More informed thoughts on the Cirrus

[Genghis the Engineer]

Thanks to the enormous generosity of jonzarno yesterday, I spent a little under an hour hour airborne in his SR22, and several more hours talking through the aeroplane and going through the training material that he had on the aeroplane.


Firstly the aeroplane - there's not a lot to cricitise about it. Putting my test pilot hat on for a few minutes:-

Stick fixed apparent longitudinal static stability: strong
Stick free apparent longitudinal static stability: near neutral in CR, slightly stronger in LD
Phugoid: hard to excite, damps out within 2 cyles
Longitudinal SPO: substantially deadbeat, non-intrusive
Pitch change with power: small
Pitch change with flaps: nose-up, small and easily managable
Physical ergonomics: Good view out, controls easily to hand, seat and harness had good adjustments. Coolie hat on the stick top gave good control of pitch and roll trims. Control forces significant but crisp and manageable.
Yaw change with power: significant, requiring moderate rudder inputs to keep the aeroplane in trim.

So, what could I criticise there? Well, the aeroplane would benefit from a yaw trimmer to deal with the significant pedal forces, and that would reduce pilot workload. I'd like to have seen greater stick displacements as the low stick free longstab made accurately resolving small changes in speed and height manually difficult.

Did these things make the aeroplane unsafe or difficult to fly? No, not particularly: they would bare improvement but there are many aeroplanes with long and good safety records that have worse deficiencies than this.



However, there were two aspects of the aeroplane that were particularly interesting.

Firstly it's fast - 160 knots cruise, 100 knots in the circuit, 80 knots on final (rough numbers). Whilst the handling was fine, it presents a significantly greater requirement to think ahead of the aeroplane.

Secondly, the aeroplane is substantially managed through a very impressive array of electronic systems. Flight data is presented through a data fused presentation, input through some more multi-function boxes. This was all rather complex, and in some parts contradictory - for example that the engine gauge presentation on the right hand screen went clockwise whilst the backup analogue instruments next to them were anticlockwise. Checklists were built into one of the screens, but without any ability to modify them for changes in operating procedure or locality.

The CAPS, by the way - it's there, and going through the training material, there really isn't anything there I could find saying "as soon as you're unhappy, pull the handle". There were many points where the advice was along the lines of "do this, do that, consider whether you should pull the handle", then do the following if you didn't". Engine failures were treated in that way for example - establish glide - pick field - position - decide if you're going to manage - if not pull handle - if you can land carry on and do so.

We also talked through the whole "pull early, pull often" phrase, which: going through the training material: basically meant that if the aircraft is out of control pull the handle before the aeroplane passes out of the safe operation envelope, and when any emergencies are going on, always go through the question of whether you should be using CAPS. Frankly, I can't fault any of that - it's pretty much the same as military training with regard to an ejector seat.



All of this is manageable, but required a level of understanding, training and preparedness that is far beyond baseline PPL pass standard, and that looks to me to be the fundamental problem behind the high fatal accident rate of the Cirrus.

The training that is *available* is impressive - whilst for presumably marketing reasons Cirrus are denying it is, basically the training packages look very like high-end CRM training. And rightly so. However, there's an obvious problem even there which is that this training is neither mandatory, nor assessed as it certainly would be in any professional operating environment.

JZ showed me data which indicated strongly that a disproportionately high proportion of Cirrus fatalities are with the 50%ish of pilots who don't engage with these training programmes. I imagine that's true, both because the pilots missing that training are, well, missing that training - but also they're the ones who probably don't think it's important.





So, my summarised opinions:-

- The aeroplane could be improved, but not much, and it's not unsafe.

- There is a significant mismatch between the skill levels required to *manage* this aircraft and the skill levels required to pass a PPL.


The relatively inexpensive (I was told US$750 for a 2 day inc. 4 flying hours course) and apparently very high quality training being offered with the Cirrus community is obviously trying to plug the gap, and full power to their collective elbows for doing so.



It strikes me that this is all just a very extreme example of a problem we all know about. The vanilla PPL is all about simple aeroplanes and instruments, yet virtually all PPLs then buy themselves some form of complex GPS device and try - without any appropriate training - to integrate that into their flying. The Cirrus is that problem on steroids and a standard PPL either needs to ignore a lot of the kit and just fly it like a PA28, or get a lot of additional training, to be as safe as they want to be. Part of that training is almost certainly not using the CAPS as an excuse for going into conditions that pilots wouldn't go without it.


