Newbie looking to upgrade to Cirrus

[Odai]

Hello,

I am finally close to completing my PPL, and have thus been considering my options for recreational hire, and possibly CPL hour building if I decide I want to work towards the fATPL. I am currently flying the PA28-161 (having flown the first half of my course on the Grob 115A).

One of the options available to me after finishing is buying into a Cirrus SR20 group. I have sat in the cockpit as the manager of this particular FTO showed me the various features of the plane, and found myself very impressed with the setup (most of all the side-stick control and avionics suite).

However, I am concerned about a couple of things (other than the cost!).

Firstly, being a new PPL (looking to hopefully pass with around 55 hours), would my lack of experience be an issue? There is a policy of having to complete at least 10 hours instruction in the aircraft before I can hire it, and of course an instructor wouldn't sign me off to fly if they do not believe I am competent enough to do so anyway, but I am thinking more long-term. I have seen reports that the Cirrus has a comparitively poor safety record with a particularly high incidence of stall related accidents, could it be that the level of handling skills required might be pushing it for a low houred pilot?

Secondly, it seems that there have also been problems with the door mechanisms, leading to issues with doors opening in flight more commonly than typical for light aircraft. However, most of the reports that I found are not that recent, could it be this problem has now been fixed by Cirrus?

Would appreciate any feedback on these points!

Thanks,

Odai.

[A and C]

If hour building for the CPL is your goal then you need to practice basic navigation and aircraft handeling.

Following the magenta line by autopilot is not going to help you one bit, get yourself into a C152 or PA28 it will cost less and teach you more and you are unlikely to find yourself doing an overly long training course to fly a fixed gear SEP just because some people seem to think it is a bit of a rocket ship.

[Fuji Abound]

Doors

They still might (open). It is not a problem. Slow down, land a relatch the door. I have had it happen a couple of times. The problem stems from not making absolutely sure the door is properly latched in the first place, in particular dont leave it to thd pax.

Flying

There is nothing about the 20 that is difficult. Some struggle a bit with the speeds and staying ahead of the aircraft. If you do you just may not be a "natural" and will have to accept it takes longer. There is nothing unusual about the stall (it is all myth) and the accident rate is not exceptional (another myth).

Get some good instruction and you will be fine.

A and c makes a valid point.

[Pace]

A&C makes a valid point about learning conventional nav and instrument skills before moving into an aircraft like the Cirrus.
If I was you maybe tackle the IMCR first so you can get the full benefit of the aircraft which is a tourer.
I too think far too much is made of the Hot ship argument which basic handling skills should more than cope with!
Apart from that a great choice with the added benefit of the chute which has proved very reliable and saved many lives!
The 10 hour requirement is a complete nonsense IMO if you need 10 hrs 20 hrs or whatever so be it but 5 hrs is perfectly adequate for a competant pilot!
Anything more than 5 hrs due to insurance smacks more of work and income for the boys rather than a genuine insurance requirment.
You should not be wasting your money learning the nav/ displays in the aircraft anyway so it's 10 hrs to learn to handle a simple single engine fixed gear aircraft! Crazy and daylight robbery.

Pace

[sharpend]

The Cirrus is a great aeroplane. So is a Chipmunk. I have over a 100 hrs on the former and over 1000 on the later (I only mention that so that you know I have some experience).

Like the Chippy (once described as a wolf in sheeps clothing), the Cirrus can bite. I personally don't think it has a stalling problem. It is a little slippery and one needs to plan one's slow-down. I found the main problem was landing. The Cirrus does not like landing fast. Whereas a Bulldog, PA28 etc can accept 5 - 10 kts hot, in a Cirrus you may well come to grief. Read the accident reports.

However, if you adopt the right technique the aerplane will reward you well. It is a great tourer.

Yes the doors can open in flight, even if correctly adjusted and closed properly. It has happened to me on several occasions, though invariable only one latch fails so the door stays in place. A landing is thus required!

[3victorecho]

Sharpend offers some excellent advice. I owned a Cirrus SR22 for four years. There have been numerous prop strikes in Cirrus aircraft, and I can confirm they are susceptible to bouncing if landing fast. If you know this is a risk and get some good instruction this should not be a problem.

I also had a door pop open in flight on a number of occassions before I learnt how to properly check it was closed. This is not difficult to learn.

The amount of time you need to convert will depend more on the avionics than anything else. It is important to stay ahead of the plane and the more familiar you are with the avionics the safer you will be in my opinion.

I have fond memories of my Cirrus and would go back to it if my mission profile suited.
3VE

[pudoc]

A&C has got it right.

[thborchert]

Go for it. As the others have said, there is nothing special about a Cirrus except it doesn't like fast landings.

As for "learning the basic skills" and all that, I'd take the potentially radical view that glass cockpits, GPS nav and the magenta line ARE the new basic skills. NDBs, VORs and tons of dials aren't basic, they are just outdated - if you make the choice of flying modern, contemporary aircraft instead of the usual (and much cheaper) avionics museums. That's not to say you shouldn't be able to interpret and fly that half mil (isn't that what the Brits call it?) displayed on your iPad. But you learned that getting the license, I'm pretty sure.

So let the fight begin ;)

[Odai]

Many thanks everyone for the helpful responses.

The 10 hours dual training requirement does feel excessive and may well put off these plans for now due to the expense, not to mention the fact that the last thing I want to do is go through another course of training immediately after getting the PPL. I'll have to see closer to the time.

A and C, my intention would be to practice as much hand flying as possible in addition to keeping my basic dead reckoning navigation skills sharp, but it would also be useful to gain experience with the various automated avionics, GPS etc. Not to mention making the experience more enjoyable. I don't intend to use the error prone dead reckoning method as my primary method after gaining my PPL (whether for private flying or possible commercial work). It would only be to maintain a good spatial awareness as opposed to slavishly relying on the GPS, in addition to redundancy reasons in case all else fails.

With regards to the door problem, even if it would not pose a major direct threat to the safety of the flight it would still be a deal breaker. One of the reasons being the expense of having to divert and land in order to fix the issue, before getting back to the original trip. If it is as regular a problem as it seems to be from various sources then it's probably enough to put me off.

3victorecho and Fuji abound mention that it is possible to avoid by making sure the door is properly latched, but how is this done exactly? However, even then sharpend mentions that it happens even when the door is properly closed?

Other than the Cirrus, are there any other similar SEPs that anyone can reccommend?

[thborchert]

You're exactly right about dead reckoning not being the tool for practical every-day flying these days. GPS is.

I'm afraid you took away the wrong impression regarding the doors. It's pretty much a non-issue.

[007helicopter]

it is possible to avoid by making sure the door is properly latched, but how is this done exactly? However, even then sharpend mentions that it happens even when the door is properly closed?


Thorchert is correct the doors are a non issue, I never heard of one opening if properly closed, maybe only if you think it is properly closed. However it is just a technique to get right as part of pre-flight. I personally prefer to close my passengers door from the outside and then get in.

If cost to divert and fix a minor problem is a cost issue then you are right not to choose the Cirrus, for building hours or on a tight budget choose something cheaper for just as much fun.

[007helicopter]

The 10 hours dual training requirement does feel excessive and may well put off these plans for now due to the expense

As a brand new PPL I would be fairly certain it will take you longer than 10 hours before somebody is prepared to rent you their Cirrus so again factor that into your cost decision.

[echobeach]

If you fly the cirrus to the numbers in the POH it's a pleasure to fly.

If you try and land too fast or slow it will cause potential problems but if you cross the threshold at V ref it's fine.

I have not enjoyed flying any craft more than the SR 20 I am currently privileged enough to fly and have done just over a 100 hours in it.

It's a pleasure for short hops but is best when you set course for France or somewhere distant. We usually get 145 kts TAS and you can cross long distances comfortably.

