cirrus sr22
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi not an owner but have flown the aircraft, it is a high performance aircraft, fairly slippery with a lively roll rate. Timed a firefly aerobatic machine against the cirrus 22 and not much between them in roll.
The newer machines have increased dihedral and are more stable.
I dont think the aircraft are especially dangerous probably more to do with low time inexperienced pilots out of their depth in high performance aircraft?
there are some here who will be better placed to advise
Pace
The newer machines have increased dihedral and are more stable.
I dont think the aircraft are especially dangerous probably more to do with low time inexperienced pilots out of their depth in high performance aircraft?
there are some here who will be better placed to advise
Pace
Life's too short for ironing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Scotland, & Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timed a firefly aerobatic machine against the cirrus 22 and not much between them in roll
So are you saying you did an aerobatic maneouvre in a Cirrus, Pace? I didn't know they were approved for aerobatics?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by fernytickles
So are you saying you did an aerobatic maneouvre in a Cirrus, Pace? I didn't know they were approved for aerobatics?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fernytickles
I didnt know timing steep turn angles left to right was an aerobatic manouvre?
Have to tell the flying clubs to stop teaching steep turns in anything but aircraft approved for aerobatics
Pace
So are you saying you did an aerobatic maneouvre in a Cirrus, Pace? I didn't know they were approved for aerobatics?
Have to tell the flying clubs to stop teaching steep turns in anything but aircraft approved for aerobatics
Pace
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly a TB20 (7 years) and have briefly flown in an SR22.
The SR22 is nothing special flying-wise; 150kt looks just like 100kt once reasonably well off the ground. It flies OK. I much prefer the yoke over the spring loaded sidestick but others will disagree.
I don't think it is unsafe. It is reported to not carry ice as well as other planes with thicker wings, but you can get TKS for it.
The real issue, compared to the traditional spamcan scene, is that you have to learn some new tricks
- Think ahead; if you zoom in to the destination overhead at 150kt and 5000ft, you are going to look like a right d*ck doing 10 orbits trying to get down in front of the whole restaurant and all the spotters (whereas in a 100kt spamcan you just fly in at 100kt and join the circuit, slowing down a bit). So one has to think ahead, and start planning the descent say 30nm out
- Engine management. Can't just shut the throttle. One has to reduce power gradually, over a minute or two. PFLs are just not done (unless it is rented and the owner is the instructor making you do the PFL....). Circuits are not a great idea either. So, more thinking ahead.
- Complex avionics. There is a lot to learn, and nobody should fly a plane unless they understand the systems to the full extent applicable to the operating scenario (e.g. no need to understand how to set up a GPS approach if you aren't flying any, but even for plain VFR you need to fully understand the flight plan loading etc i.e. about 95% of the avionics functionality).
- If flying abroad, stuff like high altitude flight (oxygen, etc).
- Forget the map and stopwatch nonsense
The SR22 is nothing special flying-wise; 150kt looks just like 100kt once reasonably well off the ground. It flies OK. I much prefer the yoke over the spring loaded sidestick but others will disagree.
I don't think it is unsafe. It is reported to not carry ice as well as other planes with thicker wings, but you can get TKS for it.
The real issue, compared to the traditional spamcan scene, is that you have to learn some new tricks
- Think ahead; if you zoom in to the destination overhead at 150kt and 5000ft, you are going to look like a right d*ck doing 10 orbits trying to get down in front of the whole restaurant and all the spotters (whereas in a 100kt spamcan you just fly in at 100kt and join the circuit, slowing down a bit). So one has to think ahead, and start planning the descent say 30nm out
- Engine management. Can't just shut the throttle. One has to reduce power gradually, over a minute or two. PFLs are just not done (unless it is rented and the owner is the instructor making you do the PFL....). Circuits are not a great idea either. So, more thinking ahead.
- Complex avionics. There is a lot to learn, and nobody should fly a plane unless they understand the systems to the full extent applicable to the operating scenario (e.g. no need to understand how to set up a GPS approach if you aren't flying any, but even for plain VFR you need to fully understand the flight plan loading etc i.e. about 95% of the avionics functionality).