Many thanks to jonzarno for making this post possible.

G

[Jonzarno]

Thanks for posting this. It was a pleasure to fly with you and I'd gladly do so again. I learned a lot from the flight and our subsequent conversation.

If I may, I would like to encourage anyone who flies or is considering a Cirrus as a minimum to join COPA. It is a terrific resource for all aspects of flying that, or any other, aircraft.

I would also strongly recommend anyone deciding to fly a Cirrus to please get proper transition training from a Cirrus Standardised Instructor (CSIP).

Better still, after doing that, come to a CPPP weekend.

[lederhosen]

Most interesting and as an airline pilot who also flies an ultralight I would make the following observation. We all know there is a strong correlation between experience and currency on an aircraft and safety. On the plus side the cost of operating a Cirrus is such that pilots who operate one mostly should be able to pay for the necessary training and perhaps more importantly afford to fly it enough to keep current, which may not be the case with all light aircraft pilots. However.....

Manufacturers want to sell aircraft and one way to do this is to emphasize simplicity of operation. I am aware of marketing to non pilots suggesting they can learn on such an aircraft and then operate it more or less like a car. I have an image of a rather photogenic Hollywood star in her Cirrus reinforcing this impression. In good weather and with everything working that may be possible. But in the real world (combined perhaps with a bit of finger trouble) a complex aircraft like the Cirrus can get an inexperienced pilot into situations that can quickly become life threatening. Back to the original thread about ballistic recovery systems, such a pilot may well be better off pulling the chute than attempting the alternative.

[mad_jock]

that was my thoughts as well when I flew it as well G.

Ie the machine itself was nothing special.

The speeds weren't an issue due to be used to 260knts TAS, 160 knts in the circuit and 140 knots in procedures and final stage of approach.

It was the pilot machine interface and system knowledge which is really required to fly it safely. In quite a few ways its way more complicated than my work machine. And that's a dual crew aircraft. Its even above the TP caravans in complexity.

Personally I think things would improve it required a type rating.

[Jonzarno]

A small correction:

When I told GTE that the electronic check lists can't be edited, which is the case on my G2, I didn't realise that on the newer Garmin Perspective system fitted to most G3s and the new G5, they can be.

[Mach Jump]

Thanks for posting that Genghis. It matches my thoughts on the Cirrus too. I got the impression that the controls were optimised for autopilot use, and trying manually to hold a constant altitude in a steep turn was quite difficult due to the lack of mechanical advantage on the sidestick, which required a heavy stick force, with very small movements giving large changes in pitch attitude..

Personally I think things would improve it required a type rating

MJ: :eek: Please don't go putting ideas like that in the minds of EASA!

We've had this unnecessary type rating thing already with the Malibu.:*


MJ:ok:

[EclipseN99XG]

We have owned two Cirrus before the Eclipse jet.
If you fly them only as a VFR fun sightseeing platform, it is no different from many other low wing single engine planes. It is actually simpler:
- No carb heat
- Automatic prop control (no blue knob)
- Fixed gear
---
It has some features that increase the survivability in case of mishaps:
- Reinforced cell around the occupants
- no yoke in fron of your sternum or face
- airbags
- airframe parachute.

So, if you are a low time pilot, and you fly it with good energy management (like you should do any plane) and VFR just for fun, it is a fantastic and easy machine!
--------
Now, you want to use it as a professional transportation machine, with cross country missions and hard schedule?
Well... Then it does not really matter what you fly... You better be on top of your game.... But the Cirrus does give you a lot of tools that, if you know how to use them, make your life much easier...
Two comments on some of the above posts:
- I don't think the fatal accident rate is now worse in Cirrus than in the rest of GA (typing on iPad and not able to double check)
- We fly the Eclipse both single pilot and as a crew of two. I do believe that in any plane, IF CRM IS WELL DEFINED, and processes and procedures are agreed upon, the risk is lower with two pilots BUT, please, there is absolutely no justification to even hint that the Cirrus would require a crew of two!!!!

[Genghis the Engineer]

One note I didn't post was also that the aeroplane had neutral spiral stability, which would support your assertion of optimisation for A/P or at-least IFR use.

G

[Radix]

............

[Genghis the Engineer]

Unfortunately, none were taken - but the interweb isn't short of photographs of the type.

G

[mad_jock]

so it is cracking for talent limited gimps that can't pole an aircraft?