It's an absolute joy to fly, but I am quite glad I spent a few years in pa28 and arrows etc so I can now truly appreciate what you can do with cirrus.

And I can can get mrs eb into this craft. In everything else she doesn't think it's up to the job.

[fatmanmedia]

my vote for an alternative would be the Diamond DA40

fats

[Fuji Abound]

The 10 hour requirement is a complete nonsense IMO if you need 10 hrs 20 hrs or whatever so be it but 5 hrs is perfectly adequate for a competant pilot!

Pace - you cant have it both ways.

Only a few threads ago you were arguing Cirrus pilots needed more training - now its less. ;)

In reality I agree that a competent pilot will do fine with 5 hours, but probably not a newish PPL with no time on faster aircraft and only PA28 experience. That is a reasonable transition both in terms of speed, glass cockpit, chute, a considerably more slippery air frame just to mention a few aspects.

Of course there may be some operations that take advantage, but I have to say I have come across very few. Most do a fair assessment of the pilot and if they cut the mustard the hours are adjusted accordingly. By all means anyone going this route could get the assurance first. Then it does come down to trust. I am not boasting but I did two hours in the Cirrus up front probably even then a little more than necessary as it seemed a pleasant idea to do a few T and Gs in France. However I had lots of glass time (and the now mandatory glass sign off), lots of twin time and a few post PPL hours. As a new PPL with no glass time, I have a feeling 15 hours or so would not have been unreasonable and then dependent on how much time I was prepared to study the avionics before.

[Odai]

Thanks again for all the help everyone.

Based on your feedback, the Cirrus does indeed sound like a suitable airplane. The main barrier at the moment then is just the initial cost of being checked out on one.

As a result, does anyone know of any alternative similar performance aircraft I could fly for my hour building? Preferably one that does not present the same issue as the Cirrus in terms of the training requirements.

I have considered the DA40, but there doesn't seem to be any local groups/clubs/FTOs hiring these out. I have also considered the Arrow, but all the examples I've found are typical school aircraft (falling apart inside, old equipment, none of the glass cockpits I'm looking for experience in etc).

I live in the North-West area, between Liverpool and Manchester. I have looked for information on available aircraft at Barton, Liverpool, Blackpool, Woodvale, and Hawarden. I haven't been able to find any aircraft whatsoever that would suit me at any of the establishments I know of at those fields, and I don't know of any other fields that are near me. It would actually seem the most suitable aircraft at this stage is the Cirrus. Although I am keen to avoid it if I can due to the costs involved in training.

Any ideas? I wouldn't mind flying a slightly lower performance airplane than the Cirrus either, if it gets me out of the costly check outs. Just something a bit more powerful than the PA28 I'm in at the moment.

Thanks!

Odai.

[fatmanmedia]

thinking outside the box why not a pipistrel Virus SW, it has the option for a full glass cockpit, 140kt of speed and a 800nm range all on between 3-4 gallons per hour (depending on engine).

it's only a 2 seater but i don't know a cheaper way to build flight hours, base price is about £45k but i would expect that to be more like £80-90k with options.

just a thought.

fats

[A and C]

Those of you who think that the magenta line is a basic skill are living in some sort of techno dream world, without the basic skill of DR navigation you should not be let anywhere near an aircraft, as to this situational awareness rubbish, likewise if you can't paint the picture in your head then you should not be flying.

These DR & SA skills are the very fundamentals of piloting and without developing them you are putting your neck in a noose, that noose will tighten very quickly when the screens go blank and you are back to three little round dials to keep the aircraft upright and pointed away from the hills.

Odia If you do your CPL the navigation part is largely DR, the choice is to get with the program now or it will cost you to relearn the skills.

About now I can feel the techno wannabes dismissing me as an old fart who wants the return of the Astro compass & air almanac but I think you need to know why you need the old skills even for aircraft far more sophisticated than the Cirrus & DA40.

A few years back I was relaxing over a cup of tea at FL350 in an A320 an aircraft with a multiple sensor navigation system that makes the Cirrus look like something from the dark ages. The recent graduate from the Magenta kindergarten who was sitting in the right seat decides to try some FMC magic without consulting me, the result of the lighting speed fingers is that he dumps the aircraft position and all the navigation screens go blank!

He then goes into total panic mode, clueless as to what is his next move.

I go down to the flight plan set the HDG in the compass ( yes the one like you have in the Cessna 152) and start the clock ready for the next waypoint, once the aircraft was safely pionted in the right direction I probe for a VOR radial and distance to get an accurate position to get the FMC back on line.

The point I make is that by NOT training and practicing for DR navigation you are trusting your life to bit of kit that will happily fly you into mountain if it fails or you put rubbish into it, the Cirrus & DA40 systems are not reliable enough to trust in the way that the duplicated systems in airliners can be trusted but even those airliner systems are subject to errors both human and technical that is why even today in airliners we also use a paper navigation log that will enable us to get a DR plot running if the screens go black.

Oh I amend this post as I hear that in The Times today they say that humans are getting more stupid because they are letting technology do all the thinking for them, one can only speculate from the some of the posts above if this is true.

[Fuji Abound]

I am not sure i should take the bait a and c but you are very wide of the mark.

I actually agree with your comments about basic skills, they are important to have and equally important to be able to fall back on.

However the cirrus has much more redundancy that you realise. There are twin ifr gps, the screens are now independent, capable of each displaying the vital information and driven by independent computers. Then there is the hand held gps in my flight bag that will power up in oh um about 20 seconds and needs only a gps signal. Finally there is atc on box 1 or box 2 or the hand held also in my bag - please sir i have lost everything how about a vector there is a good chap. Dedicated followers of the purple line with a well packed flight back are really very unlikely to ever need to revert to da should they prefer not to.

[Pace]

Fuji

But its crazy to be teaching the displays at £200 per hour flying around that should be on a sim.

Pace

[A and C]

It only takes the failure of one system to kill three of your navigation systems and yours is a very northern Europe assumption that radar will be avalable to help you.

What the basic skills do is give you the way to stay alive and calmly get a grip of the situation, without these skills panic is likely to take over and the situation spiral out of control............. Oh I guess there is always the chute to fall back on ! And some might that due to lack of basic skills it has already come to this.

[stickandrudderman]

The Cirrus is a great aeroplane; if you're loaded.
All the knobs and buttons actually make it more difficult to fly well IMHO but one fact often overlooked is that you'll find passengers much more willing to get in a Cirrus than in a PA28 or the like.
Price is the only reason I no longer fly one.

[thborchert]

These DA & SA skills are the very fundamentals of piloting and without developing

Reading skills are pretty important, too. Nobody ever claimed otherwise.

[thborchert]

Odai,

Not sure I get it: You want to build hours, yet complain about ten hours of training. Hmm. Seems a great way to build hours and learn something at the same time. If you get bored in hour 5, you can spend the rest flying to neat places.

[A and C]

There we go..... I make the point about being overly reliant on automation, only diference is the auto correct on the iPad that auto selects the wrong letters is not going to kill me !

[Fuji Abound]

A and C just to reiterate I don't disagree with you and I have made a very European assumption about radar, albeit you would receive an equally good service in the States.

People flying Cirrus are very rarely operating outside this environment and while I dont doubt it is possible to conceive sufficient system failure to compromise the on board navigation with some sensible backups in reality I doubt there would ever be a need to resort to DA.

I am not disputing your comments, just that on a Cirrus the analogy you give with your A320 is unlikely in the extreme and therefore if you happen to be such a dedicated follower of the purple line I dont think you should ever find yourself in this situation.

and yes, if all else fails you could always float down and read the traffic signs. ;)

[Pace]

What is landing too fast if not bad handling skills ?
Too much is made of hot ship singles!
Pilots were soloed in Spirfires at a handful of hours in the last war!
It was possible to do a complete PPL on a twin!
More should be placed on handling skills and displays confined to a simulator firmly on the ground.