- If flying abroad, stuff like high altitude flight (oxygen, etc).
- Forget the map and stopwatch nonsense
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aerorranchio
If you are serious about learning about the Cirrus try
Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association
You can ask questions there and probably be in touch with owner(s) of Spanish-based Cirrus quickly too
If you are serious about learning about the Cirrus try
Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association
You can ask questions there and probably be in touch with owner(s) of Spanish-based Cirrus quickly too
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree on the whole with IO540s comments.
The sidestick is different. Like anything different I suspect you need a few more hours to be comfortable with it. Having flown aeros with a stick and a yoke I prefer a stick. Having flown tourers with a stick, a yoke and a side stick in terms of the actual flying I dont think there is much between them, but in terms of freeing up lap space and generally tidying up the cockpit the side stick has a great deal going for it - which is of course one of the reasons Airbus adopted the side stick.
In terms of safety there was some concern in America that the accident rate amoung Cirrus was higher than for the rest of the GA fleet in the early days. As with so many things you need to look beyond the statistics rather than jump to the rather irrational conclusion that the aircraft is inherently unsafe or requires the skills of an exceptional pilot.
The Cirrus is a 50% step up in speed for most GA pilots. It is slipery and therefore requires more careful speed control during the approach and more fore thought. Perhaps most importantly it is tempting to think it is more capable than most other light aircraft - after all it is quick so you can potentially climb through the weather, it has a high service ceiling, so you can remain on top, it may be FIKI approved or at least have the ability to deal with temporary exposure to ice, the avionics are sophisticated, and the autopilot is very good. The fact is in competant hands it is more capable than most light singles but in reality not by that much and then the hands need to be good.
Of course in the States the insurers quickly realised what was causing the distortion in the stats and required pilots to demonstrate they had the required skill set - in short you could no longer go buy a Cirrus with 100 hours P1 and no additional training.
The stats now show the Cirrus to be no more dangerous than the majority of light singles, which, if you think about it probably means they are less dangerous because the missions people fly in Cirrus are inherently more risky than the missions undertaken in most like singles.
In my estimation put the same 500 hour pilot in a Cirrus or a 30 year old Warrior with sufficient time on both types in all weathers and I reckon the Cirrus would by a small margin be the safer aircraft.
The sidestick is different. Like anything different I suspect you need a few more hours to be comfortable with it. Having flown aeros with a stick and a yoke I prefer a stick. Having flown tourers with a stick, a yoke and a side stick in terms of the actual flying I dont think there is much between them, but in terms of freeing up lap space and generally tidying up the cockpit the side stick has a great deal going for it - which is of course one of the reasons Airbus adopted the side stick.
In terms of safety there was some concern in America that the accident rate amoung Cirrus was higher than for the rest of the GA fleet in the early days. As with so many things you need to look beyond the statistics rather than jump to the rather irrational conclusion that the aircraft is inherently unsafe or requires the skills of an exceptional pilot.
The Cirrus is a 50% step up in speed for most GA pilots. It is slipery and therefore requires more careful speed control during the approach and more fore thought. Perhaps most importantly it is tempting to think it is more capable than most other light aircraft - after all it is quick so you can potentially climb through the weather, it has a high service ceiling, so you can remain on top, it may be FIKI approved or at least have the ability to deal with temporary exposure to ice, the avionics are sophisticated, and the autopilot is very good. The fact is in competant hands it is more capable than most light singles but in reality not by that much and then the hands need to be good.
Of course in the States the insurers quickly realised what was causing the distortion in the stats and required pilots to demonstrate they had the required skill set - in short you could no longer go buy a Cirrus with 100 hours P1 and no additional training.
The stats now show the Cirrus to be no more dangerous than the majority of light singles, which, if you think about it probably means they are less dangerous because the missions people fly in Cirrus are inherently more risky than the missions undertaken in most like singles.
In my estimation put the same 500 hour pilot in a Cirrus or a 30 year old Warrior with sufficient time on both types in all weathers and I reckon the Cirrus would by a small margin be the safer aircraft.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True - the problem is it is usually reported that Cirrus pilots spend all their time pushing the auto pilot buttons rather than holding onto anything. It just goes pear shaped when either they forget which buttons to push or for whatever reason the autopilot cant fly the aircraft any more .
