Opens perfectly well for me. So I quote:
Jenny, as we will call her because the patient’s name was never shared, was a little girl who had previously been in the hospital ward for cancer for four years and was discharged. Then a while later she relapsed and had to be given a very strong chemo treatment medicine. This medicine is so strong and so toxic that it requires pre-hydration and post-hydration for three days with I.V. fluid. However, after the medicine was administered, three nurses were attending to the charting software to enter in everything required of them and make the appropriate orders, missed a very critical piece of information. Jenny was supposed to be given 3 days of I.V. hydration. But the three nurses, with over 10 years experience, were too distracted trying to figure out the software they were using, they completely missed it.
When the morning nurse came in the next day, she had died of toxicity and dehydration. For two shifts, she had missed her hydration and all because the three, very good nurses, were stuck trying to figure this out…
There are many accounts of bad UX leading to fatal consequences. That one is just one I came across a few days ago.
Just for the record: We have to make a distinction between G1000 and Cirrus’ version of it called “Perspective”.
I think this is a relevant point for this particular thread, I think Cirrus did a good job in cleaning up G1000 into Perspective. I certainly found Perspective more user friendly than G1000.
Many posts ago …. : “-the Cirrus is not single lever by EASA standards (no FADEC)”
Do you have a reference for that, Bosco? My instructor did not. He signed me off for SLPC in the Cirrus back in 2009, so when I later started flying FADEC (diesel, turbo, geared) with the Diamond DA-40D, the CAA agreed – in writing – there was no need for an additional signoff as I had already mastered the Cirrus with its missing prop lever :-)
What I find interesting in this discussion is that many (most) Cirrus pilots agree that the Cirrus is easy to master, and at the same time many Cirrus pilots insist that it is dead important that you have a special checkout by a specially trained instructor (with the syllabus designed and the instructor approved by the Cirrus Company).
I do not think I have ever seen anything close to that for any other single piston, except for the PA-46 Malibu, once the holder of the deadliest accident rate of all certified aircraft in the World.
What I find interesting in this discussion is that many (most) Cirrus pilots agree that the Cirrus is easy to master, and at the same time many Cirrus pilots insist that it is dead important that you have a special checkout by a specially trained instructor (with the syllabus designed and the instructor approved by the Cirrus Company).
The PA46 is different in that it had a very bad accident rate which led to a special review. The outcome showed pilot error was to blame as it was an aircraft that let you get high fast and needed discipline. But there is no factory approved instructor system.
Cirrus markets itself as easy to fly but is also quite a high performance aircraft although it doesn’t have pressurisation etc which adds to the challenges. I think getting training with a good instructor makes sense as it does in any more complex type. The factory Cirrus approved instructors sounds a bit of a marketing gimmick.
I’d love to try flying a Cirrus…c’mon, is it difficult or is it easy? Make up your minds! 
I’m talking about the flying bit only – not the avionics (yawn!!)
I have about 3 hours in an SR22. Flying wise there is not a whole lot to it – sure, slowing down needs to be done a few miles out but that’s true of every high performance aircraft. In the circuit I found it easy to handle. Stalls are benign, low speed handling is fine, it seems quite stable and should be a good instrument platform (although I have only flown it VFR).
Personally, I prefer pushrods to the spring connections – but that’s a minor thing. The avionics are very powerful, and some time with an instructor working through failure modes would be useful. Learning what the parachute does takes 30 seconds. Getting in the right mindset to go for it before its too late might take a bit longer (sim training could be v useful here).
What I find interesting in this discussion is that many (most) Cirrus pilots agree that the Cirrus is easy to master, and at the same time many Cirrus pilots insist that it is dead important that you have a special checkout by a specially trained instructor (with the syllabus designed and the instructor approved by the Cirrus Company).
I think, and a conversation with the top UK GA insurer confirmed this, that the insurers are not happy about the circumstances in most of the chute pulls are taking place.
After the first UK pull, the owner’s premiums went through the roof. I have the figures in an email somewhere; I posted them here already and also supplied them to Mr Beach who is a Cirrus guy who trawls the internet for any negative publicity (he didn’t believe it at first).
Publicly, of course, the insurers cannot say any of this because it’s a competitive market and Cirruses are a very big market segment, doubly so because being new or new-ish their high hull values mean that the premiums are high. In the USA, IIRC, they publicly state that a chute pull will not increase your premiums. That’s definitely not the case over here.
Obviously we can debate the official position which is that a chute pull saves lives, which is obviously true, but the insurers are entitled to their own private opinion.
If anyone is interested in what Rick Beach really does, he is a COPA Board member responsible for safety initiatives.
An example of his activity is shown here.
http://www.avweb.com/news/features/ntsb_crash_data_mining_safety_avionics_208924-1.html
It is far from “trawling the Internet for negative publicity”. I thought that was the kind of comment this forum was set up to get away from.
I agree he does good safety work, but he does pop up in forums defending the aircraft. That is not something I would criticise. I defend the TB20 in the same way, for example.
Very easy to explain.
While the plane is very docile and easy to fly its complex and powerful systems (compared to your old Cessna) require a thorough checkout.
The combination of higher speed, glass cockpit, new system (egpws, digital a/p, tks, caps, …) can be too much for the newcomer.
The CSIP program had an enormous impact on safety. But it’s not obligatory.