Pace

[peterh337]

So let the fight begin

Why?

Why write in an aggressive manner?

[A and C]

What I said was that you had taken a very Northern European assumption, I compleatly agree with you about the radar cover in Northern Europle and the USA.

The problems come when the newish Cirrus pilot ventures three hours south.

I can't count the number of times when crusing above FL300 I have listened to northern European registered light aircraft trying to contact ATC units, I usually chip in and offer a relay. Nine times out of ten that ATC unit suddenly starts receiving the light aircraft transmission when they know there is no way of avoiding talking to them !

In that environment only a few hours flying away from the UK the pilot has to be much more self reliant and if the worst happens all they have to fall back on is the basic pilotage skills.

[Above The Clouds]

Pace
What is landing too fast if not bad handling skills ?
Too much is made of hot ship singles!
Pilots were soloed in Spirfires at a handful of hours in
the last war!It was possible to do a complete PPL on a twin!
More should be placed on handling skills and displays confined to a simulator firmly on the ground.


Pace :ok:

For those of you that seem to think a Cirrus is a hot ship really need to get in touch with reality, it is a single piston aircraft that is a few knots faster than what you learn't to fly on with a few fancy avionics that are nothing more than glorified Gamin GPS's.

How do you think people convert on to new types with only a single seat? you read the manuals, get briefed by an instructor and use the basic flying skills that you were taught and I am not talking about single piston GA aircraft that are all basically similiar with simple systems.

I would strongly suggest that if you cannot read the flight manual and fly a Cirrus VFR the way you were taught to using basics techniques without having to use the magenta line, then you should go back to the flying school that did your PPL and get your money back.

[hingey]

Get yourself a Taylor Monoplane. Cheap as chips and will keep you on your toes :ok:

About to fly one myself for the first time, 1455 hours and 7 years later than I should have.

h

[Pace]

No the Cirrus is a great choice and one I am hoping to block buy some hours on soon.
We have had many discussions on the aircraft and the chute is a real plus if treated with respect.
The point here is that the aircraft is a fixed gear single! ok its a bit slippery hence more reason to have piloting skills which means nailing the speeds.
The mooney was considered difficult by some! It was also slippery and a challenge to some on landing due to the fact that if the aircraft was fast it floated forever in ground effect.
Hence both aircraft need good handling skills and then they will not be a problem!
The rest ? The Candy needs learning not in the aircraft unless you have money to burn but in the classroom on a sim.
10 hours demanded by some stinks of artificial operator created insurance requirements to generate £2000 of revenue.

Pace

[thborchert]

Why write in an aggressive manner?

I don't believe I did (but then, this is not my native language). What I did and do believe is that my statement was somewhat provocative. A figure of speech.

[Odai]

Fatmanmedia, unfortunately at this stage purchasing an aircraft (or even a share in one) is out of the question due to cost. :p

A and C, thank you again for taking the time to post your opinions and experiences - much appreciated. However, I did mention in my post that I do intend to keep my dead reckoning skills sharp and use them in conjunction with more modern methods to maintain situational awareness and have something to fall back on in case the proverbial fecal matter hits the fan. Not to mention that I'd need to demonstrate I can still do it when it's time for my CPL training, as you said.

However, I see no sense in not making use of the advanced technology when it is available to you. In fact, I'd say pilots should go to pains to aquire the tech when it isn't already available (for example, taking a handheld GPS when flying in a steam gauge cockpit). Such tech will keep your flying more accurate and therefore safer (less likely to be unsure of position, stray into CAS etc).

No matter how good your dead reckoning skills become, it is still more innaccurate/error prone than something like a GPS.

Odai,

Not sure I get it: You want to build hours, yet complain about ten hours of training. Hmm. Seems a great way to build hours and learn something at the same time. If you get bored in hour 5, you can spend the rest flying to neat places.

Sorry, should have made myself clearer. What I'm getting at is that the 10 hours training required by the insurance for the Cirrus will not count towards the solo time requirement for starting commercial training (not PIC time). It would also be at a higher rate (I think +£50 per hour for an instructor).

I'm still trying to find other suitable aircraft to fly in my local area but not having much luck. In addition, I am not sure what the situation is with even the Cirrus. I intended to purchase a no equity share (the only way to make it affordable) from Aircraft Grouping at Blackpool, but considering the criminal charges just made against the owner I don't know if making a long term investment there (in the form of a deposit) is a good idea anymore. It is unfortunate, as, considering the lack of other options, the Cirrus was looking like my best bet despite the pricey initial costs.

Any other ideas? :confused: The main problem here is not finding a model that would suit my requirements, but rather an example of one with availability at an airfield that isn't on the other side of the country to me. :p

[peterh337]

Pace - your message box is full up (again) :)

[Fuji Abound]

A and C

In that environment only a few hours flying away from the UK the pilot has to be much more self reliant and if the worst happens all they have to fall back on is the basic pilotage skills.

but if you are a devotee of the purple line that is where a GPS in your flight bag comes in. Sorry to persist but I have never heard of both 430s on a Cirrus and the GPS in the flight bag simultaneously failing. They could, I just don't think its happened yet and not expecting to read a report of it happening any time soon. ;)

Unlike the G1000 the 430s drive the Avidyne displays and the GPSs are not hidden behind the panel - they both function as stand alone instruments. There is no rebooting in flight - you can turn them off and on again and they will establish a position almost instantly just like the moving map in your flight bag for a few hundreds of quid.

Things really have moved on. In the days of a single panel GPS or a hand held reliant on batteries sods law is you would be spot on, but its not like that any more. I dont know if you have flown in a Cirrus but there is a lot more redundancy, duplication and kit than you might imagine. ;)

[dont overfil]

Sorry to persist but I have never heard of both 430s on a Cirrus and the GPS in the flight bag simultaneously failing.

Risk of slight thread drift here. There was loads of warnings last month during Operation Joint Warrior about GPS jamming. There was even one warning about one 385 mile radius from Kirkwall.

Did anybody lose signal or are the military just crap at it?

D.O.

[A and C]

I agree about the reliability of the modern GPS receivers, what I was trying to get at is what happens if the GPS satellite system fails or is shut down probably by a criminal act or for military reasons.

It matters not if you have one or ten GPS units if it is the satellite system that is at fault.

[fwjc]

Odai

It might be worth considering something outside of your current thinking for hour building. It doesn't matter how fast you're flying - an hour at 80mph is the same as an hour at 140mph... But the cost of an hour is considerably less at 80mph than it is at 140mph, generally.

A share in a simple aeroplane such as a C152 can be around £5000, with monthlies at £80 and hourly rates at around £60ph. When you sell out, if you look after the aeroplane, you get that £5k back.

Being even more "daring", my original member share in a permit aeroplane was£1000, with monthlies at £60 and hourly rates of £40ph. There was no glass cockpit, but I did get to do plenty of cheap and fun flying.

Yes, a Cirrus is very swish and has lots of mod cons and capability, but it's not a poor man's aeroplane. There's plenty of time for you to fly fancy stuff once you've built some inexpensive experience. The additional benefit is that those additional inexpensive hours translate to reduced insurance costs. Think of it a little like the cheap banger we usually get to drive when we first pass our driving test. It might not have electric windows, but it does the job, and you can move onto the shiny stuff in time.

Just a thought, that's all. Enjoy whatever it is that you choose to fly...

[Pace]

Pace - your message box is full up (again)

Peter

have cleared some :(

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

A and C

It matters not if you have one or ten GPS units if it is the satellite system that is at fault.

I did wonder if that would get a mention. ;)

It is a but desperate, but I guess possible. However, I find it unlikely anyone flying a Cirrus (well almost anyone) couldn't manage to identify and use a VOR?

We can dream up all sorts of scenarios and reasons why a Cirrus driver might be forced to resort to DA, I just think they are incredibly unlikely.

