Renting Cirrus insurance requirements ???

[Pace]

I have been looking at renting hours on a Cirrus aircraft and found one an SR20 which sounded good value regarding monthly and especially hourly rates.
All looked good until I was told that regardless of experience there was a dual 10 hour requirement before you could fly off on your own.

This is crazy as 10 hrs is 1/4 of a complete PPL course and you can get a far more complex jet full type rating for far less.

I have an ATP and 5000 hrs 3000 in an array of piston twins and singles and the rest in turbine /jet aircraft. So no novice!!!

At one time I used to fly aircraft where I was thrown a set of keys and told to take that! Piston singles which I had never flown before and complex too!

Working it out just the conversion eats up £2000 and I sense a rip off under the excuse of "not our fault guv blame the insurance"!!!

A checkout on any single should be whatever it takes. I would be surprised if I would need more than a couple of hours at most and would happily take any single piston with a look at the manual and that is it.

Is this a rip off or just standard insurance generated practice as I was told ?
It took NO consideration of experience or hours flown?

Regardless any ideas on a sensible price Cirrus with a sensible checkout requirement which I can rent for 30 hrs per annum?would prefer a 20 to a 22!

Pace

[172driver]

Pace, it sounds OTT, but OTOH the place where I fly from when in L.A. (at KSMO) requires 5 hours dual before they let you loose in a Cirrus. Of course cheaper than in rip-off UK, but still...... no idea how they would treat your prior experience, though.

[peterh337]

The problem is that you Pace are an old hand in this game, but take the "average" PPL pilot who is struggling to get notams, and flies with a map+stopwatch (because GPS is illegal outside the USA; minimum fine is death) and put him in a Cirrus and see how far he gets...

I used to rent out my TB20 years ago. If I was renting a Cirrus I would insist on some kind of course on all the installed equipment, for a start.

These planes need to be flown "by the numbers" but that is not how flying is taught in the PPL.

[The Grim EPR]

I don't suppose that an equity group on a SR22 based at Bournemouth would be of interest would it? It's based on five shares (two remain). With your experience, the checkout would be a short and fun affair!

Spec below, but PM for more details. (If this is against the forum policy, please remove with my apologies)

Fully IFR equipped SR22. Low hours (approx 700 hours) 2006 G2 GTS model with Avidyne screens, twin Garmin 430s, TKS system, Traffic system, TAWS, TWX weather detection, ADF/DME, CMax Plates, upgraded Avidyne autopilot (awesome!). 12 US gph at 140 KIAS cruise best economy. Owner CRI for checkouts and glass cockpit conversions. Local CAA Examiners for IR Renewals. Online booking system.

[moonym20]

I've had a similar issue with Cirrus before, I spoke to the insurance broker direct who later agreed to issue an exception. At the time it was 1,000hrs Piston and/or COPA course required to be allowed to fly a Cirrus.

I believe this has since changed again but it still may not harm you to speak with the broker to reach some form of agreement.

Hope it helps...

[peterh337]

You certainly don't need 1k hrs to get insurance for an SR22 in the UK, but it is likely to be a lot cheaper if you have 1k hrs than say 200. Mine (TB20) has fallen steadily, despite the agreed hull cover remaining the same, though I think the biggest drop is ~500hrs and not a lot after that.

[Fuji Abound]

Pace - PM sent

[dublinpilot]

Pace,

Often these insurance requirements are made up. I joined the committed of our club a few years ago. They used to have a 5 hour checkout for insurance purposes. Everyone genuinely believed that it was a requirement of the insurance.

My position involved renewing the insurance policy, and when I looked, low and behold....there was no such requirement. Our checkout was quickly changed to whatever was necessary.

I too suggest that you talk to someone higher up in the organisation to see if an exception can be made, or if it's there just to put off the newly qualified PPL and the instructor is trotting out the same line for everyone.

dp

[MrAverage]

Pace

I'm pretty sure I know which group you're talking about and it is indeed an insurance requirement. 10 hours make and model in the last year before solo rental. So 10 hours 2 years ago wouldn't count, nor 10 in a different Cirrus even if recent.

Cirrus are particularly difficult to insure........

[peterh337]

Cirrus are particularly difficult to insure........

One UK insurer increased the excess by 5x immediately after the chute pull...

[Pace]

But often insurance requirements are created for an effect.
I knew one operator who built in minimum twin time which was very high to stop the owner being bombarded by low time multi engine pilots offering to fly for free to protect his own approved pilots! Yes it had the effect of lowering the insurance but a minimum of 5oo multi hours had the effect of keeping poachers away!
10 hrs is a quarter of a PPL course! You can get a jet rating for less than 10 hrs.
Is a very experienced pilot treated in the same way as a 50 hr recent student!
If the pilot only needs 2 hrs so be it if he needs 20 hrs so be it!
But 10 hrs smacks of job creation for the instructor rather than an over cautious insurance company

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Pace I have sent you some more information.

For the purpose of the general discussion I hope this doesn't degenerate into too much ill informed discussion about insurance and what is or isn't possible.

I suspect we all know that some groups, renters etc use all sorts of devices to create an income stream - sometimes it is justified, sometimes not.

The Cirrus is a high performance aircraft and understandably insurers want some comfort as to how the aircraft will be operated. There has been enough old wives tales doing the rounds and undoubtedly some of the stories have caused the insurers to look more carefully at their requirements but the insurers aren't as stupid as we sometimes like to make out. The market is driven by risk assessment not risk perception.

[Pace]

Fuji

Thanks! I am not saying for one minute that the requirement of 10 hours was fixed for income generation.
I pointed out that I have known insurance requirements fixed for job and pilot rate protection it does happen a lot.
I was hugely surprised at the requirement for 10 hrs which is understandable on a 50 hr PPL but not so on a 5000 hr ATP with a lot of piston time on many complex singles.
It maybe that this is a legitimate requirement by this particular insurance company but it does appear very high.
One poster stated that with only 50 hrs he was required to do 5 hrs before being allowed solo so why 10 hrs regardless of experience.
For me that would be wasting my money.

Pace

[A and C]

I found myself in much the same position as you when looking for Cirrus insurance, they wanted ten hours dual on the Cirrus, the 12,000 hours, ATPL & instructors rating all seemed to count for nothing.

What we did was phone around the market and find an insurance company that would see a little common sense, these peope reduced the requirement to differences training with an instructor ( about an hour in the air and two on the ground).

This has all come about because of the chute, the insurers are living in fear that at the first sight of trouble you will deploy the chute and write off the aircraft.

This of course is not true as a chute deploy is not an automatic wright off, it depends on what you hit as you land.

[peterh337]

Yeah but I wonder what they do with the avionics, which must be worth close to 1/3 of the whole plane, even at OEM cost. They may be functional on the bench which means they will get tagged as Serviceable but nobody who knows their history will touch them with a bargepole.

The engine and prop are of course scrap unless rebuilt, so there's another 20k-30k or so.

[007helicopter]

Pace the transition course was 10 hours with 5 flying and 5 hours for avionics & systems, I agree it sounds a lot and from what I can see it is driven by the fact that for whatever reasons even experienced guys were killing them selves or wrecking aircraft and insurers deemed a transition and time on type were in fact more important than total hours.


What we did was phone around the market and find an insurance company that would see a little common sense, these peope reduced the requirement to differences training with an instructor ( about an hour in the air and two on the ground).

A&C how long ago was that and out of interest how many Cirrus Hours do you now have?

[007helicopter]

Sadly today Cirrus Fatal accident number 89

Plane that crashed came from Millington, pilot dead | News | Millington News (http://millington.wmctv.com/news/news/79346-plane-crashed-came-millington-pilot-dead)

[stevelup]

Sadly today Cirrus Fatal accident number 89

Only a useful statistic if you also tell us how many people have ever died in any other type of light aircraft!

[Pace]

There have always been aircraft which have had a bad reputation Years back it was the V tailed Bonanza or doctor killer more recent the Malibu!
We now have the VLJs like the Eclipse targeted at the owner Pilot.
A few weeks ago the very sad accident that wrote off a complete family in a PC12 with a single pilot.
What is not clear to me with the Cirrus and high insurance is why?
Is it a result of the chute and write offs caused by its deployment?
Is it because the chute lures inexperienced or even experienced pilots into conditions they would be wary of if the chute was not there?
Is it because of handling characteristics which require very precise operation by the pilot?
Is it poor training?
Is it because the aircraft attracts low time pilots who are out of their depth in the aircraft?
Is it none of the above?

Regardless I have flown both models on demos and once as a safety pilot on a longer trip. They had a fast roll rate which I timed as the same as a firefly aerobatic machine I flew.
They were also a bit slippery but not anything a reasonable pilot could not cope with.
Handflown it would probably be demanding in IMC with a pilot who was not a good instrument pilot.
Other than that and a slightly high stall speed there did not appear to be anything nasty in its handling that I noticed in the short time I had on them.

Back to discussing the Cirrus :ugh: when I was just looking at renting 30 hours on one at a reasonable cost and a reasonable checkout! And not a 1/3 of that time with an instructor holding my hand.

Pace

[007helicopter]

As an owner for some years my opinion and 0.02 cents worth

What is not clear to me with the Cirrus and high insurance is why?

Because of the higher hull value generally and there were categorically to many crashes for a time much higher than average GA and other TAA aircraft. Now it is pretty much comparable with other TAA.

Is it a result of the chute and write offs caused by its deployment?

Certainly not IMHO (I know we have done it to death recently) Many years there are ZERO caps pulls but 10+ fatality's

Is it because the chute lures inexperienced or even experienced pilots into conditions they would be wary of if the chute was not there?

Debatable, but I do not think significant personally and from my observations, although weather and VFR into IMC is a significant factor in Cirrus Pilot error's

Is it because of handling characteristics which require very precise operation by the pilot?

I think like any high performance aircraft a Cirrus can get you into trouble but from a handling point of view it is pretty standard, too high a landing speed is often a Pilot error leading to crashes and often death. Plus base to final stall can be an issue if not flown correctly. Other than that handles beautifully.

Is it poor training?

Yes I think a factor, specific to type, I think for some years also incorrect training with landing speeds and technique, these issues largely addressed now and standards improved dramatically with the efforts of COPA and CPPP (Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Programmes)



Is it because the aircraft attracts low time pilots who are out of their depth in the aircraft?

No I honestly do not think so, more than half the Cirrus fatal's are Pilots with 400+ hours, therefore generally out of the traditional killing zone
Is it none of the above? I also believe much more than half are pilots with Instrument ratings. The low hour thing due to marketing hype is a bit of a myth.

Not sure of current facts but up until 2008 there was only one fatality with a pilot less than 150 hours, and that was Cory Liddle in NYC who had an instructor on board. The estate tried to sue Cirrus for an aircraft malfunction but I believe black and white Pilot error.

[007helicopter]

Back to discussing the Cirrus when I was just looking at renting 30 hours on one at a reasonable cost and a reasonable checkout! And not a 1/3 of that time with an instructor holding my hand.


That is frustrating, as I stated earlier there has been a history of high time experienced pilots also making errors that I guess led insurers to consider this. I think for a guy used to glass and similar avionics it would be a very simple transition.

If no glass experience it takes time to get use to and can be a big distraction initially leading to errors.

[Cobalt]

FWIW, the Cirrus I rented had a 500hrs min stipulation for any pilot. Nothing more.

Pace, a suggestion: Do the couple of hours of General Handling, Stalls, PFLs and circuits you actually need, and then take the instructor on your first trip... last time I checked, instructor rates were rock bottom, so it will increase your cost per hour for your 30 hours by less than 5%. :}

I would guess the typical hour-building instructor will LOVE it - it makes a change from the usual Exercise Whatever PPL instruction, even if he really is your passenger logging PIC time... and he is more likely to need the hours than you...

[007helicopter]

Another statistic, in round numbers from memory, is that out of all 1000's of Cirrus Pilots it is a fact that around 60% belong to COPA Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association (http://www.cirruspilots.org/)

But 80% of fatal's are NOT COPA members (including today,s)

Which is a mind boggling statistic and the organisation has done a mammoth volunteer task on raising safety and in fact curbing increases in insurance.

It is a fantastic resource for anyone who fly,s or is considering flying a Cirrus and a bargain at $60 US or so.

[007helicopter]

I would guess the typical hour-building instructor will LOVE it - it makes a change from the usual Exercise Whatever PPL instruction, even if he really is your passenger logging PIC time... and he is more likely to need the hours than you...

Most insurers will not accept any transition training unless a Cirrus approved / trained instructor, the suggestion above would in fact be a waste of time.

[belowradar]

If you are worried that the insurance requirements are not "real" I suggest that you ask to see the aircraft insurance certificate which should be viewed on first check flight, this will clearly show the insurance requirements.

[Pace]

Slightly off topic but I was speaking with a pilot who has flown a Columbus 400 and was completely blown away by the aircraft. He said that the handling was delicious and the speed amazing a far superior aircraft to the Cirrus.

Yet the aircraft does not attract the sales! Maybe the selling point with the Cirrus is the chute system?
Odd unless there are technical reasons why the Columbus is not also fitted with a chute system?

How does that fair on insurance requirements?

If you are worried that the insurance requirements are not "real" I suggest that you ask to see the aircraft insurance certificate which should be viewed on first check flight, this will clearly show the insurance requirements.

I am sure the requirements are real but the insurance on any aircraft can be bought down by agreeing to include restrictions on the pilots who fly it!
For instance if you ran a group Seneca twin and told the insurance that you were happy to limit use of the twin to only pilots with a CPL and 500 twin hours it would be far cheaper than saying you wanted PPLs with 20 twin hours to fly.

Insurance can be used to manipulate an effect although I was not for one minute suggesting that was the case with the group I was looking at.


Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Ive flown the 400 in the states.

The handling is very good. The cockpit feels more compact than the cirrus.

I am surprised that he concluded its far superior, albeit you probably would if the comparison was with a 20.

Personally i think the handling of both a delight. The commonly heard criticism that the side stick is not designed for hand flying imo comes from those who havent hand flown the aircraft. However its fair to say many / most cirrus (and 400) pilots dont hand fly. These aircraft are about going distance in comfort.

Like it or not cirrus captured a moment in the ga industry. They make a good product, they market it well and its nice to fly. Then again its a privilege to fly most aircraft in this category and each will have those who reckon theirs is the best thing since sliced bread. Peterhs tb20 is a superb aircraft and if you want something that is as good as a cirrus without all the insurance and training issues and of course without the worries of a chute look no further.

[Pace]

Fuji

No I have selected the Cirrus as steed of choice and renting suits my situation rather than share ownership.

I had a quarter share in a Mooney M20J a few years ago but do not want to go the ownership route certainly not at present.

I actually like the chute "option" even after our long discussions on the chute in the other thread which was a worthwhile and informative debate.

I do not like the fact that 1/3 of my 30 hrs I want to rent will be wasted on doing something which should take no more than 2 hrs in the air in my case.
That maybe a deal breaker if true

Pace

[A and C]

Peter I don't hold with your view about the avionics and engine, why should they be written off ?

It is unlikely that any insurer would wright off an engine or the aircraft Avionic fit after a heavy landing that involved a small amount of airframe damage.

Most ballistic chute landings don't do more that minor damage to the landing gear and so the shock to the airframe is likely to be no more that a badly executed landing, also the nature of composite structure is to fail in a progressive way rather than metal that resists and then fails compleatly. The ability of the composite structure ( just like wood) to absorb energy in a progressive way is not only good for the survival of the occupant but also for the equipment fitted.