[Big Pistons Forever]

JZ showed me data which indicated strongly that a disproportionately high proportion of Cirrus fatalities are with the 50%ish of pilots who don't engage with these training programmes. I imagine that's true, both because the pilots missing that training are, well, missing that training - but also they're the ones who probably don't think it's important.





So, my summarised opinions:-

- The aeroplane could be improved, but not much, and it's not unsafe.

- There is a significant mismatch between the skill levels required to *manage* this aircraft and the skill levels required to pass a PPL.


The relatively inexpensive (I was told US$750 for a 2 day inc. 4 flying hours course) and apparently very high quality training being offered with the Cirrus community is obviously trying to plug the gap, and full power to their collective elbows for doing so.



It strikes me that this is all just a very extreme example of a problem we all know about. The vanilla PPL is all about simple aeroplanes and instruments, yet virtually all PPLs then buy themselves some form of complex GPS device and try - without any appropriate training - to integrate that into their flying. The Cirrus is that problem on steroids and a standard PPL either needs to ignore a lot of the kit and just fly it like a PA28, or get a lot of additional training, to be as safe as they want to be. Part of that training is almost certainly not using the CAPS as an excuse for going into conditions that pilots wouldn't go without it.



G

Great post Genghis. It is nice to see a unemotional and fact based discussion concerning the Cirrus. I pasted what I think is the most important part of your message.

Personally I think that there is a huge need for something between the PPL skills test and a type rating. Initial and recurrent training for high performance technologically advanced aircraft is not optional. I think the regulators should simply mandate completing the existing Cirrus course and annual recurrent training in order to be eligible to fly a Cirrus.

[Mach Jump]

so it is cracking for talent limited gimps that can't pole an aircraft?

No. Quite the opposite. The Cirrus is quite demanding to handfly, in particular, to handfly accurately in steeper turns, and this may be a clue.

I can imagine a situation where, during a turbulent encounter in IMC, the autopilot drops out, leaving an inexperienced pilot in an unexpected and demanding situation.

EASA already requires appropriate 'familiarisation training' when moving between types within a class, and, in some cases, it may be appropriate for an experienced pilot to simlpy study the POH of a new type similar to those already flown.

It has to be recognised however, that when moving to a significantly more demanding type, even an experienced pilot needs to seriously consider what level of formal training is appropriate for that type.

I think that the problem with the Cirrus was that, other than the sophisticated avionics, it wasn't initially recognised as more demanding than, for instance, a Piper Dakota. It was, after all just another fixed gear single, said to have new stall/spin resistant aerodynamic features, and the ultimate 'comfort' of the CAPS. It was easy for people to think that they were getting 'something for nothing' in terms of high performance without any downside.

Unfortunately, we seem to have to keep re-learning this lesson with each new generation of high performance singles. After all, we now fly Commanches, Bonanzas, and more recently, Malibus perfectly safely, yet these were the SR22s of their times.


MJ:ok:

[mary meagher]

For those that come to flying in midlife, like me, (I began at 50) keep it simple, please! (I just replaced my old microwave with the identical model, NO complications, just a knob to turn for time, and another knob to set for power.) The same really applies to the middle aged learning curve, most IT technology can be a struggle.

So if you throw enough money at it, can you buy safety in an aeroplane?
Actually, no. Too many variables. Weather, judgement, experience, practice, currency, innate cowardice inspiring caution, and enough strength of character to avoid showing off. To say nothing of diminishing physical and mental ability the older you get.

In other words, if you have earned enough money to buy a Cirrus, will you be safe? Err....

Thanks for your analysis, Genghis. Respect.

[thborchert]

Actually, for this 50+guy, make things as complex and changing as you can. I love to learn. I love change and new stuff. The thinking that something is bad just because it is different from what one is used to is not at all for me.

So a pilot license is a license for continued learning? Duh!

[Johnm]

At 52 I got my basic PPL, at 54 an IMCR, at 62 a full IR and at 67 I happily fly a Trinidad all over the place in all sorts of conditions. It's all about procedures and checklists coupled with practice.

BTW I'm not interested in flying taildraggers etc. as far as I'm concerned an aeroplane is basically a touring car with wings :E

[A and C]

No No No!

Don't give those desk bound pen pushers at EASA a chance to introduce a type rating for an SEP.

The result would be far more inital cost, this would reduce the take up rate and so pushing up the cost even further.

