Pull Early, Pull Often

[Colonel Sanders]

I think that using the same argument, one could
argue the inevitability of contracting genital herpes.

You might be right, but I see problems with both
genital herpes and Cirrus pilots, and don't want
anything to do with either, honestly.

Anyways, it doesn't matter what we think. As
soon as the insurance companies figure out what's
going on - that Cirrus's business model is to get
totally unqualified people into the cockpit - they
will refuse to insure them.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I think that using the same argument, one could
argue the inevitability of contracting genital herpes.

You might be right, but I see problems with both
genital herpes and Cirrus pilots, and don't want
anything to do with either, honestly.

[Shiny Side Up]

He died when he lost control of his Cessna 210 when flying near a CB. There is a significant possibility he would still be alive if his airplane had a parachute....

This isn't the correct train of thought to take away from that, though it is a bit of false logic that helps sell Cirruses. It infers that not having a chute is what's dangerous rather than flying around thunderstorms. If you have a chute you can make it through a storm, right?

The Only successful manufacturer of light aircraft since the early 1980,s has been cirrus.

Um, not quite. Have you been reading too many of their sales brochures lately? Cirrus didn't stat production of its certified models until 1998, Cessna resumed light aircraft production in 1996, and arguably with sales, Diamond has dominated the field with the DA-20 since 1994. I think the latter two have been reasonably successful, Cirrus only knocking Diamond out of the top spot for sales in the last 2 years.

edit: scratch that Cessna held the top spot in 2012, though that includes all types.

http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/General-Aviation.html

edit 2: The point still stands that the Cirrus still has a wretched fatality record, regardless of its use of the CAPS. Why is it so hard to get pilots to train? Why can't we use the example of the MU-2 and apply it again?

[ahramin]

Didn't Cirrus go bankrupt?

[Big Pistons Forever]

He died when he lost control of his Cessna 210 when flying near a CB. There is a significant possibility he would still be alive if his airplane had a parachute....

This isn't the correct train of thought to take away from that, though it is a bit of false logic that helps sell Cirruses. It infers that not having a chute is what's dangerous rather than flying around thunderstorms. If you have a chute you can make it through a storm, right?

Or you could look at it as an indication that even a truly great pilot can have a monumental brain fart and possibly get themselves into and unrecoverable position. I don't think I am a better pilot than Scott Crossfield.

You are right about Diamond as I was only thinking about the production of the DA40 the equivalent to Cirrus airframe. If we include the DA 20 and Da42 then they are also a legitimate success story although I still believe they are much more often owned by flight schools rather than individuals who use a Cirrus primarily as an A to B travel machine, so it is difficult to make a apples to apples comparison particularly about the "moral hazard" question of having an airframe parachute.

[ahramin]

DA20, now THERE's a plane that looks like it needs a parachute .

[Shiny Side Up]

Or you could look at it as an indication that even a truly great pilot can have a monumental brain fart and possibly get themselves into and unrecoverable position. I don't think I am a better pilot than Scott Crossfield.

You and I can look at it that way, but that's not how someone selling Cirruses spins that, if you catch my meaning.

Either way, while yes we can't compare the Cirrus apples to apples to its competitors, that's how Cirrus wants them compared. The Cirrus is an A to B airplane and does a good job at that, but its definitely a step up airplane. Cirrus wants it to compete directly with the Cessna and Diamond products on their home turf though - flight training. Almost every Cirrus ad has the bit about learning on the airplane you'll be flying crap, and you're right in that they've been somewhat successful in infringing on this market. Like selling drugs to kids in the schoolyard.

[photofly]

It *should* be possible to learn on a Cirrus. Even it you had to take several hundred more hours than to get someone to a safe standard in a 172 (possibly that's an exaggeration, but you get the idea.)

How would you change the basic requirements, in that case? For instance, what would you introduce that you don't teach on a basic 172-style ppl, what would you emphasize more of, and how many more hours would it take?

[ahramin]

Cirrus is an A to B airplane and does a good job at that, but its definitely a step up airplane.

Step up from what? A glider? How are the basic flying and navigation skills necessary for a Cirrus any different from those necessary for a C150?

[Beefitarian]

Sounds like the next step in dumbing down flying. Years from now maybe there will be C-172 snobs like the conventional gear guys now.

I'll be telling my grand kids. "Anyone can fly those. When I used to fly Cessna singles there was no auto land." Like the 172 is some wild squirrelly beast.