There is not much else to say so best parked there. I respect your point of view I just think the average private pilot could go several life times in a Cirrus and never need to resort to DA.

[Above The Clouds]

Fuji Abound
It is a but desperate, but I guess possible. However, I find it unlikely
anyone flying a Cirrus (well almost anyone) couldn't manage to identify and use
a VOR?

We can dream up all sorts of scenarios and reasons why a Cirrus
driver might be forced to resort to DA, I just think they are incredibly
unlikely.

There is not much else to say so best parked there. I respect
your point of view I just think the average private pilot could go several life times in a Cirrus and never need to resort to DA.


Fuji Abound what world are you in.


A and C
Those of you who think that the magenta line is a basic skill are living in
some sort of techno dream world, without the basic skill of DR navigation you should not be let anywhere near an aircraft, as to this situational awareness rubbish, likewise if you can't paint the picture in your head then you should not be flying.

These DR & SA skills are the very fundamentals of
piloting and without developing them you are putting your neck in a noose, that noose will tighten very quickly when the screens go blank and you are back to three little round dials to keep the aircraft upright and pointed away from the hills.


A and C I agree with you 100 percent.

Fuji Abound
How long have you been flying ? because I think you are in La La land.

It was only as recent as 1992 that I and almost every other airline/military pilot were operating worldwide without GPS and the magenta line, in fact GPS trials were just starting around then and I still remember crossing oceans and navigating using DR, NDB's and star sights, we also had a Gulf War in progress and strangely GPS accuracy was very much degraded by the goverments as required, if you really believe that you can rely 100 percent on a GPS system that is goverment controlled without relying on basics for navigation then good luck, because that fancy Cirrus cockpit with glorified Garmins will be completely worthless, trust me.

[Fuji Abound]

Above the Clouds

I do.

Two Atlantic crossing in yachts. Many hours around Europe.

A few thousand hours in light aircraft, Europe, America and the West Indies.

GPS nearly always on in the car, far too many hours, but I don't keep count.

Never lost the signal, not once, other than in the car under forest or tunnels (not too surprising), and once crossing Belgium but entirely down to my own incompetence.

As to 1992 you are back in the dark ages. I was flying then too. These days I have double redundant IFR certified panel mounted units with RAIM prediction, in the near future there is likely to be three constellations in operation operated by three different Governments and probably selectively available to give independent constellation redundancy. GPS approaches have been certified for some time and with caveats have even managed to pass the conservative Euro technocrats.

Its good enough for me, but each to their own. I taken part in a fair few air races (great fun, pen and pencil navigation only), I can use a sextant, so I am pretty happy with my alternate navigation skills, just never had to use them due to GPS failure yet.

We have had this discussion many times before and views are always polarized. We will never agree, all I can report is my hard evidence, and that is why I standby the chances of failure with redundancy being very rare. I dont make a habit of flying in war zones of course, and I accept there could be some international catastrophe or the impact of a massive solar flare that could play havoc with the GPS constellation but I am certainly not going to lose any sleep over it.

All I can add is your engine might quit on you in flight and I reckon the chances of me ending up without GPS is less likely.

Fortunately with a chute and reasonable DA skills while I am not happy for either to happen I think I can just about cope., but I wouldn't be troubled in the least if I didn't have the DA skills, a handheld GPS, falling back on VORs, falling back on NDBs (as long as they survive), falling back on radar vectors is one hell of a lot of falling back before I need to get out chart, pencil and ruler. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

PS - and unusualy l I am feeling a bit tetchy because jibes about MS are just silly and detract from this forum which results in contributors not bothering to contribute. Its not clever and it would only have taken you a short while to read some of my posts to realise that while I may not be a BA training captain I do fly a bit and I do have a real world opinion, which just happens to be different from yours. I am also prepared to support my opinion with the hard facts of my own experience and explain why I have reached my conclusions. By all means debate the facts, that would be interesting, but don't debase the discussion with silly jibes.

[Fuji Abound]

they still won't work when the off switch is utilized by a goverment.So do tell me when the off switch was last used in the parts of Europe I am likely to fly my Cirrus or GPS jamming wasn't NOTAM'ed? Years, times and dates would be helpful?

Your world is clearly very different from mine. I dont fly military aircraft (well not in commission at any rate ;)) and I certainly dont fly in war zones (as I said earlier). I am sure it is very interesting but I doubt it is either relevant or of much interest to most private GA pilots in this forum. For that reason it is very difficult to see the relevance of your world to mine. I am guessing even in your world you might access those sources of real time GPS "interruption", perhaps using an Iridium 'phone as doubtless there arent any other means of communication.

As to the car and tunnels that is not what I said and I am aware of the predictive technology in car sat navs.

PS as to aircraft being light years ahead of our discussions I very much doubt that. I do actually know and fly with people who are at the cutting edge of civil avionics and they are overwhelmingly impressed with the kit in a Cirrus. That is not to say that I am unaware of the redundancy and other technology employed in the aircraft you have in mind, but that doesn't alter the level of redundancy I have and the extreme remoteness of me finding my self without GPS.

[Fuji Abound]

Anyway, thanks for removing the MS remarks. ;)

Forgive me its late in the day, I respect your opinion, its just not a real world experience I can share (in terms of having experienced a GPS failure).

[Winhern]

Odai (http://www.pprune.org/members/316282-odai)

Have you looked at joining the Azure flying club and flying the PA28 at Liverpool? I fly with Azure at Cranfield, and the planes are kept in good condition.(Although one is being repaired at present following an accident :( ).

£150 to join / annual membership, then £115 per tacho hour wet. There is no longer any requirement to have a connection with Thomson.

Azure Flying Club » Liverpool (http://www.flyazure.com/?page_id=9)

[Fuji Abound]

Out of interest.


"Has the United States ever turned off GPS for military purposes?

No. Since it was declared operational in 1995, the Global Positioning System has never been deactivated, despite U.S. involvement in wars, anti-terrorism, and other military activities.

Millions of users around the world have been monitoring and recording real-time GPS performance on a continuous basis since its inception. If the civilian GPS service had ever been interrupted by its operators, the evidence would be obvious and widespread. No such evidence exists."

Source: US government

[thborchert]

What is becoming very apparent in current pilot training is reliance on fancy GPS gadets,

As opposed to fancy VOR and NDB gagdets?

No one here has claimed that one should "rely on GPS 100 percent". However, it would be foolish to pretend that wonderful tool doesn't exist.

[Pace]

No one is saying that these modern systems are not a great addition to flight safety but as a addition to solid handling skills not to make up for a lack of them
! BTW I am still here for those who may think I have gone : )

Pace

[mad_jock]

It is quite true that it is more likely that the engine will quit than the GPS.

Well I have never had a engine quite on me yet in over 5.5k hours 1200 in SEP's

Had several GPS go tits up, combinations of antenna cable/ antenna or power issues and a display failure on a G530. A couple of times had to drop out of BRNAV airspace to continue the trip.

Been jammed and lost signal more times than I can remember.

[mad_jock]

Tiz :ok: you can continue dealing with them :p your obviously well practised.

[abgd]

As I recall, the GPS signal was degraded by the US during the first world war by about 100 metres - significant for IMC but not VMC. Haven't there been some recent NOTAMs about local military interference with GPS in the UK?

[flydive1]

As I recall, the GPS signal was degraded by the US during the first world war by about 100 metres - significant for IMC but not VMC. Haven't there been some recent NOTAMs about local military interference with GPS in the UK?

Yes, even Von Richtofen had some difficulties to get back to his field;)

[Above The Clouds]

Tiz you can continue dealing with them your obviously well practised.