It has already been proven that the reduction in GA flying due to the extra expence of EASA has increased to accident rate due to lack of pilot currentcy, why encourage EASA to just create more jobs for the boys in Cologne ?

The best way is for the Cirrus agent to bring the factory safety program over to Europe, this will come an a moderate price and bring experience from the biggest Cirrus market, Let EASA approve the program to make it a type rating and they will demand changes that are irrelavent and are based on there own preconseptions about the aircraft and charge you the earth to make the training worse.
My message is simple, let the Cirrus factory control the training, they know the aircraft best.

[ChickenHouse]

Interesting discussion ... I did some hours on a SR22 and although it is a nice fast little bastard, I wouldn't buy one. My very personal points: First thing, it is too expensive to use as a VFR fun tool. Second, you need too much training experience to really handle it safely under manual conditions.

Yes, I enjoy the Cirrus and it is a great plane when taken to light IFR flights, just replacing old Mom by a modern small airliner. BUT, to afford one for myself I would have to work much more and I am unsure wether the more work will consume so much time that I will be out of the safety regime for training, simply because I run out of training experience due to high money making work load.

Further on, I love to fly manually and the Cirrus isn't really made for that. The controls are too responsive and small - my5cents. It is made to get in and out of airfields, then switch to video game autopilot and eat IFR miles. I believe it is not suitable for the family fun flyer either. If your mission profile is half commercial and you have to get in and out under IFR, it is - as the Corvalis - a really nice modern option (if you like the video game airliner style cockpit, I don't).

[Jonzarno]

The best way is for the Cirrus agent to bring the factory safety program over to Europe

In Europe, transition training is available from a good number of excellent CSIPs.

The Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Programme (CPPP) that I reviewed in some detail with Genghis is actually designed and provided by COPA and is available in Europe where there are usually two per year.

[Capn Bug Smasher]

Genghis, please would you define the acronyms in your first post for me?

Cheers

Capn Bugsmasher

P.S. Thanks for writing it and sharing it with us! Sustaining food for thought.

[rotorfossil]

I had a one hour trip in the SR22 in the States as well purely for interest. Also noted the neutral spiral stability. When I asked to try stalls in all configurations, power on and off, go-around etc this caused raised eyebrows and the comment that people who are thinking of buying it, mostly only wanted to know how to handle the takeoff and landing and how to set up the autopilot.
Nice comfortable cockpit though, even for a tall person, but the fact that you couldn't reduce the 2500 rpm cruise with the single lever control system must have an influence on the fuel consumption. Also the non steerable nosewheel meant a lot of brake use taxying in a strong crosswind.

[vandereydt]

very very very interesting thread

I am a 50+, this year I got my FAA PPL on a SR20 G1 :O
So far have accumulated 120 something hours of fun on this SR20;
Of course all VFR, 50 hours of cross country.

I understand I am in the high risc group.

My flying mission is 50/50 family and friends sightseeing trips and some business or trips were timing/schedule is important

Trips across Europe, VFR are very difficult or time consuming because of weather issues. Some time ago I set myself a challenge upon receiving my PPL, I wanted to fly to Malta. So far I have not succeeded. Weather never cooperates

My next step will be to go for an IR rating.

Also I am looking at buying an aircraft; upgrading.

Cirrus SR22 is an option, but then I d need a turbo (SR22T) otherwise one cannot go high enough to stay above the weather. (my thoughts !!!)

Cessna Columbia/Corvalis TTx very similar. Also very complex,
The G1000 scares me a bit, can one on 150-200 hours per years stay on top of a G1000 ?
Mind you I kinda liked the Avidyne for its ease of use

I have also looked at refurbished aircraft. Piper Matrix ... Meridian
Bononza, Cessna Twins 320 - 340 - ...

Am confused

I would like to hear your opinions on this.

Thank you
Ronny

[Genghis the Engineer]

Genghis, please would you define the acronyms in your first post for me?

Cheers

Capn Bugsmasher

P.S. Thanks for writing it and sharing it with us! Sustaining food for thought.

You're welcome.

LD = Configured for landing

CR = Configured for high speed cruise.

SPO = longitudinal short period oscillation (a fast oscillation in AoA)

CAPS = Cirrus Aircraft Parachute System (os something like that)

CRM = Crew Resource Management (a set of best practices for communication and decision making in safety critical environments)

GPS = propietary USian form of GNSS (Global Navigation Safety System)

PPL = what people who pay for all of their own flying have.