[CpnCrunch]

Cirrus is an A to B airplane and does a good job at that, but its definitely a step up airplane.

Step up from what? A glider? How are the basic flying and navigation skills necessary for a Cirrus any different from those necessary for a C150?

The stall speed is higher than your typical spam can (60kts vs 40), and landing distance is 2300ft over a 50ft obstacle.

A couple of other potential issues with the cirrus:

[1] No stick force gradient, so possibly prone to over-control (http://www.stevewilsonblog.com/again-ci ... l-in-2010/)

[2] The 'stall resistant' wing on the cirrus might be causing accidents because of what happens when the wing does finally stall (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nm_hoHhbFo from 3:50 onwards).

It does seem a nice x-country plane. You have to admit that the typical spam can isn't generally a safe and comfortable way to fly 500+ nm in Canada at any time of year.

The ultimate x-country tourer IMO is the Cessna Corvalis (or whatever they call it now). Similar to the cirrus but with two spars in each wing, stick force gradient, higher cruise speed, etc. But it costs $800k with all the bells and whistles, so even more out of my price range than the cirrus.

[Beefitarian]

Interesting stuff crunch. I want to try one of cirrus things out just because the more I learn about them the stranger they seem. So the pilot doesn't feel the pressures on the stick in a reactive way from the control surfaces?

If I'm following what happened according to the video correctly, the Colonel has mentioned this. Someone (my guess the instructor) put in too much rudder toward the skidding turn side causing a snap roll, yes?

[CpnCrunch]

I've never flown in a cirrus myself, so I can't confirm the info about the stick forces.

[Colonel Sanders]

The ultimate x-country tourer IMO is the Cessna Corvalis

I guess. I did some flight instruction on the original
Columbia 400 (?) and it was as boring as dishwater.

It had fixed gear, so it was easy to get insurance.
Think of a Grumman AA5B with a 540. Did not
exactly spin my crank.

Personally, I thought the M20J was a far more
efficient x/c machine.

[Shiny Side Up]

Cirrus is an A to B airplane and does a good job at that, but its definitely a step up airplane.

Step up from what? A glider? How are the basic flying and navigation skills necessary for a Cirrus any different from those necessary for a C150?

The key is that you can't learn those basic flying skills in a Cirrus alone. Any one else here seen the Cirrus "scenario based training" syllabus? I got serious issues with basic flight training which doesn't visit some of the important stuff - you know, like slow flight and stalls - in a serious manner. Do they have a chute deployment simulator for spin recoveries?

It really suprises me though that the insurance companies haven't done more to become the gatekeeper on these things.

Personally, I thought the M20J was a far more
efficient x/c machine.

The two airplanes performance wise are very similar, though the mooney is a bit more particular about the altitude that gives it the best performance, the Corvalis has a bit more by the way of option. That aside, the Corvalis is a way more comfortable machine than the mooney, easier to load, better appointed, so it definitely wins in my books for a going distance machine. The mooney I find grossly uncomfortable for lengths of time, less leg room, shoulder room and elbow room. Comparing the Corvalis to the Cirrus, the Corvalis blows the Cirrus away in every aspect of performance. I'll agree with you that these machines aren't really my point of interest, if I was going to spend that kind of money on a going places machine, I'd be all into a Cessna 195, I gots to look good while doing it.

[triplese7en]

This isn't the correct train of thought to take away from that, though it is a bit of false logic that helps sell Cirruses. It infers that not having a chute is what's dangerous rather than flying around thunderstorms. If you have a chute you can make it through a storm, right?

Bingo!

Or you could look at it as an indication that even a truly great pilot can have a monumental brain fart and possibly get themselves into and unrecoverable position.

Definitely a valid point - Tony Kern writes about lots of pilots, some being exceptionally talented and good at what they do, crashing airplanes.

You and I can look at it that way, but that's not how someone selling Cirruses spins that, if you catch my meaning.

I think that's correct. Can't say for sure since I've never talked to a Cirrus salesperson but I have seen the marketing for their planes.

CpnCrunch highlights some interesting points. I think the Cirrus has a lot of great safety features but ideally I don't think the pilots should know they exist since it appears that people tend to take more risks when their perceived protection is greater - try telling that to the marketing department though!

[Big Pistons Forever]

The key is that you can't learn those basic flying skills in a Cirrus alone. Any one else here seen the Cirrus "scenario based training" syllabus? I got serious issues with basic flight training which doesn't visit some of the important stuff - you know, like slow flight and stalls - in a serious manner. Do they have a chute deployment simulator for spin recoveries?