Ha Ha

[Jonzarno]

I transitioned to a Cirrus when I had done a total of 65 hours on a Robin HR 200 and now have about 900 Cirrus hours. If you are thinking about getting a Cirrus, I suggest three things:

Firstly, talk to a Cirrus Standardised Instructor Program accredited instructor. The one I used was John Page at TAA Denham who is one of the very best and who spent a good amount of time on the phone with me before I decided to take the plunge. I am sure there are others in the UK as well although I have not flown with any other in the UK.

Do NOT compromise on this, I am not for a moment suggesting that other instructors are not very good but the CSIP program has been very carefully put together and has been specifically tailored for Cirrus pilots and the CSIP instructors are best qualified to deliver it.

Secondly, join COPA (Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association). Even if you don't end up with a SR2X, you will learn a huge amount. You can take an initial look at their forums and ask some questions as a guest without having to pay anything.

Thirdly, if your mission profile justifies a Cirrus, think hard about getting an IR. You can fly it VFR with no problems, but an IR allows you to exploit its capabilities fully.

Personally, I found that the Cirrus was a bit of a jump after the Robin HR 200 in which I did my PPL. When I did the conversion training, before I got my IR, even concentrating on the basics, I found that there is a lot to learn. That said, it was absolutely worth it.

Best of luck!

[abgd]

Long day... Just waiting 'til I get back to work tomorrow and see what nonsense I've written that actually matters.

[jecuk]

Let's all use a sextant. Come on - GPS is incredibly reliable. Of course you need basic skills but pretending that GPS is always on the brink of failure is absurd.

I really think this attitude is part of the problem with IR teaching and exams in the UK. Just because it was good enough for pilots during the Battle of Britain doesn't make it appropriate for us today.

[mad_jock]

Depends which bit of the UK your in how often it gets jammed

Last year it was brought up in parlament that the fishermen were getting pissed off that the days they could put to sea they couldn't find the fishing grounds due to jamming. The mil had to stop jamming I think. It was in the Scotsman or the Herald.

Of course we use it everyday and flying an auld heap with 25 year old wiring we have more chance of chaffed wires and other gremilins taking it out.

Its the other associated skills which are lost as well. If I want a center fix and I am heading towards an airport I don't need to plug it in the box I just use the 1 in 60 rule and a bit of geometry. Takes under a second to work out the heading.

GPS is very good and I use it everyday. If it goes tits up, it really isn't a hassell we still get to where we are going safely with very little fuss. The magenta line borgs struggle and usually end up cacking themselves. Even had one who thought loosing the GPS was worthy of a mayday.

[Tinstaafl]

If 'Direct to' fails, should I declare a 'Pan'?

[Big Pistons Forever]

I find it discouraging that every conversation on GPS quickly degenerates into two polar opposites. So either you believe

1) "Real" pilots would never use a GPS because real pilots should plan and fly every flight using only a magnetic compass, a map, and a watch. or

2) Only "fools" bother with any of that nav rubbish taught in flight training. The magic box will get me where ever I need to go.

But there are facts that can't be denied. GPS provides instant and near perfect present position information, track and ground speed. It is ubiquitous, won't go away and has compelling value as an aid to navigation. Every ANS in the world is moving to a GNSS as the primary means of navigation

It would seem to me that the missing piece is a rational and unemotional discussion about what the above means and how flight training needs to evolve to ensure that fundamental navigational principals are understood and more importantly how that knowledge is applied when using GPS.

Instead of more pedantry about the "right" way to fill in the PLOG, how about a discussion about what "situational awareness" means with a GPS driven moving map and how to apply it to real world navigational challenges. Or how about teaching how to determine your task priorities in a system with 30 or 40 different possible screens each one giving different information....information that may be absolutely vital in some circumstances and utterly useless in others ?

Finally I have had 2 engine failures in MEP's and one GPS failure. I handled both emergencies in the same way.......by utilizing the other engine/my portable GPS to safely get to where I needed to go. I can also say that the nearest airport GPS probably saved my life one day when I was facing sudden unforecast bad weather and was low on fuel.

[peterh337]

I find it discouraging that every conversation on GPS quickly degenerates into two polar opposites

Always the way in the UK - presumably due to many years of rabidly anti-GPS flight training.

But the schools are anyway against anything which they would have to spend money on if they had to teach it. They are in business to sell flying hours (etc). They are not in business to train pilots to fly from A to B.

And if you advocate training to fly from A to B you get a load of pilots (usually flying taildraggers, etc) jumping on you saying they fly for fun.

You can't win :)

Most people here have long given up posting on "GPS" threads.

[FlyingStone]

GPS, autopilot, flight director, VOR, ILS, DME, iPad - who needs all this modern non-sense, totally unrelated to flying? Aircraft flies even without electrical system, no need to complicate stuff.

If we don't need the above, than probably we don't need PPRuNe, other forums, computers, mobile phones, telephones, airmail. If human race was able to survive with sending smoke signals and using mail that needed months to get to destination, why are we complicating our lives with all this modern nonsense?

[AN2 Driver]

BPF I could not agree more.

Most of us these days have several GPS devices on board and I have not ever seen them all fail at the same time. My aircraft has a inbuilt one which has never yet lost reception, I do carry a portable moving map device which quits from time to time due to antenna placement but if I would really need it, both my cellphone and my EFB can be used as GPS devices and have relevant software (Pocketfms) on them. That is 4 devices which would all need to fail simultaneously before a fall back scenario where I'd have to resort to the paper maps and stopwatch or, behold, my own eyes.

Actually, I do fly myself in order to enjoy what I am doing and part of that is watching the scenery, identifying landmarks and learn about the geography of the places I visit beyond those I absolutely need to know for the flight in question. GPS however is a great help with that too.

Rather then constantly opposing those changes for everyday operations, we should learn how to use those devices so that they are a help and not a burden, that is know how to use them and how to take the best information out of them without too much disctraction. But use them we should. They definitly add a lot in terms of exactness of navigation and therefore safety.

Best regards
AN2

[A and C]

I think that my attitude in support of basic skills has been misinterpreted as one how anti GPS, that I am not and had an IFR GPS fitted in my aircraft while most on this forum were messing about with the first of the hand held GPS units ( and the electrical spaghetti that came with them)

I am anti those who sit fat dumb and happy behind a GPS following the magenta line with the blind faith that one normally associates with followers of strange religious cults.

[Fuji Abound]

I am anti those who sit fat dumb and happy behind a GPS following the magenta line with the blind faith that one normally associates with followers of strange religious cults.

A and C

I know, but as you say the world has changed.

In some respects why shouldn't the next generation sit fat and dumb?

I wouldn't want to navigate with a single GPS but with so many glass cockpits now fitted with twin GPS, and the other usual radio nav. aids I can see pilots flying a lifetime never having to resort to traditional navigation. Perhaps training time is far better spent making certain they now how to use the technology, understand its limits, and grasp what to do when it fails.

Its a brave new world.

[A and C]

Quote "understand its limits and know what to do when it fails"

Precisely !!! It's called DR navigation.

[peterh337]

In IMC?

Not so easy :)

You can fly WW1-style if you throw away most of your mission capability, but then you will probably chuck in flying for good, because you can drive to where you are going.

[Fuji Abound]

A and C

I rather had in mind falling back on VORs, NDBs, hand held GPS, radar vectors, DM, London D and D or equivalent, but I guess you knew that. I would personally prefer any go places ifr pilot to be rock solid in those skills first.

[Bristol1965]

Odai,

It appears there are a number of inconsistencies about Cirrus that really don't have a valid foundation:

1) Doors, if the doors are maintained and operated as per Manufacturer's recommendation, they shouldn't open in flight. For those of you who have had this problem, please discuss it with your maintenance organisation. They must give you a valid reason.

2) Cirrus don't specify an exact training hours. You are given 7 sortie's to carry out, you may be able to do them in 2 hours, or 15 hours. You will not be forced to do the hours un-necessarily. At the end of the day, you need to learn and operate the aircraft, including dealing with emergencies. There is also the question of insurance company requirement and that will depend on the supplier of your aircraft.