I had a one hour trip in the SR22 in the States as well purely for interest. Also noted the neutral spiral stability. When I asked to try stalls in all configurations, power on and off, go-around etc this caused raised eyebrows and the comment that people who are thinking of buying it, mostly only wanted to know how to handle the takeoff and landing and how to set up the autopilot.
Nice comfortable cockpit though, even for a tall person, but the fact that you couldn't reduce the 2500 rpm cruise with the single lever control system must have an influence on the fuel consumption. Also the non steerable nosewheel meant a lot of brake use taxying in a strong crosswind.

I did take a look at the stall, although not in any great depth and didn't note precise numbers.

I flew three stalls and recoveries. CR / Idle / wings-level, LD / Idle / wings-level, LD / approach power / wings level, all at approx. 1kn/s decel.

All were totally benign in my opinion. 20ish lbf pull, moderate back stick pressure, moderate buffet felt through the stick 10-8kn before the stall, then a fairly loud reed stall warner about 5kn before the stall. In the two idle configurations there was a moderate firm nose-down pitching motion accompanied by 5-10 degrees right wing drop. The wing drop may have been because the aeroplane wasn't quite in balance - visibility of the slip ball was very poor from the right hand seat and the EFIS sideslip symbology somewhat ambiguous (in my opinion, and from the right hand seat) so I was mostly relying upon "seat of the pants" feel to keep the aeroplane in balance, which I did have.

Recovery was immediate using the CAA standard stall recovery (simultaneous pitch and full power) into a climb. Couldn't fault it really.


I elected not to taxi it or attempt a take-off or landing, as I wasn't captain and JZ isn't an instructor, but noted that the mechanisation of ground steering and braking seemed pretty much identical to the AA5, which I have 100ish hours on, but recall finding very intuitive and I adjusted easily to that within a few hours of first getting into one. Subsequently, I really like the AA5 in crosswinds as I can de-couple nosewheel and rudder, and can't see why the Cirrus shouldn't be similar.

G

[ChickenHouse]

@vandereydt: PPL on a SR20 will give you a lot of training on the not-so-good SR20. If you managed the underpowered 20, the 22 will be much nicer. I don't think you need the 22T though, as the advantage is not that big and only for high altitudes. Only if you are cruising frequent FL200 the expensive and maintenance hungry turbo will be of benefit. Going below 200h a year I would opt for the non-turbo. To the G1000 - I guess about 100h a year keeps your basic knowledge up to date, so at 150-200 I wouldn't see a danger in such glascockpit.

(Regarding: I have also looked at refurbished aircraft. Piper Matrix ... Meridian Bononza, Cessna Twins 320 - 340 - ... -> I suggest to clarify the typical mission profiles! These machines have quite different advantages for different use, so before spending much bucks for a machine you find out unsuitable, do yourself a favor and define what you want to do.)

[Capn Bug Smasher]

Thank you Genghis, good show.

Ta again :)

Cap'n Bugsmasher

[A and C]

I did not intend to give the impression that no Cirrus training was avalble in Europe.

IMO the Cirrus training program is the best was to ensure the very best training is avalable because of the experience gained in the biggest market for the aircraft, the very worst way to go would be EASA legislating for a type rating ( as suggested by Mad Jock).

Interference from EASA would result in a box ticking exercise that would no doubt come at three times the cost of the present arrangement.

[overandout]

I have just completed the Cirrus Conversion course and am proud possessor of a Certificate of Completion. I am very current on Cessna 172 so this a big upgrade for a 73 year old. Excellent ground school and airborne training.7.5 hours airborne. Ultimate aircraft for long range touring and highly capable IFR. Fully agree main problem is retaining currency in the twin screen button pressing to get to the picture you want instantly. Interesting that the SOP is running a lot Lean of Peak.
Uselessly expensive for 2000 ft VFR bimbling!
would say very dangerous aircraft to jump into and hope to fly safely without approved Cirrus Conversion course.

[mad_jock]

ok so we are all agreed you need some form of proper training to fly the thing.

Personally it was the system stuff which I would have to kick the backside out of and the various interactions and system failures.

But we are not allowed to call it a type rating.

PS my twin engine TP is 8 hours in the aircraft for a type rating.

[Genghis the Engineer]

But we are not allowed to call it a type rating.