It reminds me of the very old one about why the pilot keeps his dog, cat, parrot and ostrich in the cockpit with him.
.It reminds me of the very old one about why the pilot keeps his dog, cat, parrot and ostrich in the cockpit with him.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
I was hoping you would jump in here as you have a good knowledge of the type.
i sometimes wonder why the accident stats were high. It crossed my mind that having the ballistic shute may encourage pilots to fly more at night or in bad weather, taking on trips they would normally be concerned about with the thought that if all goes pear shaped they have the shute?
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of those stats? are they low time pilots? what was the nature of the accidents.
The very few times I have flown a Cirrus I also did not see anything nasty.
The earlier one we tested the roll rate on indicated that it may need more attention in IMC especially as it was also slippery.
I know the new ones had some wing modifications which have made them more stable in cloud.
Comparable performance is the mooney which is a doddle in cloud being rock solid. The Cirrus felt like without autopilot it would be hard work handflying over time in IMC ?
Pace
I was hoping you would jump in here as you have a good knowledge of the type.
i sometimes wonder why the accident stats were high. It crossed my mind that having the ballistic shute may encourage pilots to fly more at night or in bad weather, taking on trips they would normally be concerned about with the thought that if all goes pear shaped they have the shute?
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of those stats? are they low time pilots? what was the nature of the accidents.
The very few times I have flown a Cirrus I also did not see anything nasty.
The earlier one we tested the roll rate on indicated that it may need more attention in IMC especially as it was also slippery.
I know the new ones had some wing modifications which have made them more stable in cloud.
Comparable performance is the mooney which is a doddle in cloud being rock solid. The Cirrus felt like without autopilot it would be hard work handflying over time in IMC ?
Pace
Life's too short for ironing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Scotland, & Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace - 'twas just a simple question. I thought you meant by "roll" that you you had rolled the aircraft, ie -an aileron roll, not that you had timed the roll rate in a turn. Hence the puzzlement.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fernitickles
Thats OK
reading over my post especially comparing it against a Firefly aerobatic machine I can see how you linked "roll" to an aerobatic manouvre.
Yes I did mean the roll rate in seconds showing how twitchy it may be in cloud flying. The mooney has a slow roll rate and is a doddle for prolonged hand flying in cloud. I got the impression on earlier Cirrus that they maybe hardwork and certainly harder work than a Mooney or Piper Archer. The mooney is slippery too, the Archer draggy. But fast roll rate and slippy is dodgy for low time pilots?
Pace
Thats OK
reading over my post especially comparing it against a Firefly aerobatic machine I can see how you linked "roll" to an aerobatic manouvre.Yes I did mean the roll rate in seconds showing how twitchy it may be in cloud flying. The mooney has a slow roll rate and is a doddle for prolonged hand flying in cloud. I got the impression on earlier Cirrus that they maybe hardwork and certainly harder work than a Mooney or Piper Archer. The mooney is slippery too, the Archer draggy. But fast roll rate and slippy is dodgy for low time pilots?
Pace
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO, a Cirrus will be flown mostly on autopilot, because the sidestick does not lend itself to precise hand control.
On the Airbus, this was fine, because big jets are on the AP 99.9% of the time anyway.
The accident rate of Cirruses has been done to death all over the internet but IMHO it isn't significant to the type. Firstly, Cirrus have been marketing to the only market segment of GA which has any potential for buying anything even remotely modern (young wealthy men who have not spent the last 100 years of their life flying wreckage and thus accept that wreckage=ok). Secondly, they sold an awful lot of them very fast (and, since they are worth some money, most of them are still flying, not rotting somewhere like a 30 year old plane might be) so this will reflect in the crash rate. Third, they have a decent mission capability so will be used for more demanding flights than a C172 for example (and high altitude flight means more exposure to high altitude weather such as icing - remember in the USA you can fly "VFR" up to 17999ft, and IFR is far simpler than in Europe). Forthly, "everybody" thinks they are unsafe and stall/spin at the drop of a hat (hence Cirrus "had" to include the chute) (which is bollox) so the press looks out for any Cirrus accidents, while a Cessna/Piper crash doesn't make the news.