3) If you are to hand fly a Cirrus (or similar performance aircraft), there is a lot more to learn and develop, then you will ever get from a PA28 or C152. The Cirrus control stick moves less than half the movement of a PA28 or a C152, the aircraft is also much faster, hence much finer input and eventually better control.

4) The Cirrus is probably the easiest aircraft to fly, landing it is also more natural and easy once you learn the aircraft's behaviour. If the aircraft is taught properly, many of the landing issues that have been mentioned shouldn't have happened. Cirrus is a natural aircraft, she will do what you want her to do, even if it is beyond her limit, if you want the aircraft to bounce off the ground whilst landing, she will do it as per your input/intention!!!

5) Most Cirrus aircrafts are equipped with TCAS, Storm Scope, IFR charts, Ground proximity warning system, etc, most of these are safety equipment that can save lives.

6) And to keep those friends of yours on this forum, who are against GPS happy, well; don't use them, you can set the MFD to display a non map screen i.e. engine instrument page, and do the same with the two GPSs, so here we go, you can hand fly the aircraft with no navigational aids at 140kts and practice your navigational skill?

7) As Jonazerno suggested, Cirrus has its own training syllabus (CSIP) and will enhance your PPL skill/experience.

8) Your nearest Cirrus transition training provider is in Gloucestershire airport.

For those of you who rightly insist on maintaining navigational skill, there are times you do need other aids, for example when you fly IFR or on instrument, there may not be any ground reference, across the sea (unless you are Charles Lindbergh), over mountain or flying at night. so everything really needs to be considered in its own perspective.

OADI, here is a question for you:

What is the reason behind your hour building? Are you trying to proceed to Commercial flying?

[Odai]

Many thanks again for all the advice, much appreciated.

Just to be clear, I am not looking to buy at the moment. At the most, I'd be looking to join a non-equity group or a club such as the one Winhern suggested.

The point has been made that aircraft such as the Cirrus are excessive for what I want to do, hour building. The reasons I am after such an aircraft are that the higher airspeeds will result in more challenging hand flying and basic navigation, I am after experience with more advanced avionics (not to mention that such aircraft tend to be newer and hence more comfortable to fly in on long trips), in addition of course to it being a lot more fun.

The Cirrus would have been my first choice had the initial training requirements not been so expensive. In addition, I'm having difficulty getting a response from the group responsible for it.

At the moment, one possibility is to maybe try and get time in the Aquila A210s at Blackpool. At 120 KIAS cruise, they are a nice step up from the PA28s and being lighter aircraft I'd assume they are 'twitchier' and therefore more demanding to fly. I could then also try and locate a glass cockpit PA28/172 or similar for flying friends/family etc. I could stick to this until I have gained more experience and hopefully also the IMCR (which I'm aiming to start after accruing the necessary prerequisites). I could then re-evaluate my options which may by then will have improved in terms of aircraft availability. Hopefully I'd then be able to find the high performance four seater SEP I'm after.

Which brings me to my next point - how do I go about finding groups/clubs etc willing to hire out their airplanes at airfields in my area? Up until now I'm simply been googling for FTOs/schools at my local fields (Liverpool, Barton, Blackpool, Woodvale, Hawarden) and checked to see if they're willing to hire out their fleet to PPLs. Is there a more efficient way of doing this? There is also the likes of Aircraft Grouping Ltd but they seem to be in some sort of difficulty and they are the only example of that kind of venture I've been able to find.

I've found this from a quick search:

Free aviation classified adverts (http://ukga.com/classified/)

But there doesn't seem to be that many relevant results.

Any ideas?

[Odai]

Bristol1965, apologies, I missed your excellent post.

Those are all great points and I appreciate your input.

The reason for my hour building would be to accrue the necessary experience for advanced ratings, including the IMC, and eventually commercial training as you mentioned. :)

If I could find an affordable Cirrus near me, then I would probably move straight onto that.

[fwjc]

Odai - it's your money, so spend it as you will. I'm glad not everyone is scraping together their last few pennies to fly, and that you can afford to splash out.

But do bear in mind that a) most commercial aircraft are not "twitchy" or "demanding", at least from a hands on perspective and b) if you really do want to learn to fly twitchy stuff that demands accurate flying, go for tailwheel. If that's too easy for you go for something sporty like a Pitts or Christen Eagle. I guarantee you'll find that challenging and it will teach you how to really fly an aeroplane. Someone I know has a job offer on the basis of knowing what his feet are for, and knowing how to really fly safely. Admittedly it wasn't with Ryanair, but that's another story.

However I get the impression that you've already made your mind up to fly something more expensive, quicker and with more bells and whistles (although I'm not sure if you even have the qualifications to use these right now). As I say, clearly you have plenty of money and are not so fussed about getting quality hours, cheaply. Even a mix of half and half would be better. Anyway, hope the hour building and training goes well. There's a thread on here somewhere, I think, that talks about the most useful things to do with hour building which is worth looking at. I seem to recall that it's in the Wannabes section under Training.

[Bristol1965]

ODAI,

If I was in your position, I would get my PPL out of the way. Then if you can, do the night rating if you haven't already done it as part of your PPL. Next the solo hours that you need before commencing your IMC(R) and then the IMC.

For hour building you have some options,

1) Rent an aircraft from a club, i.e. the Aquila from Aircraft Grouping.

2) Lease an aircraft for a short period of time (i.e. C152).

3) Buy into a group who operates a reasonable aircraft.

4) Buy a block hours in a non equity group, like the SR20 in Gloucestershire.

I have a feeling the club in Gloucestershire may be able to help you.

[Odai]

Hey fwjc,

Apologies if I gave that impression, it's not what I intended.

What I am trying to do is to keep the cost to a minimum as I certainly don't have much to 'splash out' with, but at the same time get the most out of my pre-CPL hour building (thinking both in terms of my skills and, if I decide on that route, employability). Unfortunately, I just don't see this happening if I stick to the likes of the cheapest 152s etc. :)

[mad_jock]

What you do your hour building in is not going to effect your employability.

In fact a broad range of strange types tail wheel etc will pull the eye more than a plastic pig state of the art job.

[fwjc]

MJ - not sure what you mean by the idea of tailwheel "pulling" the eye, but if you mean that it's a negative thing, I thing it's horses for courses. I only mentioned it because the OP wanted more something more challenging to fly, and that can be a cheaper way to achieve it.
For most people wanting to hour build, I would recommend much the same as Bristol1965 - buy block hours on something relatively simple and inexpensive, making sure you have at least some instruments if possible.
Friends have done this with a C152 (buying shares for a few months), a Slingsby (shares again), a PA28 (non-capital shares) and a Grob115 (block hours). I also know people who couldn't afford this who got shares in a Jodel.
I still recommend looking at the thread on what to do with your hours, but as MJ says initially, it doesn't matter what you hour build on, as long as it's constructively done.

[Pace]

If someone wants to block buy hours they will choose the aircraft to fit their budget?
If they are lucky enough to afford the Cirrus then all well and good but for an hour builder for not a lot more maybe multi engine time would be more beneficial ?
If its single time then a more basic aircraft apart from being cheaper will help hone basic flying skills more than an all singing and dancing dream machine?

Pace

[Pace]

M Berger

I am afraid your SEP time unless its turbine SEP is not going to light the fires of any prospective employer.
Jet Time YES Turboprop YES Multi engine piston (Maybe YES) SEP and its low life hours to a prospective employer :{

Pace

[Thud105]

"I am afraid your SEP time unless its turbine SEP is not going to light the fires of any prospective employer."
What's 'turbine SEP'? I thought the P in SEP meant 'Piston'.

[Bristol1965]

In turbine world, SEP = Single engine Prop i.e. Piper Meridian or Jet Prop (PA46), as an alternative to single engine gas turbine.