My own felling is that Avionic equipment gets a far harder ride when it is sent from the manufacturers to the factory by UPS or FedEx than it will get in a ballistic chute recovery as long as that recovery involves flat ground ( the wheels contact first) and the surface wind is not a factor in a high ground speed arrival into a solid object.

A large part of the insurance problem with composite aircraft is the lack of knowlage within the GA maintenance industry of composite repair that results in aircraft that are reparable being written off for no good technical reason, thus driving up the insurance cost.

[Fuji Abound]

Pace - well as I have indicated you can certainly get a check out done in probably a couple of hours with the freedom to fly solo after and covered by group insurance. Please PM me further if I can be of any more help.

[peterh337]

But 80% of fatal's are NOT COPA membersIt could also be that there is self selection going on i.e. those who kill themselves are people who have a generally slack attitude to all things in life, and who accidentally / opportunistically made the $$$ to buy the plane with.

It's like the fact that healthy people are much more likely to buy life insurance :)

Slightly off topic but I was speaking with a pilot who has flown a Columbus 400 and was completely blown away by the aircraft. He said that the handling was delicious and the speed amazing a far superior aircraft to the Cirrus.
Yet the aircraft does not attract the sales! Maybe the selling point with the Cirrus is the chute system?
Odd unless there are technical reasons why the Columbus is not also fitted with a chute system?The formerly Lancair Columbia (now Cessna) 400 is much faster (well to the extent that anything with a piston engine can be "much" faster) than an SR22.

In 2011 Cessna delivered just one of them.

I don't why it has been a flop. Perhaps a number of reasons

- Cirrus sucked the market dry in the good days (which they were able to do because every other player was totally inept and flogging what was basically WW2 hardware with some eye candy in the panel) and Cessna started when not only the horse but also the underlying economy were both on their last legs

- Inept marketing (that stupid looking businessman claiming he can do 3 deals per day because of the ease of travel)

- They had big problems with the thermal (electric) anti-ice system. I have heard various stories, always denied by others, about the heated elements getting too hot and damaging the wings/elevator. Maybe it was just new technology, not tested well enough. Cessna are a long term player and they would have taken time to sort this before pushing too many out.

- The great performance is bought with avgas, and lots of it :E Especially given the fixed gear, which is nuts for a fast plane. If it was retractable it would be amazing. The 400 pushes the "fixed gear is simple and gives you cheap insurance, and to hell with avgas cost" paradigm further than anybody else, and everybody knows it's false now. What the aerodynamic body gives you is entirely thrown away with the fixed gear, because if throttled to 11USG/hr (peak EGT) it does 138kt which is exactly the same as my TB20. The other company which just kept making ever faster avgas burners, at any stupid cost, was Mooney, and they are dead now, apart from the spare parts operation.

- It is very pricey now, and touches some other areas which deliver much more mission capability. Current ads mention $750k with all the eye candy. I know one can make the new v. old argument at every level in flying (or indeed cars, etc) but for $1M you can buy a very nice used Jetprop, which (FL270, 270kt TAS, short field capability, boots, radar, pressurisation) will totally and utterly thrash any piston plane (apart from a Spitfire, etc) and anybody with $750k cannot be totally unaware of this. Oxygen at FL200+ is OK if flying solo but not so good for passengers.

Peter I don't hold with your view about the avionics and engine, why should they be written off ?The 20G shock is likely to crack PCBs, damage solder joints to tall components and connectors, damage display technologies, etc. All these can be intermittent faults. This is my expertise (electronics). It is virtually impossible to inspect for this kind of damage. One can probably detect it by specific functional tests on a vibration rig, but nobody is going to do that.

Intermittently faulty avionics get recycled into the exchange avionics pool and just keep going round and round, p1ssing off successive owners, until they end up with an owner who has the resources to sue.

This stuff particularly gets up my nose because a while ago I bought two KC225 autopilot computers, at a very good price, both with original Honeywell overhaul documentation. I took them to an avionics shop (a H. dealer) to calibrate so I had them as immediately usable spares. One was found to have a duff display which didn't surface for about an hour.

Honeywell washed their hands of it, saying it passed their bench test. Even a letter from the avionics shop, and photos from me, didn't shift them. Absolute bastards, but this is fairly normal in avionics. I eventually got it sorted by blowing away my entire "favour reserve" by getting a certain individual I knew inside Honeywell (not in the UK) to put in a word for me. I got another overhauled unit, but this chap no longer answers my emails :E

[Pace]

Peter

I had a share in a Mooney we had one idiot pilot member who crashed the aircraft not once but twice.
The first bang was attempting to land on a grass airfield too long too fast in france which resulted in a bent prop.
Not wishing to cut his holiday short to Corsica the fool bent the prop straight and continued his European tour vibrating around the skies with total disregard to the fact that 3/4s of the aircraft did not belong to him.
By the time the **** got back we had no end of avionic and electrical problems due to flying with continuous vibrations :ugh:
So I can well understand how a vertical descent at high speed into the ground can damage sensitive and delicate electronics

Pace

[A and C]

So guys how do your avionics get from the factory to your aircraft?

The chances are they have gone via one of the major players in the logistics game, be it DHL, UPS, FedEx TNT or whoever I have seen the sorting sheds and the way the boxes are bounced about is far worse than anything that an average landing by chute is going to put on the avionics, if the landing gear and it's mounts are undamaged it is unlikely the avionics will be.

The fact of the matter is the Avionic company's know how they ship their products and build them to take the shipping, however the company lawyers like to build in a little slack to cover themselves, and the best of this is the insurance company is likely to pay them to supply new equipment.

[peterh337]

That's true but the packages are normally padded.

When an SR22 hits the ground in a chute descent, the passengers are to some extent shielded from the G by the deforming seats, but the avionics don't have any protection. If you hit a hard ground, the stuff in the panel will get 100G 500G or whatever.

[Fuji Abound]

Peterh337 - yes, but if you work the calculation without taking into account the defamation of the honeycomb under the seat at a descent rate of 1500 fpm the cockpit is only experiencing a g loading of between 2 and 4. We commonly sustain this level of g during basic aerobatics and its not unusual to experience +8 or more. Perhaps the avionics are suffering much less g than one might think after a chute deployed landing. I have no idea at what g level one could expect damage to occur to pcbs etc.

[mad_jock]

Does it have an AHARS unit?

[A and C]

I take your point about the occupants being isolated from the G forces when the aircraft lands by chute as the structure below the seats deforms to absorb the energy in a high rate of decent.

So it follows that if the energy absorbing structure below an occupied seat is intact and undamaged the forces on the whole aircraft are likely to have been quite low, undamaged seat support structure is part of the picture that an inspection after a chute landing has to take into account.

I think for the benefit of some on this forum who think that people just stick these aircraft back together in a barn with a bit of glue I should add that any repair of this scale would have to be done by a EASA 145 company ( that will exclude 85% of the GA maintenance company's) and that all repairs have to be some in accordance with detailed instructions from a properly authorized design organization ( that is almost always the aircraft manufacturer).

The repair of composite aircraft is something that is not well understood by the GA metal bashes who in the past have written off aircraft with light damage that could have been fixed in a few weeks.

It is all well and good for people to express opinions on these forums but in all but a few cases the opinion holder has only half the picture that was delivered to him buy a bloke in a bar who says he is an expert. The peope who fix these aircraft are properly qualified and have all the facts at there disposal along with their own experience of fixing aircraft and that of the aircraft manufacturer.

It is the cost of composite aircraft being written off that is forcing the cost of insuring such aircraft up to the point that silly requirements are being asked of pilots just to fly a pretty basic SEP.

[Fuji Abound]

I think it goes further.

The idea is the nose wheel lands first, deforms, collapses and absorbs energy, then the main wheels, repeating the process, and finally the added protection of the "crumple" of the frame and honeycomb beneath the seats. Of course it is not totally predictable; the wings might impact first if a tree stump happens to be at the end of the wing! Doubtless the dynamics would then be different.

However which ever way it would be surprising if the G loads were greater than the G experienced in basic level aerobatics.

On the other hand should an aircraft land conventionally and impact on the landing roll the G could be significantly higher and doubtless much more likely to compromise the avionics, never mind the occupants.

[Pace]

Fuji

We are all armchair guessing :) I am sure Cirrus have the actual figures of a descent under the chute in still air onto a flat unobstructed surface as well as the shock loading not G forces onto the avionics.
G forces are irrelevant its abrupt shock loading which is relevant!

Obviously conditions and surface will have a major impact (excuse the pun)
Ie with 30 kt winds on the surface and into the side of a building, hitting trees, lampposts, power cables or steep sided terrain or even into water will change the whole outlook on such a landing both in terms of avionics and occupants!
Into water the avionics are buggered anyway :=
I know what flying a vibrating Mooney with a slightly bent prop did to the avionics in our group aircraft! Buggered them!

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Pace - I don't think we are guessing, the figures are available and well documented on the net and in fact have even been discussed here in detail.

Obviously there are elements of any forced landing that cant be predicted (its conceivable the aircraft could land on a chimney) but the descent under chute is at a predictable rate and the amount of energy the aircraft is carry is equally predictable unless someone wants to rewrite the laws of physics. Whats unpredictable is how much of that energy will be transmitted around the aircraft.

I think subjecting avionics to severe vibration for a long period of time is quite a different scenario (peterh I am sure can shed some light).

I am not either supporting or not supporting the recycling of avionics after a chute deployment or any other forced landing because I don't know how much G avionics are designed to take or for that matter how much g they may experience in transit. What I do know is it would be wrong to create the impression that a Cirrus will suffer "extreme" g during a chute landing. In fact as I have said it is probably a lot less than sustained in basic standard aerobatics.

I am probably creating the impression I work for Cirrus! Of course I don't. I also accept you dont have anything particularly against the aircraft. What worries me is whenever a discussion comes up about the aircraft it degenerates into wild speculation about insurance, chute landings, and the inability to fly the aircraft for any length of time using the side stick rather than the auto pilot. There are a few other pet subjects. Where I can I like to try to give balance to such ill informed speculation be it on this subject or others because otherwise PPRuNe just degenerates into Daily Mail style reporting which for me would be a shame.

[Pace]

Fuji

I am not attacking the Cirrus by any means as That is the aircraft which I best feel will suit my rental requirements.
In the previous thread we had a pretty detailed and at sometimes heated discussion on using the chute as standard procedure for engine failure!

My posting style and it appears to work!!! is to encourage discussion or if you like inflame passion in one way or the other so maybe I am not quite so fixed on my ideas as may appear :E

I know I have shifted my opinion on the chute in a positive light and have found your input and others very informative and convincing.

This thread started because I was sourcing a Cirrus 20 for my own use and found one which on the surface appeared to be a very good deal.

I was initially looking at renting 30 hours and was made aware that I needed to use 1/3 of those 30 hours just to fly the aircraft solo.
To me that meant a number of possibilities.

First revenue to the organisation or their instructor in fixing a high insurance requirement?

Second the aircraft demanded high insurance for a reason?

Either it had some inherent flight characteristics which meant high accident rates or the chute use was damaging the aircraft?

We still do not appear to have found out why the Cirrus costs so much to insure and why the insurance companies want such a high level of training to fly the machines!

I also am confused as to why the insurance companies totally disregard pilot experience, qualifications and ability and lump us all in the same pot as the 50 hr PPL?

None of those legitimate questions have been answered other that to say how wonderful the aircraft and its chute system is and how little damage is done on landing one under the chute.

I cannot make 2 and 2 equal 4!!!! in these discussions

Pace

[172driver]

I also am confused as to why the insurance companies totally disregard pilot experience, qualifications and ability and lump us all in the same pot as the 50 hr PPL?


PACE, this is certainly not to cast aspersions on your abilities, but if you speak to any rental outfit anywhere, you will soon find that the people most likely to bend their SEPs are none other than - high time ATPLs. Reason seems to be that many of those have become too used to flying highly automated machines. Which, of course, would make an airline pilot highly suitable for a Cirrus ;)

[Fuji Abound]

Ah the insurance, I didn't realise that was still troubling you.

I don't know the whole answer but her is a go.

The rumor was that in the early days the accident rate in Cirrus was higher than the average. Now we all know that insurance is based on risk assessment (and perhaps despite my earlier comment to a smaller degree risk perception). There was a also a fair amount of talk (which as we have seen is still popular of all these pilots jumping into Cirrus with the money but without the experience. Doubtless to some degree this did contribute to the accidents.

All Cirrus were high value aircraft (because most were almost new) whereas a pilot could equally "jump into" a Mooney with a hull value of less than a third.

There is no doubt the Cirrus is not the ideal aircraft for a low time pilot. Even now glass is still relatively new and takes some getting accustom to. The aircraft is fast (as SEPs go) and slippery. Its easy to end up hot and high. It really does take some pilots a while to master a Cirrus and feel comfortable.

Then there is the question of high time, highly experienced pilots. Well even that doesn't always wash. The skill set for flying a commercial jet is quite different; there are plenty of commercial pilots who have long since flown a performance SEP. In fact even for these pilots the transition is not a complete walk in the park. Just ask (as I have) for them to demonstrate a PFL or a half reasonable landing in a good cross wind. I might even add that many dont do that good a job of single pilot ops be it coping with airspace outside the system (which they have long forgotten) or flying IFR without the co-pilot managing a goodly proportion of the exercise. Is it not still the case that single pilot IFR ops is one of the hardest things we do?

So there are plenty of reasons when the 'phones rings the conversation is along these lines;

I want some insurance for a Cirrus, on the cheap mind you,

Well, Sir whats the value,

Oh I don't know I guess £300K, its not mine you see

ah yes, I do see, Sir, and how many hours do you have,

Oh 10,000 I am a training captain you know,

Yeees, Sir I thought you might be, but how many hours on a SEP,

Oh, well couple of hundred,

and when would that have been Sir,

Hmmm, four years ago (if you are lucky), but what does it matter?

and so you have flown with an Avidyne glass cockpit before,

Well no .. .. .. but,

and how many hours are you intending to fly a year,

Well, I only want to do a dozen or so, the girlfriend was thinking of a quick jolly down to Venice next week, I go there all the time for the company you know.

Ah yes, I see so lets just sum this up, you havent flown a SEP in over three years, you have never flown an Avidyne glass cockpit, you probably are only going to be flying once a month, the aircraft is worth around £300K and you think because of your hours you will be OK doing a tour of Europe next week on the strength of your multi IR on a BoAir69. Now let me see, yes we can give you a good cheap deal .. .. .. ..

:)

[Pace]

Or it could be I have 2500 hrs on multi engine piston twins ranging from a Duchess through Barons, Cessna 310s 340s Golden Eagle, Crusaders, Piper Aztec, Seneca 12345 :) etc etc

Singles where to start 152? Piper Saratoga Bla Bla Bla Mooney bla bla bla. Trinidad Grumman Tiger,Commander 114, Firefly just to mention a fraction!
I have in the past had keys thrown at me to a single I have never flown and gone straight off into IMC!!!

Oh my god I cannot tame the highly complex Cirrus in a league of its own :ok:

Its ok I am only teasing

Pace

[goldeneaglepilot]

You might be teasing Pace, but it touchs a valid point - some are so "anal" about their precious aircraft type that they portray that are very "difficult" when it comes to letting others fly it. They also paint the picture that you have be superman before it would even be possible.

