer experience aside…I don’t see anywhere in either HERE or in the media blurb posted by QuickBurn that “infers” that Cirrus is advocating an unsafe practice. If one really reads the material the message is quite the contrary. The cause and effect of icing has been pounded into the aviation community. And if a pilot doesn’t have the reasoning ability and sound ADM to understand the issue, then they should choose a different activity.
I do, in fact, sell Cessnas. And, also being an aircraft mechanic and flight instructor for more than half my life, I care a lot about safety and my customers too. I was also an accident investigator. When the father of a child approached me at an accident site to ask why their dad and daugher were killed, it affected me. It ain’t all the pilot’s fault.
So yes, I sell Cessna’s AND I have particular interest in air safety.
It’s great the Cirrus has the equipment. That said, I have heartburn over it being advertised and touted as the safest plane in the sky ESPECIALLY to new pilots, about its purported “safety record” and “ease of handling” and “extraordinary capability” that’s often bragged about by new flight instructors, and of course Cirrus itself. Not cool.
Well then…as a “salesman” I find it rather ironic that you’re being so self-righteous when maybe this energy should be focused on icing education instead of lambasting a manufacturer for touting a safety feature on its product.
What do test pilots have to do with anything? Cirrus doesn’t claim that TKS is the end all be all for icing, but the fact remains the system is certified and does a pretty good job when used appropriately.
I read your blog. First, You posted the same link twice, about a numb skull who took off into weather without a briefing.
He told the briefer he didn’t need a briefing because he had “weather onboard” and proceeded to take off into an area with multiple cloud layers, AIRMETS for icing and turbulence, and Thunderstorms! And you think it was the freakin’ TKS system that was the problem?!? He never should have been playing around in the vicinity of the thunderstorm, which is where he picked up the ice. Go figure. This guy probably would have done the exact same thing regardless of the aircraft he was flying.
Then, you treat us to a story about a guy who flew an airplane that wasn’t approved for icing conditions into icing conditions. When he encountered ice he decided he would press ahead. He got more ice and almost killed himself because he made poor decisions. Who was that guy? It was none other than Mr. Stephen T. Wilson. The fact that you had a bad experience, of your own making, doesn’t mean the Cirrus is a dangerous aircraft.
Lastly, you are unhappy with Cirrus depicting their airplane sitting in some snow. To quote you on your blog, “The photograph shows the Cirrus poised for flight into inferred IMC conditions with snow and known ice…” Since when does light snow and a dark sky imply IMC and known ice? I’ve taken off in light snow many a time with a ceiling of 10,000’ or 12,000’ and never picked up so much as a hint of ice. Snow and dark do not automatically equal known icing.
I’m glad you survived your experience. I’m glad you are still learning and are passionate. But please don’t sensationalize aviation and claim an aircraft is unsafe because of a few incidences. The Mitsubishi MU-2 is a perfect example of an excellent airplane getting a bad reputation because it was often flown by people who didn’t have the skill and knowledge to do so safely. I’m not implying the Cirrus is any better or any worse than any other aircraft, but please don’t play into that same old story.
We’re in agreement about the equipment and the plane. I’m not against the equipment, and neither do I blame the manufacturer for bragging the plane has it. It’s the context of how it’s “sensationalized” in advertising that’s a problem.
The Cirrus ad photograph is absolutely implying it and sensationalizing the aircraft’s abilities that are candidly far past the pilots’ I’ve seen in 20 years being a CFII.
We can’t assume new pilots and airplane owners who get in over their heads are completely to blame, that they’re just idiots. I’m critical of the bold suggestive advertising. I don’t see where we’re so out of sync here.
Enjoyed the discussion, and I have to sign off. GNight.
See, this is why I have no respect for you. Half of your postings here are spam as you link to your own self promoting blog. You’re a salesman but yet you have the audacity to criticize a manufacter for something that they’re not really endorsing. In another post you make a remark playing on emotion when you’re suppose to be an objective investigator. You self promote again by linking to an article authored by you, where you fly into icing conditions in an aircraft that offers no protection. You did this, and I quote…“fully aware of the probability of more ice accumulating”…after already experiencing it prior? Wow, some “study of safety” when you should certainly know better. Oh…but wait…I forgot about your “ego” which you mentioned twice in the article… You’re quite the aviator there Mr. Wilson…and quite the hypocrite.
I have flown the G3 and I do not think I would be comfortable in any significant weather let alone icing. Whether it has tks or not. I do think that some people will take the FIKI and want to push it, but then again some of those same pilots do stupid things because the aircraft is equipped with a parachute.
Just an FYI to any potential accident “victims” the aircaft is not equipped to handle any kind of induction icing from what I understand.
For those of you that missed it, let me isolate this from my original post:
Cirrus Chairman Alan Klapmeier forcefully delivered the message that the system is meant as an escape from inadvertent flight into icing–not a carte blanche for continuous operation in icing conditions.