[Thud105]

Really? Well, you live and learn - I've never heard that one before. I just googled 'SEP Turbine' and 'Turbine SEP'. No joy.

[Odai]

Thanks again for your help guys.

There seems to be a bit of an exaggeration with regards to the expense of hiring the Cirrus for my hour building. It certainly isn't a huge deal for my limited budget. In fact, the rates with a non-equity share in the group I'm looking at are very similar to other group 172/PA28 rates. Sometimes less, sometimes only slightly (£10?) more. The rates are certainly comparable.

The issue I raised earlier with regards to the prohibitive financial requirements of the Cirrus was not relating to solo hire, but the initial expense of dual training to the insurance's experience requirements to take it out on my own (10 hours).

It's been mentioned that I should aim for models that are cheaper to hire, but there really isn't much difference at all from what I can tell (again, when using non-equity share groups to make it cost efficient). If there are aircraft out there that are indeed significantly cheaper to hire that I've missed, then I would of course appreciate being pointed in the right direction.

As an example, I could hire out an Aquila for £60 an hour at Blackpool. The Cirrus for £90. A 152 that is falling apart is not going to be very different from that price, not from what I've been able to see so far.

So, as the prices aren't hugely different, it makes sense to go for the more challenging aircraft that will hone my skills in both hand flying and navigation.

I would also again appreciate advice on how I could go about finding aircraft being hired out for non-equity shares, hour-building groups, clubs etc in my local area.


I still recommend looking at the thread on what to do with your hours, but as MJ says initially, it doesn't matter what you hour build on, as long as it's constructively done.

Any chance you could link to that? I haven't been able to find it.

[Runaway Gun]

If you want to fly a Cirrus, then there's no real reason not to. Just do not baulk at the idea of getting quality Dual time before you take it solo. Ten hours may not even be enough - depending on your prior experience, rate of learning, and ability to 'dump' old habits.

[fwjc]

I googled the phrase what to do hour building
The second item back was a list of threads on here that cover it.

(The second item was an external source giving advice on hour building as well)

[A and C]

If the Cirrus is very near the price of a PA28 or C172 someone has not done their sums, one look at the ten year items on the chute system will tell you that.

As for the C152 that is falling apart, these will be a thing of the past soon when the Cessna SID,s checks start to bite all the Cessna 100 series aircraft will have to have these checks and I see a lot of under maintainers aircraft being scrapped.

[dont overfil]

Hi Odai,

I am confused by the £90 per hour you mention for the Cirrus. That will only cover the cost of the fuel.

D.O.

[Coolhand78]

Add me to the list of people astonished with that 90 pounds/h price for a Cirrus. I simply cannot believe it.

[Bristol1965]

A and C

You are right about the cost of Cirrus aircraft. However, most Cirrus owners who are making their aircraft available to rent, are not making money, they are trying to cover some of the costs!

A PA28-161 which is worth about £25k is being rented for about £160.

An SR20 less than 10 years old, worth 4 times one of those PA28, can be rented for about £200.

The problem is in the market and the fact that most new pilots doing hour building, couldn't careless about the aircraft, its extra speed, safety, comfort, etc. All they want is short flights with a reasonable amount of taxi time( it is cheaper this way!!!). So a C152 and PA28-140 rightly or wrongly is perfect for this (this wouldn't be the case if they were after flying experience).

ODAI,
The costs you mentioned doesn't include the monthly fixed fee, if the rental value is low (i.e. £90 for Cirrus and £60 for Aquila) then you probably end up paying a higher than average monthly fixed fee (Aquila is an expensive aircraft to buy).

Have you thought about joining a scheme where you can buy block hours in a cirrus and use them as and when it suits you?

[007helicopter]

You are right about the cost of Cirrus aircraft. However, most Cirrus owners who are making their aircraft available to rent, are not making money, they are trying to cover some of the costs!

Not aware of any Cirrus owners who do this, out of interest do you?

The only renters I know are either training organisations or specific groups set up for this purpose and they all want to either make money or cover costs.

The £90 I guess is a dry rate with a chunk of monthly cost as you say.

I think ODAI appears to have made his mind up this is not the right aircraft to build hours in and I tend to agree with him.

[Odai]

Hi Odai,

I am confused by the £90 per hour you mention for the Cirrus. That will only cover the cost of the fuel.

D.O.

I don't know whether that is indeed an accurate figure for the cost of the fuel burn over an hour, but it is definitely the wet rate quoted by the group. This is after a bump too, it used to be a little cheaper.

ODAI,
The costs you mentioned doesn't include the monthly fixed fee, if the rental value is low (i.e. £90 for Cirrus and £60 for Aquila) then you probably end up paying a higher than average monthly fixed fee (Aquila is an expensive aircraft to buy).



It is a little higher, about £30 or so more than PA28 groups. But considering I am currently looking to complete the hour building over the course of a year, it shouldn't be a big issue.



Have you thought about joining a scheme where you can buy block hours in a cirrus and use them as and when it suits you?

It sounds like a good idea, but there are two issues unfortunately. The first, is that I'm struggling to find groups for aircraft I'm interested in at all in my local area. I've searched as I've mentioned at Liverpool, Barton, Blackpool, Hawarden and Woodvale.

Secondly, I don't want to put a massive amount of cash down up front. I could buy 100 hours in the Cirrus for a little under 9k from AGL, which would be a great saving but very risky considering the general state of GA in this country.

I guess a good balance between risk and cost efficiency would be around 5-10 hours, but again the issue is actually finding groups willing to do this.

One of the things I've considered is approaching one of the many shared equity groups/clubs etc I've found and instead seeing if they'd be interested in allowing someone to hire out their airplane for a reduced rate in return for a monthly fee. Has anyone had success with this before?

It does not make sense as we all know. The OP's reluctance to consider any of the well meant advice seemed strange but then If I could fly a Cirrus for £90, I wouldn't fly anything else, certainly not a c-42 at £100!

Apologies if that's how it looked, it wasn't intentional. I do greatly appreciate all the time people have put in to respond, it's just that I am keen to benefit from progressing from the relatively simple and easy to fly aircraft such as the PA28 I'm on now, while balancing that with the financial side. This expensive venture is probably not something I will repeat, so I may aswell enjoy (and learn from) the hour building as much as I can while I can.

Like I said, the only concern I have about flying the Cirrus, from the financial side, (after my other concerns mentioned at the beginning of this thread were addressed) is the initial outlay for 10 hours training. It just doesn't seem worth it at this point considering the total amount I am looking to spend on hour building and the fact that none of it will count to the PIC time needed for CPL training.

Here is their site for reference:

Welcome To Aircraft Grouping - The Home Of Low Cost Flying (http://www.aircraftgrouping.com/)

I have also been using this site for looking for non-equity groups, but haven't had much luck finding what I'm after:

Free aviation classified adverts (http://ukga.com/classified/)

Also looked at the groups/sharing section of the Flyer forums.

I know I'm probably pushing it to be trying to find an aircraft available for non-equity sharing/similar that has the features I'm looking for and is also available in my region, but I'd still appreciate any tips on how I can go about looking for them anyway. :p

[sharpend]

As Cirrus SR20 will burn about 9.5 US gallons / hr in the cruise (130 kts IAS and flying for best economy )which I think equates to about 35 litres/hr. Call that 40 litres if you include a take off & climb. At £2/litre (if you are lucky), the fuel cost = £80/hr

[fwjc]

Friends have done this with a C152 (buying shares for a few months), a Slingsby (shares again), a PA28 (non-capital shares) and a Grob115 (block hours). I also know people who couldn't afford this who got shares in a Jodel.

This might be a clue as to what types of aeroplanes to look at, and the types of access to those aeroplanes.