Its usually through fear of the experienced pilot making what they ( the owner) says is very complex and difficult, look fairly easy.

Welcome to the world of the elite precious owners club. I often experienced that in the day of Star annuals when I flew a GA renewal test flight with the owner as observer on an unusual type (rather than the bog standard Cessna or Piper). It was quite interesting to hear the owner warning you of how difficult it was to fly as you read the POH before the flight and then managed to fly the five minute climb performance part of the test at +/- 1kt of specified airspeed within a few minutes of getting airbourne (for the first time in type).

[Sillert,V.I.]

These rigid insurance requirements make no sense at all to me.

Surely it would make more sense to replace this with a requirement for a sign-off from an approved Cirrus instructor that you were competent to handle & manage the aircraft solo. Some folks might be able to demonstrate this in a couple of hours; equally there could be others who'd still be struggling after 20.

The training, checkride & signoff should take as long as it takes - no more and no less.

[Slopey]

The problem Pace is that they have one, you don't - so it's their train set.

So, either accept the terms, or rent something else/elsewhere. Or buy one! ;)

[Pace]

Rent something else as no way am I spending over £2000 just to get checked out on a SEP and using 1/3 rd of my 30 hrs budget doing so !
It should be what it takes 2 hrs or 20

Pace

[007helicopter]

You might be teasing Pace, but it touchs a valid point - some are so "anal" about their precious aircraft type that they portray that are very "difficult" when it comes to letting others fly it. They also paint the picture that you have be superman before it would even be possible.

Its usually through fear of the experienced pilot making what they ( the owner) says is very complex and difficult, look fairly easy

GEP I don't feel that this view point has come across in the recent Cirrus discussions and there has been some beneficial healthy debate. I have not heard anyone claiming you need to be super human to fly a Cirrus or any other aircraft.

Regarding PACE's point this is about insurance costs and restrictions even for experienced high hour SEP pilots, It is in my opinion purely lead by the insurers risk, hull value, and the fact that higher hour experienced pilots have in fact trashed more Cirrus than the lower hour types, there is hard evidence that time on type is more important than total hours in terms of preserving life.

Not my opinion just how it has worked out for whatever reason.

[007helicopter]

It should be what it takes 2 hrs or 20

I personally do not disagree with that and one size should not fit all, however I think they see the 5 hours flying and 5 ground as a minimum.

[A and C]

Your statement is far to general, peope with a background like Pace should be looking at little more that an hour in the air and two on the ground, after all there is nothing radical about this tricycle SEP, now if we were looking at something a little more radical, say an EXtra 300 the checkout might take five hours.

[Pace]

I personally do not disagree with that and one size should not fit all, however I think they see the 5 hours flying and 5 ground as a minimum.

007H

I would stomach 5 hrs flying 5 hours ground. The organisation I was looking at had attractive hourly rates and an acceptable monthly rate but then demanded 10 HRS dual before being allowed to take the aircraft or over £2000 of your budget just to get to the stage of flying it yourself.

The explanation was that it was an insurance requirement and that experience had no bearing on those hourly requirements.

5 hrs I would have accepted and ground studies no problem as long as they did not charge £200 per hour ground study :E

10 hrs made me think it was either a genuine over the top insurance requirement or a manipulated insurance requirement designed to generate income.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Pace I know you might be teasing but some may take you seriously and its not fair to mislead (for too long).

So just to clear this up;

- Everything is relative. If you have a couple of hundred hours on PA28s a Cirrus is a rocket ship, if you are regularly flying twins or more complex SEPs its a doddle. As ever how much time you will need will depend only on your recent high performance SEP time and familiarity with glass. If yo have never flown glass and intend to learn in the cockpit whatever your background you will need 5 hours to be remotely familiar with all the systems. You would be daft to gain that experience in the cockpit.

- There are Groups around that will sign you off in a couple of hours if you are "good enough" maybe even a bit less, although I cant imagine why you wouldn't do a couple of hours with an instructor for the fun of it.

- There are groups that will arrange the insurance for you once you are signed off and with the cost built into the rates.

- There are "approved" instructors that will sign you off on any Cirrus you can lay your hands on, on exactly the same basis which will secure you the requisite insurance on whatever basis fits.

- In the nicest way I have told you so Pace, and while I enjoy the debate as much as you all of the problems that are the subject of this thread can be made to go away without any problems.

- As someone else said whatever Cirrus you fly if it is not yours, and just like any aircraft, the owners will set the terms. You might not agree with the terms but that is life. Fortunately there are some groups that don't take advantage but the cost does reflect the value of the aircraft, the cost of a group policy particularly where the group is given the freedom to include pilots that the Group has approved so long as they meet the minimum insurance restrictions and other financial considerations.

None of this is especially about Cirrus. I have run groups and we set minimum requirements. Frankly I was taught not to be particularly interested in how many hours etc the applicant had, but to fly with them. They could cut the mustard in their flying ability AND their willingness to look after the aircraft or they couldn't. I had a multi thousand hour pilot tell me he wanted to do more than an hour and I had a multi thousand hour pilot who wasn't prepared to look after the aircraft in the way the rest of us wished.

I am sure you know all that, and I don't think anyone has disagreed it is unreasonable to require a pilot to demonstrate his ability beyond that necessary to prove competence. I don't think anyone approves of excessive insurance premiums but they are what they are, and to the extent they are loaded they reflect the reasons I set out earlier in this thread.

I cant add anything further so its time to bow out but good luck with the debate.

[horsebox]

Pace,

Am second guessing the Cirrus group you are talking about. If its the same, I do a bit of instructing for them at one of the other locations. The ten hours is not a moneymaking scheme as far as I can see, just the result of offering an expensive aircraft to the open rental market.

The origonal checkout was 5 hours, which seemed adequate for most people, this was bumped up to 10 hours due to insurance requirements, this applies across the board, even for experienced sep instructors, and can be a bit of a pain, but thats how it is. Its a balancing act, lower checkout requirements = massively higher premiums, and a 10 hour checkout was a blunt tool to even things out.

For someone like yourself it would probably equate to 3-5 hours, checkout, and the remainder effectively carrying a safety pilot.

The cirrus is marketed to and attracts alot of high net worth individuals, a % of whcih have pulled the chute, resulting in a high chance of a full hull loss on a new expensive aircraft, and an owner with the means to take matters further if they want to.

If you look at insuring a cirrus as a private owner/operator the minimum hours I have heard being quoted would probably shock you, and has directly led to a number of people joining the no equity groups, to allow them to build up experience on type to access lower premiums themselves.

[Pace]

Horsebox

Thanks for that explanation ;) I am sure it is the same group! So just to clarify the 10 hrs does not have to be with the instructor but after he is satisfied you can knock off the rest at the quoted dry hourly rate with an approved safety pilot till you hit the magic 10 hrs?
Fuji your input much appreciated and may take you up will certainly call?
We get there in the end :E

Pace

[peterh337]

If you have a couple of hundred hours on PA28s a Cirrus is a rocket ship,I would not necessarily agree. Or at least I don't think that is the issue.

I am a very average pilot, who took well above the minimum hours to achieve every single piece of paper I ever collected, but I do have a very good understanding of aircraft systems, and technical aspects of flying generally.

I found the TB20 a doddle to convert to, at PPL+50hrs (the 50hrs was in PA28s).

And a TB20 is quite similar to an SR22 in straight performance.

I think there is no significant difference between flying at 100kt and 150kt. The sheep down below move just a little faster :)

A high perf plane is actually much easier to fly because you have big margins, on loading, runway length, crosswind. In 10 years I have not cancelled once due to c/w. +1000fpm is not much but is a real luxury compared to a PA28-140 :)

The big big difference is that you have to go about things differently.

In a PA28, most PPLs just fly to an airfield, join the circuit, slow down a bit, and land. They were flying at 1500ft anyway ;) so they don't even have to descend much. And anyway 1500ft is pretty much the 1000ft standard circuit height, isn't it :E What's a few hundred feet between friends? This is supposed to be a hobby, after all.....

In the SR22/TB20/etc anybody who goes places will be flying along at say 5000ft (5300ft or some other odd figure is better for better traffic avoidance odds, even though there is almost no other traffic above about 3000ft) and if you arrive overhead the airfield, or even just a few miles out, still at 5000ft and still doing 150kt, you are going to make a right dick of yourself, doing half a dozen orbits trying desperately to descend while slowing down at the same time ;) in full view of the restaurant clientele :)

So you need to get the old brain in gear say 30 miles out. Much further out if going IFR (I start sorting the plates out, and working out a CDA, with 100nm to run).

It took me only about 10 hrs to officially convert to the TB20, but it took a helluva lot longer to learn how to use the brain. In the PPL, I was never taught to use the brain (fly by numbers).

I think anybody who isn't totally inept can easily fly a Cirrus, to the extent of taking off, burning a load of juice for an hour, and landing on a nice long runway, on a nice day.

What is a lot harder is teaching people to use their brain in the correct way. And one cannot do it in a "club checkout" type of flight. In such a flight, all you can do is spot whether the punter does the 5000ft/150kt thing and if so, politely take over, land, and politely turn him down.

And what I found was that anybody who had the right discipline already owned their own IFR plane...

One should be taught "technical flying" in an IR, but most IR holders who are even remotely current already have their own IFR plane. It is the people who only ever flew with PPL instructors who have the basic problems.

In short, no easy solutions to this.

You also need to learn the aircraft systems. In 2002, I never found an instructor who knew how the HSI worked, how to set up the KLN94, etc. Would you get into a car without working out how to work the lights, the indicators, the wipers, the radio? Many people would, but you can't do that with a plane like an SR22 because most of the knobs will be a complete mystery :)

[belowradar]

I think that FUJIABOUND makes some valid points

Pace how many hours have you got on Avedyne EFIS ?

As an high time jet pilot with ATPL invulnerability can creep in

This like all aircraft is OK vfr but familiarity IFR is a different matter

Cirrus recommend a minimum of 10 hours for VFR transition and 15 for IFR transition. Time on type is critical for competent and safe IFR flight.

The group that you refer to permits and encourages any qualified pilot to join and 10 hours is where the insurance draw the line which compared to many privately owned aircraft is pretty good. The line could be drawn at 500 hrs but why exclude newly qualified and competent pilots who are happy to learn the syatems properly.

When you did groundschool on your Citation did you moan and fuss about the need to do it ?

[Pace]

When you did groundschool on your Citation did you moan and fuss about the need to do it ?

Ground school? Systems or even a systems sim no issue with that!

A citation flies at twice the speed of a Cirrus and over twice the altitude but I can assure you that you will not be required to do 10 hrs in the aircraft for a type rating issue.

Give me a Cirrus and with no checkout I will guarantee I will deliver it to the S France completely intact and operated correctly.
The way some talk of this aircraft is as if it was some highly advanced military hardware with very demanding handling which will bite at the slightest provocation and kill you at a sneeze.

As to the avionics fit yes if you need to know the system inside out you are correct if you want basic functions its not rocket science.
I flew a Bravo with Primus 1000 and had a full conversion on that unit but realise you do not need to use 90% of its functions to fly and get places.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Peterh - just to chip in on that new line of debate I also dont disagree with you, because there are almost always exceptions to a general rule.

The younger you are the faster your reactions so arguably young low hour pilots might adapt to high speed aircraft more quickly.

I think "techy" people pick up glass really quickly, those not, well struggle for a long time.

Those are just two examples of why there are exceptions to any general rule. However if you talk to those who routinely convert pilots to a Cirrus they will tell that low time pilots with a background of the typical training GA aircraft take more time to adapt to high performance SEPs.

Moreover I do think the cirrus is a little different to many high performance SEPs. It is more slippery and without the luxury to dump the u/c, flaps or speed brakes so pilots are even more likely to be hot and high, the side stick is different (nothing more) compared to the conventional yoke with which most low hours pilots will be familiar, many high performance SEPs still have conventional six packs so however you cut it there is one less thing going on there as well, and the landing profile is a little different.

You may well have found transitioning to a Cirrus more difficult than a TB20 those years ago, perhaps not a whole lot, but never the less more of a challenge. :)

Moreover its one thing flying the thing another being comfortable. I reckon flying a DA42 is a very easy way into twins and anyone who has flown a DA40 will find it easy once they have adjusted to the extra speed and the size. A Seneca or Aztec is in theory no different but I reckon most pilots will find either a real handful to start with, if for no other reason than "the systems" come from a different age, are not necessarily intuitive but when things go wrong you had better be familiar with them.

[Fuji Abound]

Give me a Cirrus and with no checkout I will guarantee I will deliver it to the S France completely intact and operated correctly.From what you say, your challenge (assuming you have never used an Avidyne or G1000 depending on which is fitted) would be to operate the avionics correctly - I don't mean just getting by in VMC which you would probably do.

Your other challenge would be to land on a 700 m runway in the south of France with a stiff cross wind if it were your first landing and you hadn't flown a side stick before.

In both scenarios you might wish you had polled the aircraft around the sky for a few more hours first .. .. .. and then again maybe not. As I said earlier there is no absolute rule, but of this I can assure you, I know of some really high hour commercial pilots who would wish they had.

and lets gets this Cirrus business out of the equation, exactly the same could and would apply to a G1000 Mooney as but one example.

I am definitely no Sky God but I flew a Bambi making the mistake that of course it wouldn't present a problem straight out the box. I can give you a few reasons why for me it was much more so than I suspect would be true of a cirrus and yet it is slower and less complex.

As I keep on saying a Cirrus is easy to fly, I can name a number of other SEPs I have flown that I think were much more difficult, but just in exactly the same way it has enough differences that you might be glad of an hour or two.

Mind you I am always very impressed how well people with your background and experience fly, it certainly puts me to shame. ;) I am just an amateur, for you guys doing it as a living it is a different game, as it rightly should be.

[Cobalt]

In general - minimum hours training requirements are rubbish. Capability in that aircraft counts. Which is a combination of your experience, general capability, and how fast you learn.

I just checked my logbook. My SR22TN (G1000) checkout took a staggering 1 hour and 15 minutes. 3 landings, 1 ILS. Covered stalling, PFL, the usual. Plus a hefty dose of POH reading and half a day of systems and general chat with the instructor.

Why? I was very current on the Columbia 400 with G1000.

On the other hand, my check-out on the Columbia the year before took almost 10 hours, 30+ landings, and quite a few approaches, since it was my first glass-cockpit aircraft and its handling was significantly different from anything I had flown before.


And in both cases, what needed training and whether I was ready to fly the thing on my own was pretty clear to both me and the instructor.


But hey, I am still embarrased if I have to explain to the 1000 hour FAA PPL holder that, in addition to some sensible UK airspace and radio familiarisation, he needs a cross-channel check before we allow him to rent an aircraft and fly to France. I am clearly not sufficiently adapted to the UK training philosophy.

[belowradar]

When you completed your type rating PACE you would have flown a sim for quite a few hours and that sim was considered as good as flying the aircraft.

Human factors comes into this and I would really wonder why a high time commercial pilot with no Cirrus time would balk at the investment of 10 hours to really understand a new aircraft and it's systems ? In my experience for most pilots new to the type (whatever their hours or experience) it is a sensible investment.

And yes if you have been flying a similar type with same avionics then you should pick it up faster but if the insurance states 10 hours on type then 10 hours on type it must be.