The FAA and especially the TC, private pilot training syllabus IMO does not do a very good job preparing students for an aircraft like the Cirrus. I think that the intent of the Cirrus based program is the right way to go. I do agree the execution of the program probably does not place enough emphasis on basic stick and rudder skills and provides too much hand holding.

However I do not see any reason why you can't start on the airplane you intend to use as your future means of A to B transportation if you have the right training. The right training means not only flying the airplane but effectively using the technology and understanding the real world considerations of weather and route planning needed to get from A to B. So, for instance teaching the only way to navigate is to fill in the FTU flight log of 101 boxes and then obliterate the map with a dozen lines including those stupid drift lines, in an airplane with a 14 inch MFD is just plain silly.

[Shiny Side Up]

The FAA and especially the TC, private pilot training syllabus IMO does not do a very good job preparing students for an aircraft like the Cirrus. I think that the intent of the Cirrus based program is the right way to go. I do agree the execution of the program probably does not place enough emphasis on basic stick and rudder skills and provides too much hand holding.

You're right that they don't prepare pilots for a more advanced airplane, but then, that's also not the mandate of either TC or the FAA's PPL.

However I do not see any reason why you can't start on the airplane you intend to use as your future means of A to B transportation if you have the right training.

But not if said airplane can't be used for some of the very basic lessons. In my books that's not the "right training". I can teach ab initio on a lot of airplanes, including some relatively more complex types like Mooneys and Arrows, Cherokee sixes, 182 RGs and the lot, the difference is these airplanes all have very benign characteristics down into that low end of their speed range to make sure a pilot get some good practice. The Cirrus doesn't have that.

The right training means not only flying the airplane but effectively using the technology and understanding the real world considerations of weather and route planning needed to get from A to B. So, for instance teaching the only way to navigate is to fill in the FTU flight log of 101 boxes and then obliterate the map with a dozen lines including those stupid drift lines, in an airplane with a 14 inch MFD is just plain silly.

Indeed, but so far the Cirrus approach isn't doing well at the bolded portion either. That's the problem. If the right training is what's necessary to make these guys safe pilots, it just isn't happening. I just also personally believe that some of the training necessary just can't or shouldn't be done in that aircraft.

[photofly]

I can teach ab initio on a lot of airplanes, including some relatively more complex types like Mooneys and Arrows, Cherokee sixes, 182 RGs and the lot, the difference is these airplanes all have very benign characteristics down into that low end of their speed range to make sure a pilot get some good practice. The Cirrus doesn't have that.

To play devil's advocate: there's no point learning the benign characteristics of a 172-182-Mooney-Arrow at the low end of its speed range if you're going to fly a Cirrus that doesn't have those characteristics. Surely you'd be better off learning the poor characteristics of the thing you're going to fly, from the outset? "Primacy" and all that.

[Shiny Side Up]

But you can't learn the poor characteristics of the Cirrus unless you were going to accept pulling the chute as part of that. Not as an ab initio type student. Question: If pulling the chute is the only way to recover from a spin in a Cirrus, but no one (besides a few test pilots and previous chute pullers) has seen a spin in one, how do people know that they're boned and need to pull it?

[akoch]

It seems that the customers favour the "fast go places airplane", hence buying the Cirruses. That's the fact of life, the market has spoken. All Cirrus owners I had a chance to speak with answered my question as to why they chose their airplane: "it is fast, I can do 17X knots cruise on it". To me this is very clear what they like about it, and where their priorities are. So far none of them was interested in talking about maneuvers, aerobatics, handling etc. Different planes for different tastes.

[CpnCrunch]

Here's the training:

http://cirrusaircraft.com/training/

It seems they make a lot of use of simulators, so you can presumably try out that fun base-to-final snaproll manoeuver.

[Colonel Sanders]

you'd be better off learning the poor characteristics of the thing you're going to fly

USN pilots used to hand-fly F-4's onto aircraft
carriers in poor wx at night. They didn't start
out, doing that. Learning factor of Relationship.

[Beefitarian]

In my experience this statement from the cirrus site is wrong.

Fly directly to your destination, bring your family and friend and never miss a flight!

I was personally trapped by weather for almost a week once, another time for several days. That's encouraging get-home-itus.

[ahramin]

Beef, you can't miss a flight if it's cancelled.

As for the Cirrus, go sit in one, I think you'd like it.