I don't think that the name worries anybody, it's letting EASA near it which does that.

G

[Bob Upanddown]

An interesting report on the Cirrus.

So, my summarised opinions:-
- The aeroplane could be improved, but not much, and it's not unsafe.
- There is a significant mismatch between the skill levels required to *manage* this aircraft and the skill levels required to pass a PPL. With the greatest respect to an old hand on this forum but the same could be said for almost any aircraft.
Moving up from whatever aircraft was used for training (say a Cessna 150) to something faster, larger, more complicated, all needs additional training. Then there are the handling quirks of certain models and even individual quirks of individual aircraft.
A low-time PPL can’t fly a Cirrus like a PA-28 any more than you can fly a fast Mooney like a Cessna 150, even if you ignore the avionics and MFDs. Unfortunately, IMHO, some people offering training on the Cirrus seem to centre only on management of the avionics and systems instead of handling and airmanship. Either their training is aimed at the highly experienced pilot, not the low time PPL or they are under the misguided belief that that excellent avionics will save a bad pilot.
I base that on my observations of the Cirrus pilots I see who don’t know how to handle an aircraft with a castoring nose wheel (as they still insist of placing a chock under the nose wheel) and don’t exhibit any other of the traits I see in truly experienced pilots yet have the latest Cirrus with all the kit.
A pilot moving up from vanilla PPL, at least in the UK, will receive differences training for variable pitch propeller and retractable undercarriage. In my experience, the poor pilot is unlikely to receive any guidance in speed/energy management or engine management, key points in flying Mooney, Cirrus, Piper Matrix, etc. Often, this is because the instructors at some clubs don’t have the experience themselves or the club simply doesn’t have anything “better” that a Piper Arrow. If the pilot gets differences training on a Piper Arrow, that is a different animal to a Mooney, a fact many new Mooney pilots tend to overlook before jumping in and heading off to their next bad landing.
As we all know, EASA is all about paperwork, not the end result. There is nothing that will convince me that a school offering an EASA Cirrus type rating is going to improve things. There are some excellent people already offering Cirrus training, a type rating will just add more bad schools to the list.
Aside from the valuable comments about the CAPS, the only exceptional fact about the Cirrus is the fact it is selling in far greater numbers than the likes of Mooney. As has been said already, it is no different to the Mooneys, Bonanzas, Commanches, Malibus of the past. The risk is not in the aircraft itself but in the fact that more pilots will come into contact with a Cirrus due to numbers in the fleet, many more than Mooney or Piper PA-46.

[Thud105]

As you "had your test pilot's hat on" I'm a little surprised that you elected not to try a take off and landing, or even simply taxi - a fixed gear SEP.

[rotorfossil]

I didn't find the takeoff any thing unusual, just followed the Vr recommended speed in the POH, although if it is your first experience of a side stick, over-rotation had to be watched. As the side stick is not vertical with ailerons neutral, you do need to check where the stick is for the neutral position.
Stick to the numbers and the landing is easy. Excess speed will lead to a long float I suspect as the flaps didn't seem to be very draggy.

[Jetblu]

An enjoyable, plainly written, nice and concise summary G.
Your writing style reminds me of Pilot magazines old Bob Grimstead.

I have only ever flown the SR20 and that was still a nice machine, although I guess underpowered against the later variants. It is also nice to see that the stigma has died down over the past two years or so about the chute is for poofs. The chute is obviously there with the intention of saving lives and I think that it has now successfully proven to have done that.

Thanks to Jonzarno as well. Nice one. :ok: I trust the flight was also an opportunity to exchange some informative information. ;)

[Jonzarno]

JB

It certainly was! As I said in my earlier post, I enjoyed flying with Genghis and did learn from the flight and from our subsequent discussion.

[Genghis the Engineer]

As you "had your test pilot's hat on" I'm a little surprised that you elected not to try a take off and landing, or even simply taxi - a fixed gear SEP.

I hadn't prepared and briefed for it, and JZ isn't an instructor, therefore may not have had the skillset to take over and stop me breaking his aeroplane. Therefore I didn't attempt a take-off or landing. I could have taxied it, but in terms of thinking about fatal accidents, I doubt it would have added anything.

With a half day with the manuals, and a different plan, I might have done. Probably another day, I will.