Among the chute pull accidents, there have been some spectacularly stupid ones, but nothing I recall seeing that one could not achieve in a normal IFR tourer.
I reckon it might be possible that a Cirrus can get into an unrecoverable (flat?) spin if you probe the operating ceiling and stall it and then lose control of it, perhaps with a load of ice collected, and one of the chute pull cases suggested this happened although the pilot seemed to be have suffered a spectacular "memory loss" about what led up to it, possibly to avoid certificate action for FIKI. But, hey, that is what the chute is for
On the Airbus, this was fine, because big jets are on the AP 99.9% of the time anyway.
The accident rate of Cirruses has been done to death all over the internet
but IMHO it isn't significant to the type. Firstly, Cirrus have been marketing to the only market segment of GA which has any potential for buying anything even remotely modern (young wealthy men who have not spent the last 100 years of their life flying wreckage and thus accept that wreckage=ok). Secondly, they sold an awful lot of them very fast (and, since they are worth some money, most of them are still flying, not rotting somewhere like a 30 year old plane might be) so this will reflect in the crash rate. Third, they have a decent mission capability so will be used for more demanding flights than a C172 for example (and high altitude flight means more exposure to high altitude weather such as icing - remember in the USA you can fly "VFR" up to 17999ft, and IFR is far simpler than in Europe). Forthly, "everybody" thinks they are unsafe and stall/spin at the drop of a hat (hence Cirrus "had" to include the chute) (which is bollox) so the press looks out for any Cirrus accidents, while a Cessna/Piper crash doesn't make the news.Among the chute pull accidents, there have been some spectacularly stupid ones, but nothing I recall seeing that one could not achieve in a normal IFR tourer.
I reckon it might be possible that a Cirrus can get into an unrecoverable (flat?) spin if you probe the operating ceiling and stall it and then lose control of it, perhaps with a load of ice collected, and one of the chute pull cases suggested this happened although the pilot seemed to be have suffered a spectacular "memory loss" about what led up to it, possibly to avoid certificate action for FIKI. But, hey, that is what the chute is for
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think one needs a general level of skill before stepping up to the cirrus's of this world. But they are very attractive and someone who has a few quid in the bank might just want one of these funky toys.
One of our group did his PPL with a chap who bought a Cirrus straight after. He was killed in one of the UK cirrus accidents. I'm not 100% convinced that someone of his experience would be able to handle a Cirrus just yet on his own- sure he could fly the thing, but probably not on a long bad weather cross country.
Relying on AP is ok, but, the chap in the next hangar to ours (who got his PPL, has some cash, bought a Cirrus), went flying and thankfully took one of the other airfield pilots with him. The AP had this wierd positive feedback apparently whereby it would deviate from altitude, and over correct, with each over correction getting worse and worse until it was deviating 1000' in each direction and getting worse. Some minor misadjustment like this could kill someone who needed to rely on it.
I reckon 150hrs and an IR and the factory training course and one should be pretty safe.
One of our group did his PPL with a chap who bought a Cirrus straight after. He was killed in one of the UK cirrus accidents. I'm not 100% convinced that someone of his experience would be able to handle a Cirrus just yet on his own- sure he could fly the thing, but probably not on a long bad weather cross country.
Relying on AP is ok, but, the chap in the next hangar to ours (who got his PPL, has some cash, bought a Cirrus), went flying and thankfully took one of the other airfield pilots with him. The AP had this wierd positive feedback apparently whereby it would deviate from altitude, and over correct, with each over correction getting worse and worse until it was deviating 1000' in each direction and getting worse. Some minor misadjustment like this could kill someone who needed to rely on it.
I reckon 150hrs and an IR and the factory training course and one should be pretty safe.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon 150hrs and an IR and the factory training course and one should be pretty safe
I can't understand spending $400k or so and scud running everywhere. It just doesn't add up.
Getting out of here very fast now........
