More informed thoughts on the Cirrus
Moderator
Thread Starter
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
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
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 27th Nov 2014 at 07:53.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Moderator
Thread Starter
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
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sharpend
I think this is the accident you are referring to (taken from the COPA website history of all Cirrus accidents and CAPS saves).
As you can see, it was actually a pre-production aircraft on which an aileron jammed. No less tragic for all that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Moderator
Thread Starter
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: EGSX
Age: 56
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
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....
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely how a thing handles near the ground (probably the most critical phases of flight) are the most interesting?
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