G

[Thud105]

Apologies G - when you said you had your test pilot's hat on I assumed you were actually a test pilot. I don't understand why anyone - even a low hours PPL - would need "half a day with the manuals" to fly a fixed gear SEP round the patch. I've flown the -20 and 22, and they're just airplanes. I'll admit you need more than a day with the manuals to fully understand and get the best out of the avionics, but to just pole it round the pattern? Its just a fixed gear SEP, not a jetliner.

[mad_jock]

Thud I think that's the problem.

It actually does require more than your normal machine.

Yes if everything works you just pole it like another SEP or for that matter twin with both engines working. Flying a twin with both engines working is pretty straight forward and most PPL's would be able to land one just doing what they would do in the SEP.

Its when there are system issues it bites your bum.

I am pretty sure he would have had no problem, but some of us just have no interest in pushing it like that. Yes we are interested in handling etc. And we like to explore the envelope higher up. But actually the TO and Landing configs and flying aren't really that interesting. We get more out of sitting and watching than doing it our selves. If we want we can do most of it in the upper air anyway.

MAybe all this CRM stuff about, Software, Hardware, Environment, Liveware, Liveware has actually sunk in with us.

[taybird]

1) don't assume anything about Genghis' qualifications, or that of any other "PPL". I am not an ETPS (or equivalent) graduate, but I have had approved and recognised training in flight test techniques. This has nothing to do with any of my other aviation qualifications. Genghis knows a great deal about flight testing, and likely a fair bit more than most on this forum, myself included.

2) anyone with any sense of professionalism will take time to read and know the manuals for an aircraft before flying one for the first time. Especially if you're planning to carry out any kind of flight assessment. Yes, most simple SEP types will tolerate being handled in the same way, but to really understand what to look for, interesting behaviours, operating limitations and guidelines, you have to go to the books.

[Mach Jump]

I hadn't prepared and briefed for it,...

I think this is the key phrase. When anyone 'has their test pilot's hat on', they don't just 'have a go' at things on a whim.

'Have a plan, fly the plan'.


MJ:ok:

[mad_jock]

Even an acceptance flight or CoA test flight takes 2-3 hours of briefing amongst everyone involved.

The more involved test flights will take longer.

And that's just the "basic" level stuff I do in a type I have thousands of hours on.

[Genghis the Engineer]

A second new experience in a month - being criticised for over caution in flying.

I did follow JZ through for the take-off and landing, having first asked his permission to do so. But as indicated by others, I had a plan and brief and stuck to them.

G
MSETP (http://www.setp.org/images/stories/documents/Initial_and_Upgrade_to_Member_Instructions.pdf)

[mad_jock]

G are you one of those nutters that do the test flights for the home built permit aircraft?

[sharpend]

I tend to agree with much that Gengis has written. But the Cirrus is no PA28 and, though all aeroplanes can bite, a Cirrus is more prone to. This happened to another TP:

The first production SR20 crashed on 23 March, killing Cirrus Design's chief test pilot, Scott Anderson. On initial approach to Runway 27, Anderson had the SR20 yawed at least 20¼ to the right, apparently in an attempt to keep the wings level, but he overshot the runway and announced he was going around. The aircraft crashed on its second landing attempt.

Advice from the factory is:

‘Landing an SR20 the University of North Dakota factory-authorized training program way requires precise control of airspeed at 75 knots. Too fast and you'll float. Too slow and you'll sink like a rock, at least according to the UND instructors’.

The Chief Test Pilot was very experienced. Many other experienced pilots have encountered the phenomenon of bouncing. Unlike some aircraft, the policy of '5 knots extra for Mum' does not work and may well lead to a broken nose leg and curly prop. This of course can be negated by the correct technique. If you bounce, go around... otherwise you may well end up in a porpoise. That will end in a prop strike. So fly the right speed, in trim and keep the stick back to ensure the nose wheel does not touch until safely on the ground at the right speed.

[Thud105]

Well, each to his own and no disrespect meant or implied. I didn't go to Edwards and am not in the SETP but as I said, I have flown the 20 and 22 and didn't find them so very different from any other fixed gear SEP. There are differences, such as the sidestick and combined throttle/prop lever, and the avionics do take a lot of learning. But the comments about staying in trim and watching the speed pertain to all aircraft. Get it correctly configured and in trim, keep it on speed and on the slope and you should arrive in the TDZ whether you're in a 337 or 737.
MJ did you really mean to say "But actually the TO and Landing configs and flying aren't really that interesting."? Surely how a thing handles near the ground (probably the most critical phases of flight) are the most interesting?
Again, no disrespect meant or implied. Genuinely curious.