Anyway, this is tantamount to requiring a proper Type Rating for anything capable, and we don't want more regulation! But it is true that the rating system was designed decades ago, and contains a load of silly stuff e.g. need a complex signoff for simple stuff like retractable gear (trivial) or a VP prop (a bit less trivial but still trivial). An SR22 is hugely far from trivial - unless the pilot pretends it is a C172 and sticks a huge post-it pad over the screens
Join Date: May 2009
Location: north of the south
Age: 55
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am fortunate enough to be in a position where I am routinely converting current ppl, teaching new ppls and taking people for trial flights , in a 20 not a 22 but the layout is the same and the performance is not significantly lower .
For group purposes all current members need a minimum of 6 hours conversion to type some take longer some dont .
I generally find that those who fly regularly and challenge themselves in their flying , rather than just local area once a month take to it a lot quicker , those that dont , struggle . Specifically with the increase in speed in all aspects of flight , but more so in the circuit .
The avionics I find most people get to grips with quite quickly as the avidyne system is relative childs play when compared to say a G1000, it certainly isnt possible to get lost as it is in the Garmin. There are afew gotchas within the aircraft but it certainly isnt beyind the bounds of most competent ppls to fly become reasonably accomplished .
The biggest issue I have found as i said is the speed and we limit ours to 120kts to maintain the cheap hourly rate .
It takes most of them a good while to get ahead of the aircraft some are just happy with their local trips , and in some cases thank the lord .
But in over four hundred hours since new , including a first solo of a newbie ppl we have yet to have any incident with the aircraft ,touch wood .
The Ap can be a bit unusual at times especially in a prolonged climb but monitor monitor monitor is battered into them when converting , if it misbehaves disconnect reset and continue to monitor and you should be fine .
But as stated earlier it is designed as a touring aircraft to be flown automatically , and it certainly isnt the easiest aircarft to fly hands on , but everyhting comes with practice.
Nice craft to be a teacher in I must say
For group purposes all current members need a minimum of 6 hours conversion to type some take longer some dont .
I generally find that those who fly regularly and challenge themselves in their flying , rather than just local area once a month take to it a lot quicker , those that dont , struggle . Specifically with the increase in speed in all aspects of flight , but more so in the circuit .
The avionics I find most people get to grips with quite quickly as the avidyne system is relative childs play when compared to say a G1000, it certainly isnt possible to get lost as it is in the Garmin. There are afew gotchas within the aircraft but it certainly isnt beyind the bounds of most competent ppls to fly become reasonably accomplished .
The biggest issue I have found as i said is the speed and we limit ours to 120kts to maintain the cheap hourly rate .
It takes most of them a good while to get ahead of the aircraft some are just happy with their local trips , and in some cases thank the lord .
But in over four hundred hours since new , including a first solo of a newbie ppl we have yet to have any incident with the aircraft ,touch wood .
The Ap can be a bit unusual at times especially in a prolonged climb but monitor monitor monitor is battered into them when converting , if it misbehaves disconnect reset and continue to monitor and you should be fine .
But as stated earlier it is designed as a touring aircraft to be flown automatically , and it certainly isnt the easiest aircarft to fly hands on , but everyhting comes with practice.
Nice craft to be a teacher in I must say
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
Thank you.
That’s fair.
IO540
I cant agree with you. The sidestick enables very precise control. Precision requires a little time with the side stick but it comes. I actually rather enjoy not using the autopilot and have flown two hour sectors entirely manually and without fatigue. That said a well known examiner expressed precisely this view to me. I think you need 20 or 30 hours on type before making a judgement.
Generally, I am not convinced a Cirrus requires an Instrument Rating or super human pilot skills. A Cirrus does however require sound skills, good currency (particularly if you lack experience on which to fall back) and a pilot with a mature outlook on their flying.
Pull the power back and the Cirrus will cruise very happily at much slower speeds, the handling is benign and it will behave and perform much like any other spamcam. Wind it up and things happen that much more quickly and it can become more of a struggle to stay ahead of the aircraft whether that be hot and high on the approach or losing control transitioning from VMC to IMC.