Seems like you are experiencing a much needed reality check and finding it a bit annoying

[A and C]

The Cirrus is a simple SEP not a rocket ship, to fly it you can look out of the window and use the ASI and Compass............all the rest is just nice to have.

Now please explain to me how someone with the time on aircraft that PACE has needs 10 hours flying on the thing, he needs a look at the low speed handling and a few landings, one flap less, all the rest is just so much bull.

As for this being a CRM issue that is just another abuse of a good idea by the type of people who you normally find in elf & safety roles.

[421C]

Belowradar, I am not writing to be argumentative with you personally, we are all entitled to our opinions, but because in general I find it depressing how easily European pilots are sometimes willing to defend over-onerous rules and regulations.

Human factors comes into this Really, in what way that is different from HF coming into any differences or type-specific training?

and I would really wonder why a high time commercial pilot with no Cirrus time would balk at the investment of 10 hours to really understand a new aircraft and it's systems ? For exactly the reason that a high time commercial pilot will be well aware he can convert to many other more complex types in less time. 10hrs is a ridiculous requirement for a fixed-gear SEP.

In my experience for most pilots new to the type (whatever their hours or experience) it is a sensible investment.Don't you see a huge difference between the following

In your experience 10hrs is a sensible investment for most pilots

and

10hrs is a must for all pilots

Pace is likely a pilot outside your experience, he is not the "most" pilots.

Seems like you are experiencing a much needed reality check and finding it a bit annoying I think you need a reality check on the difference between things you personally think are good idea and things that should be imposed on others.

If anyone needs to understand why aviation in Europe is so over-regulated, you only need to look at the mindset in some pilots who jump with ease from the former to the latter.

I personally took about 6hrs to convert to the SR22, about 1hr refamiliarising with flying in the US and 3hrs of that was because I wasn't very good at landing it. For a pilot experienced in the G1000 and complex aircraft, it should be about 2hrs minimum. The rest is competence based. I rightly needed more time because I wasn't very competent!

In practice I would expect an insurer to waive the 10hrs requirement for a very experienced pilot.

[Fuji Abound]

421c i dont think this has anything to do with over regulation in europe. I guess all europe would say is if you have a glass sign off you can fly a cirrus. I dont even think you need a vp prop. (now there is a thought). You cant get much less regulated.

I do take your point however that over regulation in other areas may lead some organisations to adopt a similiar mind set. As much as i agree with you i think in terms of what a pilot can do with a ppl is pretty remarkable. As i have said from a regulatory point of view there is little a 10 hour pilot needs to do to fly a cirrus. Morever in terms of proving any degree of on going competancy the number of hours flown are incredibly light. Could a 10 hour pilot really go nine months without flying and then fly a cirrus solo?

The forces at work here are quite different. We have discussed why insurance companies and owners might expect more. Whether they are justified is debatable and is being debated.

As i have said you can get a sign off with an hours flight if you are good enough. If an owner thinks he needs longer to make sure you are going to look after his aircraft over and beyond not killing yourself then as so often said on here its his toy, his money, he can do as he wishes.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Well said 421. In my opinion the insurance company will specify a minimum number of hours experience for the pilot and then conversion onto type as required, rather than X numbers of hours of training.

I fly an aircraft that is considerably more complex than the Cirrus, that is both in terms of systems and performance. The limitations of the insurance is that the pilot must have High Performance sign off, Turbine sign off and 1000 hours SEP experience. They also stipulate a 10 hour course (if the aircraft was registered in the UK operated on a JAA licence then it's a specific type rating)

With a turbine, pressurised cabin, retracts and a cruise speed that is not that far off VNe in percentage terms compared to say a spam can ( a speed that can easily be reached should you lose concentration in turbulent IFR and are hand flying it) It's also a type that has a history of insurance claims.

Now the real question is if the Cirrus is as complex and difficult to manage? I would strongly suspect its not.

[peterh337]

I've been in an SR22 a couple of times and it didn't strike me as any different to a TB20 to fly in terms of what it does if you "lose" it.

Any "150kt" plane will be slippery, in that if you bank it to 45 degrees, close your eyes and take your hands off the yoke, when open your eyes 10-20 secs later you will be past Vne.

That's just basic physics. You aren't going to get 150kt or so out of 200 or so HP (speaking of cruise settings) unless the aerodynamics are fairly reasonable.

I think the Cirrus takes more getting used to than a TB20 because of the stick which has a lack of feel to it, and I would be tempted to fly it on autopilot most of the time.

Legally you can fly an SR22 (or a TB20) with just a PPL and diff training which could be as little as a 1hr flight with an instructor with the right authority. Whether that is a good idea is another matter and insurers evidently take a different view. And the instructor won't sign you off until he reckons you are good enough, which will take as long as it takes... 1hr, 10hrs, 30hrs...

I do think systems competence is important but one is entitled to disagree :) and take the view that the compass (and altimeter etc) is all you need to know.

[Pace]

Fuji

A couple of points. Firstly 5 hrs would be acceptable to me 10 are not. I have had demo flights in both the SR22 and 20 and used one up at Turweston a few years ago for a SEP renewal hence my bet about going green to the S of France.
The best place to learn about the Avidyne is by reading the books and maybe using the PC Sim.
It is crazy to be blowing money trying to work it out in the air.
Then it comes to the point of how many of the 100s of functions do you use?
At the end of the day you fly the plane not the TV screen! Many are nice to have.

Below radar you have a point about some commercial pilots who jump into their A320s for a living and never touch GA but then there are pilots who fly A320s and fly GA as a hobby.
Then there are commercial pilots who fly multiple GA types from Business jets to Turboprops to Piston twins.

It really is not Rocket science and please do not get lost in your TV set in the panel your still flying an aircraft.
Do Not feed the regulators and insurance companies or soon you will be required to fly 20 hrs on the untamed beast of a Cirrus and then you will argue that 20 hrs is justified.



Pace

[007helicopter]

I think the Cirrus takes more getting used to than a TB20 because of the stick which has a lack of feel to it, and I would be tempted to fly it on autopilot most of the time.

I do fly a lot on autopilot as I suspect do the vast majority of Cirrus or other types on long cross countries, Do you hand fly your long trips in the TB20? just curious?

I can not agree the side stick has a lack of feel, feels great to me and very responsive.

This debate is not about Cirrus in general because different renters, insurers, owners can all set there minimum criteria for a check out.

This is about the specific renter that Pace has contacted who has an insurance requirement for any new renter regardless of experience to have a 10 hour transition, That organisation has done it to reduce annual insurance cost.

It is this organisations policy and choice to do what ever they wish and if that drives away experienced guys like pace then that is up to them.

[007helicopter]

The best place to learn about the Avidyne is by reading the books and maybe using the PC Sim.
It is crazy to be blowing money trying to work it out in the air.
Then it comes to the point of how many of the 100s of functions do you use?
At the end of the day you fly the plane not the TV screen!

I agree the majority of the Garmin & Avidyne stuff is best learnt on the ground but does need to be practiced extensively in the air.

While of course you fly the plane and not the TV screens if you are going IFR or doing instrument approaches believe me you had better be pretty good at flying those TV screens and use the GNS430's with ease or else you are going to be in deep sh1t.

[Fuji Abound]

007helicopter

Yes, I would also agree about the side stick. This is another element of the Cirrus that is often brought up. I think often so by pilots who have very little time on the aircraft. Like anything new it seems "odd" at first. In fact I so much enjoy flying with the stick that I often hand fly entirely and have often flown for several hours using only the sidestick. My personal preference now is conventional stick, side stick and yoke. I guess the only reason a yoke was put in an aircraft was because the designers thought they should make an aircraft seem more like a car.

Pace - I agree with almost everything in your last post so you see we disagree very little! Your point about the screens is of course valid but I didnt know whether your jaunt to Nice was going to be partly in IMC. I think you will find there isn't much else to look at in IMC. :) Of course you don't need all the bells and whistles to fly in IMC but I guess having a command of the basics is no bad thing.

421C - thinking about it you sum up very well a point I made earlier. So many posts are based entirely on personal experience (perhaps not surprisingly). One thing I realised from running a Group is things are sometimes not quite as you would expect! In fact when flying with someone else you are often better starting with no expectation and having no idea of their past experience or hours - usually the experience and qualifications comes as no surprise, but not always, usually the attitude is comparable, but not always! We naturally look at things from our own point of view so its entirely understandable that you and Pace could and would be comfortable in a Cirrus in a couple of hours but I know there are many pilots (not especially with your experience) that would not. Insurers don't have the luxury of flying with you so they calculate experience and premiums in a different way, you might not agree with their calculations but again perhaps that's because your perspective is different from theirs!

One of my stars is Raymond Blanc; they were only saying when he employs a chef he doesnt ask them what they have done or how they would cook a jugged hare, he asks them to fry an egg. The chef that thinks any fool can fry an egg and proceeds to do so without care or passion proceeds no further. There is an analogy there somewhere. If you have spent 300K of your children's hard won inheritance you might not only want a competent pilot but one who appreciates how to look after the aircraft. There are another two element that don't necessarily go together. ;) It am take a big longer to work out if the pilot is going to look after your aircraft in the way you would wish.

[Cobalt]

Fuji,

Raymond Blanc asks the chef to fry an egg. He does not insist on the chef frying nine more eggs, regardless of the quality of the first egg fried.

[Fuji Abound]

Cobalt - dont worry, one egg, one hour all good for me, you get to know more about most pilots in the first ten minutes than in the next 50 minutes. I am all for making it as short and sweet as possible unless of course the pilot shows no regard for the aircraft during that hour - which was the reason for the analogy.

[Pace]

Fuji

But then it should still come down to your judgement on what the individual pilot needs.
A bit like a first solo where you make a judgement on whether the student is safe to go and make it around on their own.

Its a bit like saying you will go solo at 20 hours regardless of whether you are ready earlier or need 40 hrs!

On the Avidyne there should be an abbreviated operation list surely ground studies and basic operation is the best way.

Often its the long legs with nothing to do on a cross country where you can play around with the functions and get into teh heart of the unit.
I would be interested how you teach the Avidyne?

One word of caution on reliance on autopilot is that with my experience I would never rely on autopilots I have had too many failures in jets too.
We have flown Citations hundreds of miles just below RVSM airspace with failed or not fully functioning autopilots.

They are something to monitor at all times and trust in none.

Pace

[belowradar]

The Cirrus is a simple SEP not a rocket ship, to fly it you can look out of the window and use the ASI and Compass............all the rest is just nice to have.

Now please explain to me how someone with the time on aircraft that PACE has needs 10 hours flying on the thing, he needs a look at the low speed handling and a few landings, one flap less, all the rest is just so much bull.

As for this being a CRM issue that is just another abuse of a good idea by the type of people who you normally find in elf & safety roles.

I actually admire your pugnacious attitude but for all of the wrong reasons, I love the fact that all of the rest is "so much Bull", I find it funny to be compared to "elf & safety" as I am definitely not a member of that gang. Definitely a new experience for me to absorb these viewpoints and comments......quite a laugh really ! I have often come out with statements like this myself so I guess I am getting a taste of what it is like to be on the receiving end. :)

[Big Pistons Forever]

I find it hard to believe this thread has gone on for 4 pages.

Pace:

You apear to be personally offended that that you are being required to do 10 hours of dual. I think this is a totally pointless attitude and whinging on about this in pprune IMO verges on the unprofessional.

Like many other areas in aviation mandatory hours minimums are being applied. You have two choices.

1) Do the 10 hours, or

2) Ask the owners of the aircraft that you want to fly to make an application to the insurance company to evaluate your experience and accept a reduced level of required training. I have personally had several instances where I was able to get insurance required minimums reduced or even waived on application of a specific request.

If the owners do not want to make the application or the insurance company does not want to bend then suck it up and pick choice 1 or find another airplane !

[A and C]

It s so nice to be appreciated ! As Pace said in his post above the avionics are best learned on the ground so why spend expensive time in the air teaching them, what matters is if the pilot can control the aircraft.

Most of these Avionic systems can be switched back to a basic HSI if you wish so use of these systems is not mandatory and in some cases the full EFIS navigation display can just confuse the situation with too much information, last week I turned off the map and put up the basic HSI to aid clarity during a VOR approach to runway 22R at Nice.

The most important thing with advanced Avionic systems is to make sure that you are the master of the system and select the appropriate display, don't become a slave to the system and become overloaded with information that distracts you from the task in hand. Most people fly the Cirrus VFR and for his the basic tools are the ASI, compass and looking out of the window.

I would question if too much information and too little looking out of the window were factors in the unfortunate accident at Shoreham some time back?

[belowradar]

A & C

Thanks for your insight's which are quite interesting

Perhaps we should rip out the avionics and just look out the window all the way to Nice.

I definitely think that a review of the 5 dangerous personality types from FAA ppl syllabus would be of assistance here

Impulsive
Invulnerability
Macho
Resignation
Anti-authority


3 Out of 5 is pretty good going. Not just a case of technical proficiency but also of attitude and personality (formed at a very early age), you might think that you are Neil Armstrong but if you don't have the right attitude then not worth the hassle anyway.

[A and C]

What an interesting observation, I am not anti authority, overly Macho and certainly not invulnerable but what i am is very anti bull***t.

I see the appropriate use of automation as the key to safe flight, a little basic pitch and power knowlage is the very first lesson in the PPL sylibus but an A330 was lost in the South Atlantic because the crew got so distracted by technology that they ignored PPL lesson one.

I see mandating ten hours of instruction in an SEP for a person with the background that Pace has as totally inappropriate and a typical reaction of someone viewing life from behind a desk. That is not anti authority as the mandate has nothing to do with safety and a lot to do with box ticking on the part of an insurance company employee NOT any one in an airworthiness function.

I can't help getting the impression that you have become seduced into thinking that automation is the key to safe flight, it is obviously a great aid but without a solid understanding of the basics the automatics will just take us down down the same road as the A330 crew.

[007helicopter]

Most of these Avionic systems can be switched back to a basic HSI if you wish so use of these systems is not mandatory and in some cases the full EFIS navigation display can just confuse the situation with too much information, last week I turned off the map and put up the basic HSI to aid clarity during a VOR approach to runway 22R at Nice.


A&C you have a lot of posts and clearly a lot of experience but clearly not much time in a Cirrus as you are not going to be turning off the avionics in a Cirrus and doing an ILS approach anywhere using the basic HSI:ugh:

[007helicopter]

Most people fly the Cirrus VFR and for his the basic tools are the ASI, compass and looking out of the window.

Complete and utter rubbish. How on earth do you justify or back that up?

[A and C]

So are you telling me that you can't switch the screens to a basic compass rose or arc ?

I find this all a little confusing being as one of the Cirrus aircraft we maintain has a basic six pack in front tof the pilot and one Avadine screen, on that aircraft you have no choice but to fly in basic HSI mode albeit with a big map on the screen to the right of the primary instruments.

It would seem to me that far from me not knowing much about Cirrus Avionic systems you might not have seen the range of Avionic fits avalable.

As for ASI & Compass these are the basic tools of navigation if you dont have an idea of your heading what are you going to do when the magenta line fails? Clearly without the basic knowlage you have no plan two.

May be we should take all the standby instruments out of your aircraft and rely on the chute if you have a major Avionic failure..........come to think of it the insurers may already be thinking things are going along those lines with the red handle being seen as the first option when plan one is thwarted by circumstance.