[Genghis the Engineer]

G are you one of those nutters that do the test flights for the home built permit aircraft?

I plead guilty m'lord and ask that several dozen other aeronautical behaviours are also taken into consideration.


W.R.T. The PA28 analogy, my comment earlier implied that a pilot without sufficient systems training could potentially take only the data from the systems that they'd get from a PA28, and follow similar practices in operating it. It would be an odd way of operating such a complex and capable machine, but possible and probably safe.


G

[Jonzarno]

Sharpend

I think this is the accident you are referring to (taken from the COPA website history of all Cirrus accidents and CAPS saves).


1999/03/23
N115CD
SR20(P)

Experimental test-flight accident, not included in Cirrus production fatal accidents counts, occurred during pre-production flight testing when aileron jammed. SR20 prototype was not equipped with a CAPS parachute. Test pilot Scott Anderson is memorialized by the ANDOE waypoint for the outer marker on the ILS runway 27 approach to Duluth.


As you can see, it was actually a pre-production aircraft on which an aileron jammed. No less tragic for all that.

[sharpend]

Actually, I don't think it was this one., but I stand corrected. My valid point, however, is that Cirrus aircraft have suffered far more than average prop strikes. One can get away with extra speed in a PA28, but less likely in a Cirrus.

As for glass cockpit, side stick and single lever, I agree, no problem what so ever. But I would add that for the elderly, small digital screens are more difficult to interpret than good old fashioned analogue dials. Initially, my IF was rubbish due to me trying to be too clever and the lack of rate on the digital display. But I learnt how to get round all that.

Whatever, I prefer my SA Bulldog, but horses for course; it does use much more fuel that a SR20.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Test flying is, of-course, dangerous. I might draw conclusions about the quality of Cirrus' flight test planning and practices in the 90s from that accident, but not about anything now, in their company, or the quality and safety of the production aircraft. They're just different issues, times and environments.

I did note that both with and without flaps, accurate speed control was difficult in the aircraft, and I can see that leading equally to speed control on approach. But, that's educated extrapolation, not from a specific evaluation of the approach.

G

[TractorBoy]

I've only had 1.5 hours on a Cirrus SR20 - this was with a very knowledgeable instructor at North Weald who is an official Cirrus training partner - and it was excellent fun, although the speed control in the circuit did take some getting used to.

This was when I was thinking of joining the now defunct Cirrus group that were being run from Blackpool Airport by a person of dubious character...Fortunately I decided that is was just too expensive for me to justify joining based on what I do.

I believe the recommended minimum training time is 10 hours to get up to speed on the glass cockpit side of the aircraft....

[mad_jock]

Surely how a thing handles near the ground (probably the most critical phases of flight) are the most interesting?

Not really as apart from ground effect you can look at the handling higher up.

You won't get the same adrenalin whoosh I will give you but realistically its a risk and one which I am happy to avoid if I am just having a pole.

But then again I have 15000 plus landings in various aircraft under my belt so the novelty factor has worn off.

[sharpend]

Only 15,000? :)

[mad_jock]

I couldn't be bothered working it out to be honest. Only been flying for 14 years.

that's why I put the plus in.

I am three takeoff's twin engine different to my twin engine landings. Which I have no burning desire to increase.

[Thud105]

I probably should have said "how a thing handles ON or near the ground. How do you know how an aircraft handles during the take off run or post landing roll-out, if you don't operate the controls during the take off and landing? I have a bit of tailwheel time, and its been my experience that it is as they slow down after landing that the directional control can get interesting! Nose-draggers with castoring nosewheels can also have their issues.

[mad_jock]

yes but for just a pole for a bit of fun its not worth the risk to me as a professional pilot.

You as a private pilot it maybe acceptable. Your choice. you aren't going to be barred from a heap of jobs because you can't tick the zero accidents box.

If its just a fun days pole of a new type, you won't get me taking it off or landing it with just a vanilla PPL sitting next to me. If it was an instructor I more than likely would.


When I was younger and less experience I probably would have done but not now.

[Thud105]

What makes you think I only have a PPL?
But it is true I don't get paid to fly any more - but then I have been flying for almost 30 years!

[mad_jock]

I was commenting on this situation G was in.

And when I get to your stage when employment isn't a worry I may go back to having a shot. But then again possibly not.