In terms of handling I would admit I find it quite difficult to land well. For some reason I think it is relatively easy to allow the landing to become flat. I dont mean the approach, but the actual moment of arrival and and the first few seconds after. This annoys me but it may be a reflection of a problem I have rather than the aircraft. There is absolutely no doubt it is very easy to end up hot and high with very little you can do to solve the problem. It takes a good level of skill indeed to fly tight fast circuits with sufficient control of speed and height to turn very short final configured correctly for a slick arrival. In an equivalent twin, TB20 or Beech shove the undercarriage down, pull the power back a touch and you can turn the approach into a perfect arrival, that you cant do so readily in a 22. Alan Sugar an experienced pilot with an IR managed to run his off the end of the runway and whilst the one he chose was a little short and a tad wet I am not at all surprised that it is easy to leave yourself with absolutely no margin for error.
Some say there is evidence that the tanks are poorly designed increasing the risk of a fire should the worst happen – this may be so, I don’t know enough to reach an informed judgement.
I was hoping you would jump in here as you have a good knowledge of the type.
Thank you.
The earlier one we tested the roll rate on indicated that it may need more attention in IMC especially as it was also slippery.
That’s fair.
IO540
IMHO, a Cirrus will be flown mostly on autopilot, because the sidestick does not lend itself to precise hand control.
I cant agree with you. The sidestick enables very precise control. Precision requires a little time with the side stick but it comes. I actually rather enjoy not using the autopilot and have flown two hour sectors entirely manually and without fatigue. That said a well known examiner expressed precisely this view to me. I think you need 20 or 30 hours on type before making a judgement.
Generally, I am not convinced a Cirrus requires an Instrument Rating or super human pilot skills. A Cirrus does however require sound skills, good currency (particularly if you lack experience on which to fall back) and a pilot with a mature outlook on their flying.
Pull the power back and the Cirrus will cruise very happily at much slower speeds, the handling is benign and it will behave and perform much like any other spamcam. Wind it up and things happen that much more quickly and it can become more of a struggle to stay ahead of the aircraft whether that be hot and high on the approach or losing control transitioning from VMC to IMC.
In terms of handling I would admit I find it quite difficult to land well. For some reason I think it is relatively easy to allow the landing to become flat. I dont mean the approach, but the actual moment of arrival and and the first few seconds after. This annoys me but it may be a reflection of a problem I have rather than the aircraft. There is absolutely no doubt it is very easy to end up hot and high with very little you can do to solve the problem. It takes a good level of skill indeed to fly tight fast circuits with sufficient control of speed and height to turn very short final configured correctly for a slick arrival. In an equivalent twin, TB20 or Beech shove the undercarriage down, pull the power back a touch and you can turn the approach into a perfect arrival, that you cant do so readily in a 22. Alan Sugar an experienced pilot with an IR managed to run his off the end of the runway and whilst the one he chose was a little short and a tad wet I am not at all surprised that it is easy to leave yourself with absolutely no margin for error.
Some say there is evidence that the tanks are poorly designed increasing the risk of a fire should the worst happen – this may be so, I don’t know enough to reach an informed judgement.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 16th Oct 2009 at 08:06.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Side stick
I have only flown one sidestick aircraft and on the training course the advice was to handle the side sitick "like you would handle another man's **ck".
That seemed that autoflight was the way that most guys used the aircraft, a combination of sidestick and advanced avionics encouraging people to not handfly the aircraft. This practice (or lack of?) may be at the root of the myth that the Cirrus is hard to fly.
To the suprize of some I would fly a visual approach with both the autopilot and autothrottle disconected and found that there was an aircraft hiding under the triplcated layer of autoflight systems.
PS One of the top management at Airbus recently said that he was concerned about the reduction in manual flying skills.
PPS one large UK airline had banned the practice of flying the aircraft with the autothrottle disengaged.
That seemed that autoflight was the way that most guys used the aircraft, a combination of sidestick and advanced avionics encouraging people to not handfly the aircraft. This practice (or lack of?) may be at the root of the myth that the Cirrus is hard to fly.
To the suprize of some I would fly a visual approach with both the autopilot and autothrottle disconected and found that there was an aircraft hiding under the triplcated layer of autoflight systems.
PS One of the top management at Airbus recently said that he was concerned about the reduction in manual flying skills.
PPS one large UK airline had banned the practice of flying the aircraft with the autothrottle disengaged.