Could it be that the insurers are ahead of us on this one with the training requirements and sky high premiums being a reflection of the mind set of the AVERAGE Cirrus pilot ????

[Pace]

BigPistons

As I have said on a few occasions to fuji excuse my posting style a lot is to generate discussion and for effect

Do I think 10 Hrs with an instructor is too much YES! its crazy!

I have to look at the best deal to achieve what I want with my money! If it works out that I have to sit with an instructor for 10 hours so be it maybe take him on a long trip to the south of france and back

Who knows maybe I will be so bad with the aircraft I will need it?

But this discussion is not so much about me moaning at having to spend 1/3 of the time I want to purchase on a Cirrus with an instructor but why an aircraft with so many safety features requires such high insurance levels?

You would have thought it would be the other way around compared to an equivalent price conventional aircraft?

Pace

[007helicopter]

I find this all a little confusing being as one of the Cirrus aircraft we maintain has a basic six pack in front tof the pilot and one Avadine screen, on that aircraft you have no choice but to fly in basic HSI mode albeit with a big map on the screen to the right of the primary instruments.

Fair point the G1 (Generation 1) had a 6 pack, not sure when they stopped producing these but guessing around 2003 so the vast majority of fleet have all glass either Avidyne fit or Garmin Perspective and 4 back up instruments, ASI, AI, Altimeter and compass.

These would not allow you to fly an ILS.

If the PFD failed and or MFD failed you can fly an ILS from the info on the GNS430's, both of which are independent.

[peterh337]

If the PFD failed and or MFD failed you can fly an ILS from the info on the GNS430's

Can you fly a coupled ILS directly from the GNS430s?

It should be possible via an ARINC roll steering connection, if you have a compatible autopilot.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Pace - I agree with your reasoning. All those safety features yet a seemingly negative attitude from insurers. At the end of the day, its a fixed gear SEP. Yes it will bite if abused (as the video below demonstrates) If its only way to get certification is to have a BRS fitted, then perhaps that opens the door to UK "banned" designs such as the Bede BD5.

Perhaps I was lucky - I had been asked to fly the test flights for a friend who had built a long winged version which was close to completion when the CAA and PFA banned the design. My thoughts were that it was known to have a vicious stall, you needed to avoid getting into a high alpha position on the wing and you needed to watch your speed in the circuit and final approach - with that in mind I was prepared to fly it. Conditions that would be no worse than a Pitts special with an engine faliure....

Perhaps the CAA will reconsider letting them fly if someone comes up with a mod to fit a BRS.

Without the BRS would the Cirrus have got CAA approval?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nm_hoHhbFo&feature=related

[007helicopter]

May be we should take all the standby instruments out of your aircraft and rely on the chute if you have a major Avionic failure..........come to think of it the insurers may already be thinking things are going along those lines with the red handle being seen as the first option when plan one is thwarted by circumstance.

Could it be that the insurers are ahead of us on this one with the training requirements and sky high premiums being a reflection of the mind set of the AVERAGE Cirrus pilot ????

OK, a partial avionic failure is inconvenient but there is plenty of redundancy, 2 x GNS 430's for a start. I have not heard of a 100% total failure of all avionics but if that did happen yes you would be in a bad place if in solid IMC down to minimums it could be fatal, what would be so wrong in this situation with having a chute as one of the options?

This thread was not about sky high premiums, it was about Paces potential renter requiring a 10 hour check out. Do you have any evidence or examples of sky high premiums or is it just an uninformed opinion?

My premium and that of those others I know relative to hull value is perfectly reasonable.

What is the mind set of the AVERAGE Cirrus Pilot? please do inform.

[007helicopter]

Can you fly a coupled ILS directly from the GNS430s?

Yes you can.:ok:

[goldeneaglepilot]

Having spoken last night to a pilot who rented a Cirrus shortly after completing his PPL, I think the aircraft is well within the capabilities of almost all PPL holders. With respect to Pace, who has a wide range of experience in many different aircraft types, I doubt he would have any issue in safely flying one and in a very short time being up to speed on the relevant systems. In fact I would expect that to be a significantly reduced period than a new ppl holder.

At the end of the day we are talking of a person with a very wide range of experience including the management of complex integrated systems. Why apply a "one size fits all" approach to the 10 hours? I would be very surprised in the insurers were rigid about that if disclosure was made to them of his experience and would expect in his case wording along the lines of "check ride and familiarisation with the aircraft at the discretion of an instructor"

The owner can of course apply any requirements he may want, equally Pace can go elsewhere to rent.

[007helicopter]

But this discussion is not so much about me moaning at having to spend 1/3 of the time I want to purchase on a Cirrus with an instructor but why an aircraft with so many safety features requires such high insurance levels?

You would have thought it would be the other way around compared to an equivalent price conventional aircraft?

Again I do not think insurance levels are that high but different insurers, renters, clubs etc all have there own criteria negotiated by market conditions and what ever suits them

You would have thought the Cirrus would have had a better safety record and therefore lower than average premiums but this was the big dilema with more Cirrus Fatal's than the average GA fleet, the fatal's were made up of a high proportion of experienced seasoned pilots and lack of training, incorrect training and time on type seem to have been factor's.

This record appears thankfully to be improving and training standards and safety much higher mainly due to voluntary from those within COPA community.

How ever as the fleet gets older and becomes much more affordable there is likely an increased risk that more will get sold to Pilots who do not value or wish to invest in training.

[007helicopter]

Having spoken last night to a pilot who rented a Cirrus shortly after completing his PPL, I think the aircraft is well within the capabilities of almost all PPL holders. With respect to Pace, who has a wide range of experience in many different aircraft types, I doubt he would have any issue in safely flying one and in a very short time being up to speed on the relevant systems. In fact I would expect that to be a significantly reduced period than a new ppl holder.

I also would expect Pace to be up to speed quickly, there is no doubting his credentials, for the purpose of this discussion it would be interesting to know pace what experience you have on the GNS430's?

And also what experience on Glass?

It would also GEP be interesting to here how many hours your recent PPL contact had to do before renters would let him loose?

Training any PPL to fly a Cirrus VFR is no big deal, turn all the glass off so they are not distracted and a few hours they will flying just fine. If they get the speeds wrong on final and landing they may well stuff it and kill them selves but other than that sticking to strictly VFR they should be fine.

A large proportion of Cirrus Fatal's are VFR into un planned IMC, strangely this has killed roughly the same amount of VFR and IFR qualified pilots.

[007helicopter]

within the capabilities of almost all PPL holders.

You must know a different group to me:E

I would agree in reality but I think some would require substantially more than 10 hours training before they could be considered safe.

[A and C]

The reason that the aircraft generates the problems is that a lot of the guys flying these aircraft rely totally on the technology and have no plan two as well as not fully understanding the system, I talk on these forums of using a basic HSI mode for the navigation display and I get told that I can't turn off the avionics and fly an approach.

At no time did I say I was going to turn off the avionics, I was talking about switching to a more appropriate display mode that decluttered the screen. There also seems to be an inability to understand that the heading display on the "glass" is just a gyro compass...........the basic tool of navigation!

I fear that a lot of the problems for these guys is due to information overload because they don't de-clutter the screens and just display the information that is appropriate for the phase of flight. I quoted flying the VOR 22R at NIce in basic HSI mode and got a "what a luddite" reaction, I could have flown the approach fully automaticly in LNAV/VNAV but because of the short cuts and speed control that ATC demand the lowest cockpit workload is obtained by a basic HSI display and flying the aircraft in HDG select & vertical speed.

The other advantage is that by flying the aircraft in this way the crew are eyes up rather than heads down in the FMC, this is always a good idea when you have low level VFR helicopters flying along the coastline and at the MAP will be transitioning to a curving visual approach.

The nub of the Cirrus (& Daimond) glass cockpit problems are making sure that the display used is APPROPRIATE to the phase of flight and not letting the technology become the master of what you are trying to achieve, I think that display management and information overload are key factors in the Cirrus not being as safe as the technology should have made it.

007you have just confirmed my suspicions that you think a total Glass display failure in weather close to the CAT1 minimums is likely to be best handled by using the chute, What is wrong with flying a PAR down to CAT 1? If I fly IFR in a single I always have a hand held VHF radio to enable me to recover the aircraft with a total electrical failure to an airfield with PAR in CAT 1 Weather.............the cost, a few hundreds quid vs the chances of writing off the aircraft & maybe yourself................... But maybe I should look at the upside to your attitude, a few more ballistic recoverys is bound to keep the cash coming in when we have to fix them !

[007helicopter]

007you have just confirmed my suspicions that you think a total Glass display failure in weather close to the CAT1 minimums is likely to be best handled by using the chute, What is wrong with flying a PAR down to CAT 1? If I fly IFR in a single I always have a hand held VHF radio to enable me to recover the aircraft with a total electrical failure to an airfield with PAR in CAT 1 Weather........

A&C Credit to you if you are capable of that safely , I am not and probably never will be.

If the glass fails, not a big deal there and 2 x GNS430's that I would be ok to fly an ILS but I personally would not be comfortable down to minimums in that scenario and would endeavour if possible to divert somewhere if possible with better conditions.

I am comfortable in IMC but prefer a bigger margin of error than minimums and set my own personal go / no go decisions based on being an average Joe.

The chances of all systems failing unexpectedly is remote but it could happen.

You carry your VHF handheld, I carry a fully charged Garmin 695 in the event of total failure plus an ICOM handheld.

Each to there own and in really heavy IMC and total all out electrical failure and doing a landing to minimums I would certainly weigh everything in the time and circumstances available and consider the chute may be my safest option of survival so that certainly confirms your suspicions:ok:

[mad_jock]

To be honest its really isn't that hard doing what he suggests. I would do the same.

The thought of it sounds worse than it actually is.

PAR's and SRA's are none events and actually quite low work load less so than a procedural approach. And quite good fun to be honest.

You can fly a PAR down to zero zero ie zero ft and zero viz and touch down and be perfect safe.

Go and get a auld fart ex RAF instructor to take you to do a few. After which I can garantee you will go for that option before the chute option.

[A and C]

More years ago than I care to mention my initial IMC rating was issued on the basis of a PAR as one of the instrument approaches, the aircraft had the basic sx pack and in terms of attitude and heading referance had more or less the same instrumentation as the standby instruments fitted to the Cirrus.

You seem to be telling me that what was normal flying for a 80 hour PPL thirty years back is likely to be beyond the capabilitys of todays average PPL/IMC holder, maybe we're you live but were I teach we would not put a pilot up for the IMC test if his/ her skills were not up to flying a PAR with an AI as attitude reference, those who are doing well usually get the do a PAR on limited panel ( that one has both the pilot and controler working quite hard!)

[Pace]

I also would expect Pace to be up to speed quickly, there is no doubting his credentials, for the purpose of this discussion it would be interesting to know pace what experience you have on the GNS430's?

007

Some here are giving me more expertise than I have yes I have a lot of experience on multiple types of singles and twins and fly bottom of the pile business jets as a Captain.
Primus 1000 on a Bravo and the usual Garmin 530/430 avidine MFD.
I cannot say I am a great lover of the fully televison screen systems fitted to light aircraft preferring a mix of conventional and glass.
I agree that learning systems is better on the ground in sims or on long boring legs rather than in the air with an instructor.
I have flown the SR20 and 22 for short flights and did not see anything which would be a major problem.Again the twinstar!

Pace

[007helicopter]

You can fly a PAR down to zero zero ie zero ft and zero viz and touch down and be perfect safe.

Go and get a auld fart ex RAF instructor to take you to do a few. After which I can garantee you will go for that option before the chute option.

Sure, but to keep this in context, we were talking about on a hand held VHF

I think also I said it depends on weighing up all circumstances, it might be a different choice at say Manston with little Cumulus Granite compared to say Aspen Colorado, it could depend on fatigue, currency, single pilot, who else on board, a whole load of factors, I am just saying i would consider it a viable option under certain hypothetical circumstances. Zero Zero for me would be one of them.

[007helicopter]

You seem to be telling me that what was normal flying for a 80 hour PPL thirty years back is likely to be beyond the capabilitys of todays average PPL/IMC holder, maybe we're you live but were I teach we would not put a pilot up for the IMC test if his/ her skills were not up to flying a PAR with an AI as attitude reference, those who are doing well usually get the do a PAR on limited panel ( that one has both the pilot and controler working quite hard!)

In a training environment with an instructor / examiner on board as a planned exercise it is one thing, under the stress of a real full on electrical failure in solid IMC with a hand held VHF at a random point in time unexpectedly I wager that would challenge a substantial % of IFR pilots and lead to a reasonable amount of botched and fatal landings.

Fortunately complete failure of this type in the modern aircraft I am trained to fly it is to the best of my knowledge an extremely unlikely scenario.

Also I do not mind admitting that I am so rusty on flying with traditional instruments that I would not even consider going IMC without a large amount of re training.

Kudos to you if you are totally competent and capable with a hand held VHF but for me I am certainly not and do not intend to have this as an option.

[007helicopter]

I cannot say I am a great lover of the fully televison screen systems fitted to light aircraft preferring a mix of conventional and glass.
I agree that learning systems is better on the ground in sims

As A&C pointed out the older G1 Cirrus with 6 pack have more of a mix of instruments, the newer Cirrus you are really totally dependent on the mix of glass and GNS 430's.

We talked in the swap an hour thread, if you can handle my chute pull policy feel free to come down for a few more hours in an SR22 as part of your decision making process.

[mad_jock]

Doesn't matter if its a hand held you don't have to do any read backs on a PAR. They just talk you down. With small corrections in heading and rate of decent. Then at the bottom tell you that your over the touchdown point.

At which point hold the heading keep the ball in the center take the power off and as soon as the mains touch, hammer on the brakes.

Some controls have more finess with left a smige right a hair, little bobble please.

Its has been known to be done via a mobile tucked under a headset.

there is no way on this earth I would go for the chute if there was a field near by a radar. Even if they didn't have an offical SRA approach they would sort you out.

this conversation though does sort of show though why the insurance is so high. Writing off perfectly servicable aircraft when you still have options left.

[A and C]

The hand held radio has plugs for the my headset so it is more or less like using a normal radio, as you may know you are not required to reply to the PAR controllers instructions during the final part of the approach so as long as you can hear him that will get you to 200 ft above the runway in a good position to make a landing.

By personal aircraft also has a connection to put the hand held on to an external antenna this boosts the range by a factor of five.

With preparation, and practice a total electrical failure is not the drama you might think it would be.

[007helicopter]

But maybe I should look at the upside to your attitude, a few more ballistic recoverys is bound to keep the cash coming in when we have to fix them !

Don't hold your breath A&C, one on UK soil in the last decade is not going to earn you much.

If you do end up fixing mine due to a chute pull and I can walk in to inspect I will take as much flak as you want about my attitude, no worries.

[007helicopter]

The hand held radio has plugs for the my headset so it is more or less like using a normal radio, as you may know you are not required to reply to the PAR controllers instructions during the final part of the approach so as long as you can hear him that will get you to 200 ft above the runway in a good position to make a landing.

By personal aircraft also has a connection to put the hand held on to an external antenna this boosts the range by a factor of five.

With preparation, and practice a total electrical failure is not the drama you might think it would be.

So does my ICOM lug into my headset, as a confession I have only tried it once in the cockpit and was not over happy with the results, I will try again and get an instructor and a scenario to do some training under PAR instructions.

The external antenna sounds a good idea, would that generally require an STC?

[A and C]

No STC required, My instalation is via a Bendix/King mechanical relay that fits into the panel.

The relay disconnects the VHF 2 from its antenna when you plug in the hand held antenna cable. A very minor modification that I did when the rest of The avionics were changed.

At 3000ft it increases the range of the hand held from about 15 miles with the rubber antenna to at least 60 miles ( I did not bother to test it further than 60 miles).

[Piper.Classique]

A and C, could you let me have a little more detail on the mod? Could it be done to the primary (i.e. Only) radio? I generally carry a handheld in my bag, with a headset adaptor, but as you say then range isn't too good. Feel free to PM me if you prefer. Thanks

[mad_jock]

Just make sure you get an old school instructor. Might be an issue finding one thats not steam only instruments :D

There is nothing special about PARS and most mil fields are actually more than happy for you to do one because it keeps the controllers in check so to speak.

My first ever PAR and I might add no training for, was in anger with 18 punters down the back, a cloud base of OVC001 and 700m RVR. Plan was to show willing by doing 1 approach and then bugger off to some nicer wx and an ILS. Runway lights on the nose at mins, seemed rude not to land so we did.

[007helicopter]

there is no way on this earth I would go for the chute if there was a field near by a radar. Even if they didn't have an offical SRA approach they would sort you out.

this conversation though does sort of show though why the insurance is so high. Writing off perfectly servicable aircraft when you still have options left.

But lets keep this in perspective. There is ZERO evidence I am aware of to say chute pulls have effected world wide Cirrus insurance costs, Peter quotes someones excess increased 5 times but the significance of that depends what it was before.

I and many other Cirrus owners think our insurance premium is perfectly reasonable. (I am sure some will disagree)

As I said my decision would depend on all the other factors and to then try and choose the best decision relative for me at that point in time.

[007helicopter]

There is nothing special about PARS and most mil fields are actually more than happy for you to do one because it keeps the controllers in check so to speak.

That is another factor, controller skill and experience (or lack of) may stuff you into the ground. Do controllers practice this often, I only ask because I have no idea?

I must admit with 18 punters on board and no training for you first PAR, OVC001 & 700mtr when there was an alternate with good weather strikes me as a fairly high risk for your passengers, when you say in anger why was this or what were the circumstances?

Also a wee bit Macho for my tastes.

Was this in Military or Civvi life?

[A and C]

PAR is now almost totally a military letdown, all the RAF controllers are good at this and a lot of them are very good ! As long as you can fly the aircraft they will put you in a place from which you can land.

Piper classique I will look out the details but I see no reason why the instalation that you are thinking of won't work, the mechanical relay was initaly offered by Bendix/King as an accessory for the KX99 hand held radio, perhaps a little Internet searching might find the part number.

Ahh the power of the Internet ...... Mechanical relay part number 071-01443-0001 (Bendix/king)

[mad_jock]

Civil commercial passenger AOC operation.

In anger means it wasn't a training flight.

Why is it high risk?

And when I said nice wx I meant somewhere that you would still think was bloody horrible but is all part of life as a commercial pilot.

Its only high risk if you don't have an escape plan, I think I had three that day. Two alternates and I had enough fuel on to hold for 15 mins and still return back to my departure with an alternate there and reserve fuel.

And to add the controllers need to stay current an approach a week or two something like that. I never ever had a "no thanks" when we offered to accept one when early and even if we did need an ILS to get us below MSA 50% of the time they would ask us to do a PAR for controller currency.

I think the mil mins off one are below 100ft.

[007helicopter]

MJ Fair enough, I respect your position as a commercial Pilot and will rephrase that, in my personal capability as a PPL I would consider 100ft ceiling in any conditions a high risk for my self, with additional stress of failed instruments and no panel, plus a controller that may or may not be current, plus a procedure I have never practiced and I am not familiar with the correct phraseology or what to expect, yes I would actually consider it a very high risk and with 100ft ceilings and no viable alternative I would find the most open area and pull the chute.

I appreciate this is not for you and you are not an average PPL

Relating this back in some way to OP original point I would also consider this a high risk (IMHO) for anyone low hours on type or anyone not very current with all the systems and suggest that what ever level of experience one has it is wise to take a reasonable amount of relevant training before flying in a new type with unfamiliar avionics in challenging conditions such as hard IMC

[A and C]

The system minima is 200ft but I know that aircraft have been recovered in far lower cloud base than that.

One of my instructors was an ex RAF controller, he said that one very foggy night he was called out of the mess to talk down a Vulcan that was almost out of fuel, this was in the days when the PAR controler worked from a hut next to the radar in the middle of the airfield,

As the Vulcan got down to below 100ft he herd the aircraft and told the pilot that he was just coming over the threshold. The aircraft was parked on the runway as there was not enough visibility to taxi

Later in the bar the captain of the Vulcan said that he did not positively see the runway lights untill after the wheels touched down.........I'm told the evening ended with industrial quantitys of beer being consumed.

Having done CAT 3 no DH on the A320 I know what this approach must have looked like but I was lucky enough to just be the the spectator in the airbus watching the automatics do the work and just taxing the thing to the terminal, hats off to the guys who did this manually !!!

[mad_jock]

When it gives 100ft OVC is quite common to get the lights at 200ft with CAT 1 lighting and at 300 with CAT II lighting sometimes higher. Day V night makes a huge difference.

OVC 100ft RVR 550m is challanging and you get a sense of relief/statisfaction when you get in.

The first time a new commercial pilot does one in anger is one of those rights of passage. In someways its when they first realise that is not a computer game and you really really don't have alot of time between seeing a visual reference, which might not be tarmac or PAPI's, you may only get that at 50-100ft. And planting the wheels while doing 120knts. Add in 20knts of xwind and you have to watch for them going into shock on the turn round.

This safety sense may help with what goes on doing a PAR.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_09webSSL26.pdf

See the whole trick with this flying in clouds milarky is never get yourself into a position when you don't have any other options. And what you can downgrade instrument wise to and still have options is remarkably little.

And to be honest for someone of Paces experence even though he is FAA ;) :ok:, I really can't see the point of doing 10 hours training. You either have a instrument head on you or your don't, 10 hours isn't going to sort that out.

[172driver]

I know very little about PAR approaches other than what's been written about them in the 'Polish president' thread over at R&N, where it was discussed quite extensively.

So some Qs to the wise:

- what equipment does the airport need to have for this procedure?
- are civilian airports likely to have it (if it's non-standard stuff)?
- are civilian controllers trained in this?
- what, if any, equipment (e.g. transponder?) must still be functioning in the a/c?

[mad_jock]

They have a radar that can do vertical as well as horizontal you can spot them because they have nodding head on the side that scans up and down.

They won't have it these days unless your going into a mil and civi airfield. I don't know of any in the UK. With an ILS its cheaper and requires less training/upkeep for the controllers. Some units do still though have SRA which is a NPA but you need your altimeter to be working.

I doud't they are these days, unless they are on a mil contract.

Only equipment you need is a receiving radio in theory don't even need to be able to transmit. Which is why they are so great as a last resort and well worth knowing where you can get one if the poo really does hit the fan.

[peterh337]

A couple of little points

The relay disconnects the VHF 2 from its antenna when you plug in the hand held antenna cable. A very minor modification that I did when the rest of The avionics were changed.

At 3000ft it increases the range of the hand held from about 15 miles with the rubber antenna to at least 60 milesI have this too but without a relay; I have a loop in the COM2 antenna cable, a short BNC cable, and the ICOM radio can be plugged into this. Very trivial. A relay would have to be a coaxial 50ohm relay whose insertion loss will be a lot more than two BNC (or SMA) connectors.

Re PAR, there are almost no airports in the south of England that do PAR approaches. Maybe Benson, Boscombe or Odiham?

A PAR approach is not that easy to fly unless one has practiced regularly - unless you are descending to a very generous MDH like 500ft, which one can frankly do with a handheld in an emergency, having picked an airport with no real obstacles around it :)

Anybody flying abroad IFR will naturally get lots of ILS practice but PAR practice is hard to get.

If you want a battery backup for an ILS, there is a handheld radio which will do that, for a few hundred bucks IIRC. Not UK agency approved so you have to do a, ahem, "personal import" ;)

[Fuji Abound]

Don't forget most airports with radar will provide a SRA.

There are plenty in the south as just about every where.

I have never heard so much none sense on this forum - I can only assume to wind up 007helicopter.

In the very unlikely event of a total electrical failure you lot should know better than encourage pilots to shoot approaches to minima. I have no doubt that those of you that are really bashing the approaches day in day out will do a good job, but there is nothing on the packet that says every instrument pilot or for that matter every pilot must have the same skill set as you Sky Gods!

Be in no doubt, regardless of whether it be a Cirrus or something else flying an approach to minima or flying a SRA or PAR with a hand held radio is a very big deal. Its a lovely idea in the comfort of your arm chair and I am always a little suspicious whether that arm chair has proved too comfortable for some to remember that the occasion on which it happens the weather might just be cr*p, you are bouncing around and worried about avoiding the worst of it, you aint to chuffed that all your systems have failed and may well be worried about whats going to fail next.

Clearly I am not in the same Sky God league and I too would weigh the options carefully.

I think some of you might well be quite naughty boys. :=

[mad_jock]

Difficult are you taking the piss?

You don't have to look at anything just jig it up and down slightly and left a bit right a bit. A complete none instrument pilot could fly one its just like having an instructor sitting next to you interpreting the instruments they will also tell you ground speed as well.

You don't need to be "current" either just like doing a SRA or a DME arc just crack on. I can go years between doing them and still be cock on. If you can fly a ILS you can fly a PAR. Its the whole point of them. So a plane can come back shot to hell, blind unable to transmit and still get it to the ground with a bloody great net to catch them if so required.

Most mil fields have them if they have FJ's, Mahram doesn't have one.

And not everone flys in the south of England.

I ain't a sky god and yes I normally do bang in 20-30 approaches a week. But honestly even the extremely low houred FO's wouldn't struggle, some of which can't find the toilet in the airport.

Its a mind set of dealing with issues when flying especially on instruments.

DODAR is used extensively today in airline ops

1. Diagnose
2. Options
3. Decide
4. Act
5. Review.

If you don't have a clue what your options are apart pull the chute you really don't have many options.

And a complete electrical failure is more likely than an engine failure. Well I haven't had engine failure yet in a SEP and have the electrics 5-6 times in 1100 hours. The older the airframes get the more likely it is to happen. So it might not happen for a couple of years but it will at some point.

['India-Mike]

Interestingly (well, maybe not) both on my IR training and IRI course I got PARs first before I got the ILS. In both cases the view was that the PAR was a great intro to the concept of the precision approach. I've been taught that a good option is to teach a pseudo PAR to my students before I take them on the ILS. Up here you can only get a real PAR at Leuchars and Lossie. That'll drop to just Lossie soon (apparently). The mil controllers are excellent in my (limited) experience.

[peterh337]

Don't forget most airports with radar will provide a SRA.

Not so sure...

The "SRA" concept is a UK only concept - AFAIK. Never heard of it elsewhere.

In general, a radar controller will vector you down to his MVA / MRVA. That's it.

After that, you are on your own. You may have to "confirm VMC" ;) - especially in Germany ;) ;)

In almost any scenario where this is an option, and where the cloudbase is pretty low relative to the general terrain, a DIY descent over the sea and a flight to a coastal airport is the safest way if you have a handheld GPS and nothing else.

Which, in turn, renders virtually all published non-ILS IAPs at UK coastal airports worth a lot less than most would think - except for pilots who are bound to use them e.g. AOC holders and training flights :)

[mad_jock]

Your in a dangerous spiral peter and turning into one of those local pilots that everyone is dreading to see the accident report on.

What you have just described is exactly what happend off Blackpool to a young lad commercial and auld out of medical pilot. Both now dead.

They had a SRA approach within 20 miles of Blackpool.

And not suprisingly I have inside europe and outside. You can get PAR's at Mil fields in Germany. And the larger civi German fields SRA is an option. The SRA needs a different type of radar with a higher scan rate than the normal ones.

Pilot information for Düsseldorf International Airport @ OurAirports (http://www.ourairports.com/airports/EDDL/pilot-info.html)

SRA RUNWAY 23R, A 680 (560), B 680 (560), C 680 (560), D 680 (560)

Here is the mins for DUS

Which is only 50ft more than the LNAV approach. Crappy pilot interpreted hand held GPS v controller prompted and monitored SRA your in a dream world.

[Pace]

A PAR approach is not that easy to fly unless one has practiced regularly - unless you are descending to a very generous MDH like 500ft, which one can frankly do with a handheld in an emergency, having picked an airport with no real obstacles around it

Peter

I have posted this in the past in pprune. I flew as a safety pilot in a Seneca over 10 years ago.
I was late and found out that the aircraft had been misfuelled. The guages were faulty and tryin g to sort out the fuel the crossfeed selector jammed.
Half way across the irish Sea another problem.
ATC advised that airports in a large area had gone down in unforecast fog.
After one missed approach into the destination airport and unsure of the fuel state I made a call to a military base.
Colour code red I explained the situation and was vectored for a PAR.
Passing 200 feet the controllers intesified their commands after the usual "if not visual" thing! until the lights appeared from the gloom and we landed.
On landing the Cloud was sitting on the hanger roofs at RAF Shawbury prob 40 to 50 feet max.
So maybe not quite armchair and NO Sky God :eek:

A PAR with the right controllers can literally talk you to the ground as long as you do not loose the plot.
Handheld that would be pushing it :)

Pace

[mad_jock]

A PAR with the right controllers can literally talk you to the ground as long as you do not loose the plot.

That is so true the old boy that did my first one was just so calm and focused about getting us in. Proberly not quite regulation RT using "down a smidge".

But that strong competent voice just made everything so easy. Only thing to watch though is if you try and use your head and start work out heights you think you should be at, it doesn't work because they are not setup for a 3deg glide so just listen apply smooth small control inputs and do as your told.

And after thanking him. He just said "its a pleasure sir, a follow me is on its way if you could please stop at your descretion, confirm brake set and vehicle in sight" big mug of NATO tea was waiting for us in the VAS because the IC reckoned we deserved it but in all honesty the talkdown did all the hard work we just did as we were told.

And you will hit that center line at the touchdown point when they say you will.

[Unblonde]

Pace... trying to PM ylou but no space...

[Pace]

Try again just cleared some:)

[peterh337]

I too would choose a PAR if there was one within range, but often there won't be.

Not many around nowadays.

[mrmum]

Your in a dangerous spiral peter and turning into one of those local pilots that everyone is dreading to see the accident report on.
I think that's a bit harsh MJ, nothing wrong with carrying out an en route descent to MSA, say over the sea, then VFR to a coastal(ish) airfield as far as I can see. Of course there is the glide to land issue if not appropriately equipped.
What you have just described is exactly what happend off Blackpool to a young lad commercial and auld out of medical pilot. Both now dead.
Not exactly the same scenario, there was a lot more going on with that flight than just a DIY cloudbreak. Lack of fuel, daylight and working avionics come to mind. Also, they didn't just descend to MSA, but below the estimated 100' OVC cloud.

[007helicopter]

Difficult are you taking the piss?

You don't have to look at anything just jig it up and down slightly and left a bit right a bit. A complete none instrument pilot could fly one its just like having an instructor sitting next to you interpreting the instruments they will also tell you ground speed as well.

You don't need to be "current" either just like doing a SRA or a DME arc just crack on

MJ Got to be honest and find this a pretty bizarre attitude from a pro, to say a complete non instrument pilot could fly one without any previous practice is in my mind just total nonsense and I guestimate in the heat of the moment maybe half of non instrument pilots would not survive to tell the tale.

Inadvertent VFR into IMC accounts for roughly half the Cirrus fatal's so now you are proposing they should be able to fly within a few 100ft of the ground, cool as a cucumber and just jig it up and down a bit?

I would suggest in this scenario 95%+ of Cirrus Pilots would be far better of pulling the chute if no sensible divert.

As it is a very rare and unlikely scenario of total 100% electrical failure due to redundancy in a Cirrus then it is all just hypothetical anyway.

Partial panel needs to be practiced for sure.

[mad_jock]

Yes but more than likely there will the next best thing of a SRA.

Which can get you down to NPA mins with a working Altimeter.

If in doud't tell who every you are speaking to what you need and what you have or go straight to 121.5 and do the same. You will be suprised whats available and how much help is instantly at your desposal. Yes a let down over the sea might be it, but everyone will know where you have gone in and assets will be sent out.

I have never seen an accident report of a fatality that was working DnD with them trying to get them in somewhere over mainland UK. Seen plenty mind of folk trying to DIY it in ****e conditions.

[007helicopter]

I too would choose a PAR if there was one within range, but often there won't be.

Not many around nowadays.

I admit to never having been taught or practiced this, but would like to for the learning experience, so have you done one or more in a training scenario?

And or in a real life situation?

I understand if circumstances arose and it was required we would all give it a go if there were no other options.

Would you Peter consider in the 200ft overcast scenario, plus all your electrics totally dead, would you consider the chute being a viable option if you had it available?

[007helicopter]

A PAR with the right controllers can literally talk you to the ground as long as you do not loose the plot.
Handheld that would be pushing it

Pace same scenario and Electrics shot away would you consider the chute as one of your and maybe best options of survival?

[stevelup]

MJ Got to be honest and find this a pretty bizarre attitude from a pro, to say a complete non instrument pilot could fly one without any previous practice is in my mind just total nonsense and I guestimate in the heat of the moment maybe half of non instrument pilots would not survive to tell the tale.

I think you need to do one before commenting further!

I did one at Lyneham a while ago. At the time I had 90 hours total time and just two hours on instruments, and it worked absolutely perfectly. Almost magic...

I don't think it is anywhere near as hard as you think it is... If you're capable of keeping the aircraft level and able to follow simple instructions, it just works.

[Pace]

007

You and Fuji have converted me to change my opinion to a certain extent to using the chute in areas I would not have considered :E

Pace

[007helicopter]

I think you need to do one before commenting further!

I did one at Lyneham a while ago. At the time I had 90 hours total time and just two hours on instruments, and it worked absolutely perfectly. Almost magic...

I don't think it anywhere near as hard as you think it is... If you're capable of keeping the aircraft level and able to follow simple instructions, it just works.

Sure, as a training exercise I am looking forward to figuring where and with whom I can do this.

Try it with failed electrics which would be stressful in itself plus no instructor on board, 200 ft over cast, plus maybe your family on board and I sincerely hope the magic continues.

[007helicopter]

007

You and Fuji have converted me to change my opinion to a certain extent to using the chute in areas I would not have considered

Pace

Ok, if this is a yes, that's cool, if I am the victim of Mad Jocks wind up, that's cooler & good job.

My personal opinion if you would not consider it in this scenario then there would be little point in investing the time and money into an aircraft with a chute, so I take it a genuine response.

[mad_jock]

The often quoted life expectancy of a VFR pilot in IMC is something like 60 seconds.

If they can get past that and talking to someone it increases dramatically as long as they can keep straight and level.

I have a civi mate that got a award from some ATC proffessional lot for just keeping a pilot calm and saying dot to altimeter wings to di. Time for a freda check. Got them back into VMC with some CAT viz reports and recovered to a nearby by airport. The pilot was just lucky he was also an experenced pilot and CRI.

If you can get past the first 60 seconds without panicing and loosing control I reckon they would get you on the ground. Remember also that the RAF fields have a duty pilot in the tower who can talk them through.

I reckoned if the VFR pilot had survived the intial going into IMC to the point they were talking to the mil field apart from running out of fuel etc they would have a pretty good chance of survival.

As you can see by my previous posts some of the practises of RAF controllers I don't agree with. But when the **** hits the fan they really do produce the goods.

O and I am not trying to wind you up. Just make you think about your options. Which in most places is more than you think.

007 give us a rough guide to where you fly from and we can make suggestion and even make suggestions for someone to go with you if someone doesn't chip in and offer anyway just to get a flight in your nice machine. I am sure there will be someone quite will to cover the whole lot up and let you try and fly one on just standby instruments. I am almost certain you will have a very pleasant suprise.

[007helicopter]

The often quoted life expectancy of a VFR pilot in IMC is something like 60 seconds.

If they can get past that and talking to someone it increases dramatically as long as they can keep straight and level.

And if they can not keep it straight and level they are dead for an awful long time. lets be honest a fair few are going to screw up in just cloud, they ain't going to be many surviving that and talked down to the ground in 500ft cloud base let alone 200ft.

I took exception to your point saying virtually anyone could do it, even a guy with no instrument time. but hey ho, maybe I misunderstood your point or just gullible, either way fine.

VFR pilots have screwed up by getting into IMC but it seems to happen quite often, maybe like steve's post earlier thinking it was magic he did a PAR would, that would encourage similar Pilots to go and push on into IMC.

Anyway I still reckon 200ft, screwed electrics, Chute on board, I am going to pull the bugger every time however well a PAR or whatever else goes in a training scenario.

Why, because there a lot of dead Cirrus Pilots buried out there who balls up with a perfectly good chute as an option and at that point I do not give a monkeys about the insurance consequences.

[007helicopter]

007 give us a rough guide to where you fly from and we can make suggestion and even make suggestions for someone to go with you if someone doesn't chip in and offer anyway just to get a flight in your nice machine. I am sure there will be someone quite will to cover the whole lot up and let you try and fly one on just standby instruments. I am almost certain you will have a very pleasant suprise.

Sure, I would love to take any competent person up on that offer, I fly from EGTO Rochester but often come up North to Newcastle, Barton, Blackpool and occasionally Dundee for Business so anywhere really.

Holy Sh1t it could be MJ @ luechers !!

[mad_jock]

The standard PPL instrument time will do just grand as a previous poster has stipulated.

I would imagine in a similar situation the chute wouldn't save them either because they would be outside the deployment envelope.

Which is why so many of us reckon that the IMC is such a brillant add on even if its not kept current.

Go and do one and get who ever does it with you to cover the screens up and see what you think. Then go and do a SRA.

Its your aircraft and you are the PIC so you get to choose if you wnat to deploy or not end of story we are just letting you know that there are options which the dead cirrus pilots might not have considered which may be safer than pulling the chute.

Nah it won't be me.

Phone Perth up and see if you can get an Instructor called Die Heather Hayes (Sp?). He knows a thing or two about instrument flying. I wouldn't have thought it would be problem getting some PARs at leuchars

[Fuji Abound]

It bemuses me why pilots assume so much - the last group I would expect to do so.

I wasnt arguing that a PAR was a bad option, but when you go partial panel you first have to get to a PAR. As some have pointed out a Cirrus is no rocket ship and you may well find yourself some way from the nearest PAR. However by all means enjoy an hour or so partial panel, its going to be hard work for sure, and its just wrong to suggest an hour or so partial panel in IMC followed by a PAR to minima should be a piece of p*ss.

Peterh - as to SRAs - I was referring to the UK since there had been a mention of the lack of PARs in the south of England.

Does anyone else recall when you pottered off to Manston to shoot two or three PARs and then over to Dunsfold if you weren't bored - happy days.

However in the south since that was the example given you will get a SAR at Southampton, Gatwick, Bournemouth, Farnborough and Manston (well when their head is working in Manston's case), I have done SARs at all of those including Gatwick (;)).

.. .. .. and to be fair a SAR is very much like a PAR and equally easy to fly partial panel as long as you have some grasp of power settings to give you a half reasonable descent profile.

I also happen to think a descent over the sea is a great option although a very good friend of mine admits to nearly killing himself. Trip back over Europe, cant remember why but ended up doing a descent over the sea at night, and he was tired after a long flight, weather was bad, and very nearly put it in. He was an instructor at the time, 7,000 hours, with lots of experience, shook him up and he still says was the reminder he needed that he wasn't the Sky God he thought.

Pace - I doubt we will change your mind, and hopefully you will never need to do a reality check in a Cirrus, but happily should you, you might be glad of the discussion. ;)

[Pace]

007

I would be happy to come with you as I live in central London! Not an instructor but quite happy to shoot a PAR with you ;)

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

007

Forget a PAR, I have mentioned plenty of airports close at hand that will happily offer you a SRA, and I suspect they quite enjoy doing so as its not a particularly common request. By all means take someone with you (I would be more than happy) but you really dont need to. Next time you practice or fly an ILS for real just request a SRA and ignore the bars on the PFD.

I guess in the SE (ish) Brize would be the best bet these days?

[mad_jock]

I would expect you to have no chance with Brize. Is Lynaham still towered up?

Conningsby might

There are just so few mil fields left these days.

Do at least one PAR so you know whats avialable. SRA is pretty solid as a starting point though if you just want to see half the service.

[007helicopter]

I would imagine in a similar situation the chute wouldn't save them either because they would be outside the deployment envelope.

Which is why so many of us reckon that the IMC is such a brillant add on even if its not kept current.


Why would it be outside the deployment envelope?

You would of course after going through whatever options you had make the chute pull at a safe altitude.

I find it odd to consider a rating brilliant even if not current, sorry to bang on but just see it as part of the problem of pilots stacking it in in IMC due to lack of currency.

[007helicopter]

Pace - Fuji it would be a pleasure to fly with either of you and will drop my contact details via PM

It seems a bit futile all of this discussion on PARS and basically there is next to no where to practice or put into practice in the event of......so all a bit academic, but I will try, and will certainly get a few SRA's and turn off the PFD

Still back to Paces 10 hour checkout dilema.,,

[mad_jock]

Its the not loosing control that increases dramatically your chances of survival. The training at least gets the pilot to be able to hold straight and level once

Can the chute be pulled in a mucho past Vne spiral dive?

Can it be pulled inverted?.

Can it be pulled in a flat spin?

CAn it be pulled in a inverted flat spin?

Can it deal with a full power tail slide?

I haven't really looked at it to be honest but do they provide a deployment envelope?

And there are a few and if your flying up North you pass quite a few as well Leeming etc have them. So it wouldn't be wasted, you could do one on the way up. And you really don;t need to practise them. They are by far the most simple approach available.

The attitudes and forces when some one looses it are in the hands of god and certainly not known to the designers.

[007helicopter]

Can the chute be pulled in a mucho past Vne spiral dive?

Can it be pulled inverted?.

Can it be pulled in a flat spin?

CAn it be pulled in a inverted flat spin?

Can it deal with a full power tail slide?

I haven't really looked at it to be honest but do they provide a deployment envelope?

I am quoting from memory here so stand to be corrected.

The max demonstrated speed is 185 knots, I know of one incident at 235 knots it worked and one at 270 knots it failed.

I do not know if strictly in design criteria but categorically it has worked in real life while the aircraft totally inverted and in various spins.

I do not know what a full power tail slide is so can not comment.

It is also designed to be deployed at 2000ft but has worked at around 400ft, or at least the occupants walked away.

The aim ideally would be to slow down to 135 knots if possible and deploy, but if control lost in a spin then I personally would deploy regardless of speed because at that point I am out of control of the aircraft and hope to avoid ever getting in that situation.

it has never failed yet to save the occupants in a Cirrus when deployed within design criteria.

There have been around 40 ish successful Cirrus outcomes including over water, mountains, built up areas, tress etc.

Eventually there will have to be some that do not work out well and that will skew the success rate on a what is so far a fairly low number.

I do not claim to be any expert on this but with all the facts and history of accidents made available to me plus time in the full motion SIM training on the chute pull I have firmly set my own decisions on what scenarios I would use the chute.

[mad_jock]

Pointing near vertical with full power on going backwards. Which is a common way of loosing it from what I have seen of students under the hood.

If you spin you are actually at a relatively low speed desending and the airframe is unloaded. You speed up when you recover.

Fair enough as I said your PIC its your call.

[abgd]

Wouldn't/couldn't you normally cut the power before deploying? Or is that a psychologically difficult thing to do in a tailslide?

[007helicopter]

Horribly In the short time of this thread there have sadly and totally avoidable been 2 cirrus Fatals. No 89 and yesterday No 90 went down in Utah. Peter Branugh and his wife were on their way from concord ca to aspen . Radar contact was lost at 11:11 yesterday 50 miles east of Milford Uta.

The wreckage is now found.

Both were flying in what appears challenging weather, Both appear to be VFR pilots not on an IFR flight plan.

During this accident chain (I assume they had an option to recognise the situation, admit defeat, divert or other sensible action but ultimately pull the Chute, but I am only speculating)

Statistically they are both likely to be Pilot error and not mechanical or electrical failure.

Pilots in all makes and types seem to keep doing this:ugh::ugh:

So with all the discussion about Cirrus, if you have the option of a chute, in a genuine emergency situation, or for what ever reason you have lost control of the aircraft or an off airport landing please pull the chute, likely write the plane off, take some flak on PPrune and then get on with your life.

In an emergency or serious avionics failure Do not attempt heroics to land at an airfield with low ceilings unless you are totally and utterly competent and in complete control of the aircraft at all times with proven skill, knowledge and training with enough kit on board to safely assure the outcome.

[mad_jock]

Where is the chute handle?

And are 4 point harnesses fitted as standard?

[DeltaV]

There have been around 40 ish successful Cirrus outcomes including over water, mountains, built up areas, tress etc.
If that's so perhaps therein lies the answer to the OP's question about why there is such an apparently onerous checkout requirement. Could it be a reflection of a perceived (by the insurance market) willingness of Cirrus pilots to push beyond their capabilities, knowing they have the get-out of the BRS, resulting in a disproportionally high frequency of insurance claims?

I wonder if other types with BRS are showing a similar trend.

[Pace]

mad Jock the chute handle is in the roof between the two front seats and relatively easy to operate if armed but I am sure 007 or Fuji will elaborate.
Many rely on the autopilot one thing that crossed my mind is that in bad weather and entering severe turbulence the autopilot not holding and the pilot being made to hand fly.
I had a couple of test flights in the aircraft and timed the roll rate 45 deg right to 45 deg left it was the same as an aerobatic Firefly so quite lively and nothing as stable laterally as a Mooney.
Maybe the answer is as 007 says to be more conditioned to using the chute!
But then we come back to the question of whether the chute itself encourages pilots to fly in conditions they would normally avoid?

Pace

[007helicopter]

Where is the chute handle?

And are 4 point harnesses fitted as standard?

As Pace says, in the roof in the centre, a common problem often demonstrated in the SIM is that Pilots simply forget it as an option in the heat of the moment / drama.

it is an option to be considered and not always the best or first option.

Yes 4 point Harness with Airbags in the straps.

[007helicopter]

But then we come back to the question of whether the chute itself encourages pilots to fly in conditions they would normally avoid?

I am sure this is a factor, very hard to measure and quantify, I ask myself this question and for example I am not overly confident and current with night flying, but when I do fly at night I certainly feel more confident with the Chute as an option.

Does this encourage me to do it more often, No

Would I fly at Night without a chute in a SEP, not sure.

I also feel more secure when I fly over rough terrain, mountains and water, so does this increase my risk profile, maybe.

[peterh337]

Pilots who are apparently incapable of flying on instruments (legally or otherwise) and who depart into "impossible" weather, and either get killed or pull the chute, are always going to draw flak, not just on p pr u n e but everywhere else.

There is a sizeable community of pilots who routinely depart into "impossible" weather, and usually they don't get killed because if you know about Va, and can keep the wings level etc, then you should be "ok". Your wife/etc may never fly with you again :)

There is also a sizeable IFR (IR rated) community that departs into weather I wouldn't be seen dead in, and usually they get away with it. Oddly enough the ones that get killed are those who were flying "VFR" at the time, either while waiting for an IFR clearance, or to save >2T route charges, or doing some other weird stuff.

[Fuji Abound]

I believe very few pilots depart into challenging weather because of the chute.

On the other hand I do believe some pilots will fly at night or over terrain that doesnt offer good forced landing opportunities because of the chute. I am one. I have always found myself to be very uncomfortable in a SEP at night and although I have run up some hours I would no longer chose to fly at night in a SEP without a chute. With a chute it worries me a great deal less. I also sail, and perhaps because of that I have always been very uncomfortable flying long sea legs when I know the sea conditions are rough. The idea of landing into a 5 foot swell just doesnt appeal. With a chute it also worries me a great deal less.

However, I also believe that because the Cirrus is such a capable aircraft pilots are lulled into a false sense of security. In fact a Cirrus is not that capable. It is no more or less capable than most SEPs; the fact that it is faster and has gee wiz avionics is nothing to do with anything. Unfortunately pilots dont always realise that and think a Cirrus will "take it".

Of course a Cirrus does have some useful additional capabilities. It does have an abundance of power, which can be useful, it does offer the best situational awareness of anything in the class, when fitted with weather and radar if used properly they are life savers, and so is the green panic button. So Cirrus have done a great deal to provide some useful tools to keep you out of trouble, but I think that is the key they are there to keep you out of trouble. If you get into trouble the de-ice, anti-ice will put you in front of most SEPs as will of course the chute, but beyond that it is still a light single thats going to be thrown around just like any other light single.

I always recall my first trip in a twin in some rough weather. It was really unpleasant and I shall happily admit to be unnerved (is that a posh way of saying scared!). Hitting my head on the roof really hard a couple of times probably didnt help. Of course because it was a heavy twin I thought I could fly in anything. It was humbling to listen to the CATS arriving at Gatwick - yes they were working harder than usual, and yes I only heard one other light aircraft on air the whole flight, but it was humbling how well the CATS were taking it in their stride. There really isnt any substitute for size, is there. ;)

[Pace]

Fuji

Just touching on your point about Sky Gods.
I have now lost 7 good friends in Aviation 2 just recently both extremely experienced SKY GODS. One a retired Easy Jet Captain the other a very cautious and experienced multi thousand hour pilot.
When I think of some of the flying I have done and got away with in the past and look at them it is very humbling.
Sky Gods are the characters of fiction the rest of us are just human who try to do what we do to the best of our ability.
Sadly other than ground accidents any aircraft accident is likely to kill you and hence the Cirrus idea of introducing a chute to lower its occupants safely to the ground was awesome as the the loss to family and friends from these accidents is awful.
So I applaud the chute but as in anything which brings positives there are usually negatives and enhanced confidence is one which lures pilots into the very situation where they need the chute.
I am sure that is stronger than you give credit for ;)

Pace

[Crystalmad]

It is interesting that every time someone posts a message about Cirrus there is a huge amount of correspondence, often very much misinformed. Let me make a few points based on many years of experience flying Cirrus's.

1. There is a large difference between flying an SR20 and and SR22. The SR20 has a HP approximately 2/3rds of the SR22. The effect of this is that the SR20 is reasonably docile, although still very sleek in performance. In my view anyone wanting to fly a Cirrus and who is not experienced in flying many different aircraft, would do well to start with an SR20. The only thing to watch is overloading especially on a hot day: otherwise it is a joy to fly and very easy to land. Average true air speed about 135 kts using 9.2 US gals/hour.

2. The SR22 is a faster machine and more powerful, and personally not what I would recommend to a beginner. Average true air speed about 167 kts at 14.8 US galls per hour. Landing can be trickier, although I have learnt that it works best by getting the speed over the number down to about 74-77 kts, and holding off the runway for as long as possible. Any attempt at placing the aircraft onto the runway will tend to cause a bounce.


3. Both aircraft have glass cockpits, of differing complexity. It is really important to be familiar with these before take-off, especially if going into IMC. By the way, both aircraft are extremely good IFR machines: if you let go of the controls it does not drop a wing (like say a Cessna 172) but remains stabilised for a long time, thus making it ideal for changing frequencies, writing down instructions etc. For me the only drawback is that I have to remember to keep looking out the windows rather than stare at the graphics.

4. Now the question of the CAPS. Thus keeps coming up with people on both sides of the argument. Good thing or bad? The thing to remember is that the CAPS is there for a purpose, and unless you have a plan to use it there is little point in having it. The evidence has clearly shown that fatalities rarely occur when the CAPS has been used, but a number of fatalities have happened when pilots have tried to land in fields etc. COPA have regular CPPP (Cirrus Pilots Proficiency Programmes) usually twice a year in Europe. I consider it important to attend at least one of these in order to learn about the aircraft and especially the use of the CAPS. The routine that is now being taught is that after take-off when retracting the flaps you automatically touch the CAPS handle (the theory is that this plants in your mind that it is there to be used) , and you say "flaps, CAPS, speed" as a matter of habit. Furthermore it is recommended that unless one is over an airfield and can make the runway, CAPS should be employed with an engine failure. CAPS has been demonstrated to work even at quite low heights. Members of COPA say "Pull early, pull often!". Most times there is a fatal accident with a Cirrus people ask "why did't he/she use the parachute?"

5. Finally, here is a recommendation. At Poznan (Poland) airport they have installed a full-motion Cirrus simulator at Aero Poznan. You can take a cheap Ryanair (yes I know!) flight to Poznan and get a lot of useful practice in various skills useful for flying a Cirrus. I have tried it and learnt quite a lot. You also get a chance to visit a very nice city! Flew there recently in my SR22: journey time normally 4.5 hours, but because of a strong tailwind did it in 3.5 hours!
;)

[Fuji Abound]

Pace - as you so rightly highlight, and indeed one of the reasons I was unhappy with some of the earlier posts, it doesnt matter if you think you are a Sky God or even perhaps have the credentials to actually be one, it seems to me even Gods dance on heads of pins when it comes to aviation. If you read the accident reports it is quite extraordinary how many very experienced pilots still make mistakes.

So it doesnt matter why people set off in conditions they shouldnt, and it doesnt matter whether they did because of the chute, in fact none of it really matters because people will always do incredibly stupid things regardless of how much experience they have, and on other occasions it might just not be their lucky day. I guess that is why I find this debate so frustrating. The chutes there for those occasions and better it be there for that, than not, just because there might be the odd person who would never have got themselves into the situation had they not believed the chute would get them out of it.

I still think you will find very very few people look at the weather for example and think to themselves no problem I will pull the chute if I have to. If that is happening it is much more subtle, and much more a case of their believing the Cirrus as a package is more capable than it really is. I just think for any pilot the thought of pulling the chute is actually quite a big deal. In fact there are now sadly quite a number of cases where had the chute been pulled the outcome would almost certainly have been different. That doesnt add up to a willingness to rely on the chute.

Of the cases in which the chute was pulled how many really add to a pilot departing in conditions outside their ability in a way that could have been predicted before they departed? Chute aside statistically how many pilots would still have departed in the same conditions? You really would need some better evidence to pursue your line of argument any further.

[A and C]

There seems to be an attitude creeping in that the red handle will solve most things when in fact it turns you into a passenger with little control of the surface you are going to land on if the cloud base is low.

I would suggest that an hour of cruising to find a PAR ( under radar guidance following declaring an emergency) is far more likely to calm a pilot down following a big electrical failure and securing the situation than overloading him.

A PAR is likely to be within one hours Cirrus flying time in most parts of Europe and defiantly in the UK, some of you above say you can't find a PAR in the south of the UK but this is untrue Benson and Odiham have PAR for sure, Boscome Down is likely to, the Navy use PAR a lot so try Yeovelton and Culdrose.

Those above who think that SRA is the answer are only half correct because the service terminates at half or two miles, PAR will take you on to the runway so when the weather is very bad PAR is the only answer.

In the end it is down to your skill level, you ether retain control of the aircraft and fly it to a controlled landing or you pull the chute and roll the dice in the hope that you survive the semi-controlled crash that you have initiated.

[Pace]

Fuji

We are really not that far apart ;) How come we are back onto the chute I thought this thread was about saving me money because of my superior skills compared to the normal rabble ;) Only joking I do not have superior skills :ok:

With a twin the second engine is an extra option and with more options come more choices! More choices give you the option to make the wrong choice.

I see the same with the chute capability to pull the chute in all situations is like saying I will climb this aircraft on one engine regardless when it maybe more advisable to pull the live engine back.

Yes you are correct! I am sure I would be embarrassed pulling the chute with the resulting media attention that would occur especially if I came down in an embarrassing place like the middle lane of the M25 on a busy friday evening and landed on top of a school bus :E

So yes there would be a reluctance of making the ultimate failure gesture by pulling the chute.
It may well be the right descision but bar a wing being sliced of by another aircraft or the pilot dropping dead at the controls many pilots would see pulling the chute as the ultimate failure in them and their abilities.

That is slightly different to the presence of the chute instilling false confidence because in the back of your mind there is always the thought that if I ice up too badly I am not totally lost!

If you fitted high explosives to every corner of every car I am sure motorists would drive around with complete caution knowing that if they hit someone else they were dead.

This level of percieved safety is bound to reduce a pilots caution.
That safety is fine if it is respected and not used to cover up a pilots shortcomings.
We had a thread where one poster suggested the VFR on top was fine as the pilot could always use the autopilot to climb himself on top or descend down.
That to me is a very worrying attitude especially knowing how unreliable some autopilots can be.

All these safety advancements are great as long as we treat them with respect and use them as an addition to our skills not to cover up a lack of skills

Pace

[mad_jock]

The other advantage with a PAR is how little work the pilot has to do.

There is no interpretation to be done. It is an immense reduction in work load. In some ways flying a PAR is easier than flying a visual approach.

I know to those that haven't done one this might sound a ridiculus statement but I am not trying to wind any of you up with this statement.

[Cobalt]

For all these who want to fly a PAR or SRA in a G1000 Cirrus with blank screens, please remember that the standby AI is powered from two buses: ESS1 and MAIN1. Which also power the PFD and MFD, respectively, so both have probably failed. The standby AI has no internal backup battery!

In fact, the displays are powered from FOUR different buses and both alternators at all times - PFD from ESS1 (both alternators, also BAT2) and MAIN2 (ALT2); MFD from MAIN1 (confusingly ALT2) and MAIN3 (ALT1 and BAT1).

If the standby AI shows the warning flag, which very likely it will, and you are in IMC, it is parachute time.

If you have time to troubleshoot a bit in VMC, you could take out the cat's cradle Cirrus call the electrical system diagram and understand the electrical system, and then isolate the ESS1 bus from the rest of the system by pulling the ESSENTIAL POWER circuit breaker. If that restores power to the AI, great; now you run 1 NAV, 1 COM, PFD, 1 AHRS and the ADC from BAT2 only.

That will last for about 30 minutes (good luck finding that information in flight). So no hour long cruise to the the next PAR controller, thanks.


In an all electrical aircaft, you are relying on the redundancy of the electrical system. While not the best designed, the Cirrus system is quite redundant, so complete failures are extremely unlikely.

[mad_jock]

NO battery backup? Seems a bit silly for a IFR machine.

How are the buses organised?

[Cobalt]

No built in battery backup, I should have written.

The point is, if all four PFD and MFD power sources have failed, the power sources for the standby AI will also have failed. Ultimately, it is powered by both alternators and both batteries, so very redundant to begin with.

In a power related failure, you are less likely to lose both PFD and MFD than losing the standby AI.



If you want more detail, read on:


Distribution buses:

MAIN DIST 1 is powered by ALT1 and BAT1.
MAIN DIST 2 is powered by ALT2, and automatically from MAIN DIST 1 (via a diode) if ALT2 fails (no cross-tie relay, so it only works one way, if you lose MAIN DIST 1 it is gone for good).
ESS DIST is powered via diodes from MAIN DIST1, MAIN DIST 2, and BAT1.
ESS DIST is also powered directly by BAT2 (through a slightly confusing path via the ESS1 bus)
Circuit breaker buses:

The standby AI is connected to ESS1, which is powered by ESS DIST and directly by BAT2
It is also powered by MAIN1, which confusingly is powered by MAIN DIST 2
So overall, it gets power from all four power sources.

[mad_jock]

Any electrics involved with deploying the chute?

[paulp]

No electrics involved with chute deployment.m

[mad_jock]

Seems a bit daft not having a couple of kg's of nicads as a backup for the standby AH.

What are the main bat's, nicads or lead acid?

Do they stagger the alternator maint or do you usually replace/overhaul both at the same time?

Personally with that set up I would be wanting one alt that was half lifed and one new both from different batches.

Unfortunately there isn't a easy solution to the fact that the alternators both have a common earth which means if one goes if can back spike the earth and take the other one out.

[stevelup]

Seems a bit daft not having a couple of kg's of nicads as a backup for the standby AH.
I suppose if you were that bothered, you could swap the AI for one with integrated battery backup - they are fairly common now. With all the redundancy offered by dual everything else, it's probably not necessary?

What are the main bat's, nicads or lead acid?
All the batteries are sealed lead acid.

Personally with that set up I would be wanting one alt that was half lifed and one new both from different batches.
The two alternators are different. They have different output ratings, as well as the fact that one is belt driven and the other direct drive. I guess given all that, they are also unlikely to be from the same batch. I didn't think alternators were lifed components anyway? Don't you just check the brush assemblies at the annual?

Unfortunately there isn't a easy solution to the fact that the alternators both have a common earth which means if one goes if can back spike the earth and take the other one out.
Well ultimately, everything has a common earth doesn't it!

[mad_jock]

For me it would be worth it. Main because if i had that I would be happy without the rest

Your aircraft earth isn't really an earth its just zero PD compated to the supply the actaul aircraft can be way above zero relative to the "earth" in rotorary and a quite a bit less for fixed wing. You do get protected earth buses for some essential system in bigger things.

As for the life items yours might not be, some are. British designs tend to be lifed items. Even if they would be on inspection under other authorities. Cessna seem to be going the same way though these days.

Outside the aircraft world engineering if you have two system which do a job its always worth having an age /cycle split between the systems because things tend to wear out at the same rates unless you stick in a sacraficial adjustor to make sure one fails before the other.