Most syndicates will be unwilling to sell you block hours for reasons already stated. In the Grob example above, it was a company aeroplane that was made available for block hour flying to one particular person, out of office hours. So it wasn't syndicate owned. Some schools might be willing to sell you block hours in their aeroplanes at a discount.

The PA28 was owned by a particularly generous person who allowed his friend to operate it on a non-equity basis. This is unusual as a scenario, and relies on you having friends with aeroplanes. This is more likely if there is one owner to the aeroplane rather than a syndicate.

The other examples are all shares in aeroplanes that are inexpensive and simple to operate. These aeroplanes can be a bit tatty albeit perfectly airworthy, but this means that the group don't mind hour builders flying them.

As mad jock says, no one gives a hoot what you do your hour building in. The price you are looking at paying for a minimal amount of extra experience (some of which may need be "unlearned" for the CPL), just doesn't add up.

Btw for comparison, in my own syndicate, 100 hours over 6 months would cost around £4500. This is at the cheap end admittedly, and is a difficult deal to find. It's definitely not a Cirrus. But a C152 is still only around £8000. For conservative ball-park figure, not counting your 10hr transition, I'm estimating the Cirrus might be around £12500, probably more. The value of the share shouldn't depreciate significantly so when you sell out, you get back most of what you paid in so I've not factored this into the costs. I've based the figures on 6 months of monthly payments (hangarage and insurance) and estimated wet hourly rates based on fuel burn plus a bit extra for oil and maintenance fund, which is how the average group is effectively run.

As others have said as well, it's clear you are stuck on this idea. Lots of people have offered alternative suggestions and advice. I give up, now, and leave it to you to learn by yourself from experience.

[A and C]

Some very good points made, the best of those is that you may have to unlearn things for the CPL exam, it would be my stance that most peope find themselfs unlearning over use of the GPS and relearning DR navigation.

So the best way to hour build would be to rent something like a C152 that burns about 23 LTS/hr ( if your PPL instructor told you the red lever was more than a fuel shut off) and do as much in the way of DR navigation as you can.

Take the aircraft across the channel to get the drawback on the fuel, when doing so try to make accurate landfall it is a very good check on your DR navigation.

It is usually the peope who have the DR navigation nailed that do well at CPL flying exams as they have acquired the ability to paint the big picture in their head and don't require it to be presented on a screen in front of them.

[Bristol1965]

ODAI,

If you read the buttom of the page, it will give you the rest of the finances, I copied and pasted the following from the page and the company you mentioned:

G-GCDC Cirrus SR20 G3 Details
Based At Blackbushe EGLK
Monthly Standing Charge £170 Per Month
Hourly Rate £35 Per Hour Dry
Joining Deposit £1,020
Aircraft Online
10 Shares Currently Available

They might have another SR20, but I would talk to them about availability before coming to any conclusions.

[Bristol1965]

007helicopter

Hi, Generally the owner of these aircrafts don't need to advertise, but if you get to know them, a few might allow you to use their aircraft for a reasonable fee, as long as you meet their requirements.

Do a search on UKGA classified adverts for SR20 and SR22, and contact the one based in Gloucestershire. I am sure they should be able to help if you are genuinely interested in flying a Cirrus.

Alternatively do a google search on "Cirrus SR22 Hire EGHH".

[007helicopter]

007helicopter

Hi, Generally the owner of these aircrafts don't need to advertise, but if you get to know them, a few might allow you to use their aircraft for a reasonable fee, as long as you meet their requirements.

Do a search on UKGA classified adverts for SR20 and SR22, and contact the one based in Gloucestershire. I am sure they should be able to help if you are genuinely interested in flying a Cirrus.


Bristol thank you but you have the wrong end of the stick, my point was most Cirrus rentals are either commercial enterprises or structures that are set up to try and get a group from the get go. As are I believe the 2 you have mentioned.

My point was I do not know or have heard of private owners who will rent their Cirrus to cover costsmost Cirrus owners who are making their aircraft available to rent, are not making money, they are trying to cover some of the costs!

PS I am a Cirrus owner and share it with 2 other friends for the last 4 years, we personally would never consider doing general rental, others may just that I have never heard of them.

[Odai]

Fwjc/A and C, I appreciate your well meant advice, but I have to say I simply disagree.

When more advanced aircraft are available to me for a minimum of additional (sometimes less...) expense it seems foolish to turn down such an opportunity. Higher airspeeds can only challenge my basic handling and navigational abilities that much more.

I do appreciate your points about over reliance on GPS/AP etc, but I did mention several times that I have no intention of allowing my basic skills to lapse. I'll be using this to prepare for my CPL training (if I decide to go down that route) as much as anything else. The tech is there, it doesn't mean I'll rely on it. Not to mention being one more safety net if things go pear shaped.

The aircraft I mentioned are available at decent rates, if they weren't then obviously I'd opt for more typical choices like the C152/PA28 as you say.

Just to clarify again also, buying a share in an airplane is definitely not a possibility at this stage. An ideal situation would be something like a non equity arrangement.

As I mentioned, at this point I'm looking more for advice on how to search for available aircraft rather than what aircraft to go for. Ie, what could I use other than the classifieds section on ukga and grouping forum on Flyer that I mentioned?

ODAI,

If you read the buttom of the page, it will give you the rest of the finances, I copied and pasted the following from the page and the company you mentioned:

G-GCDC Cirrus SR20 G3 Details
Based At Blackbushe EGLK
Monthly Standing Charge £170 Per Month
Hourly Rate £35 Per Hour Dry
Joining Deposit £1,020
Aircraft Online
10 Shares Currently Available

They might have another SR20, but I would talk to them about availability before coming to any conclusions.

Thanks for looking, but I'm actually looking at hiring the one at Blackpool. The EGNH based cirrus is advertised at £90/hr, £150 a month. I've managed to get in touch with AGL and those rates are accurate for now, and they seem to have continued operating despite the issues with the owner. So hopefully it will continue to remain as an option.

I'm not saying the Cirrus or Aquila are what I want to fly for sure, I'm simply choosing not to rule them out at this stage. The only reason I'm really posting right now is again just to ask people for advice on searching for groups, being completely new to this game.

PS I am a Cirrus owner and share it with 2 other friends for the last 4 years, we personally would never consider doing general rental, others may just that I have never heard of them.

Out of interest, do you mind if I ask why that is?

Thanks again for all your time everyone.

Odai.

[A and C]

You are of course compleatly free to disagree with me on this issue and after 25 years of instructing and 13,000 hours of flying I know I don't have all the answers.......... Only time will tell who is correct in this case.

[007helicopter]

Out of interest, do you mind if I ask why that is?

Because most private owners of a Cirrus who tied up considerable capital would not wish the risk's of general renting for a few hundred quid here and there.

Wear and tear, mismanagement of the engine and even stuff like riding the breaks would far outweigh any gain as a subsidy to costs.

A bit like if you had a £150K car would you be happy to rent it for £150 an hour plus stick some fuel in it? probably not.

The groups work, non equity or otherwise because the whole premise is set up to cover costs (and a small reserve or profit in theory)

[Fuji Abound]

To add to 007's comments it is the same for any Group or owner based aircraft.

For example you might not believe how badly many land - ok, the landing is good enough to pass the PPL, but no owner wants the nose wheel subjected to frequent torture. That is one example. Then there are all the "personal" aspects of ownership. How often do hirers get out of aircraft and leave the screen covered in dead bugs, leave the cockpit in a mess, mistreat the headsets, the list can be endless .. .. .. why people do those things who knows, I guess if you hire and walk away its someone else problem and perceived as being factored into the price - or perhaps just plain inconsideration, which needs to be pointed out and remembered.

[A and C]

I very much doubt that people rent out expensive aircraft like the Cirrus at the prices quoted, the truth of the matter is that most of the non equity groups are a business that is built on the basis that the monthly fees collected will more than cover the costs.

Usually these groups are quite large and full of members who all want to fly at the weekends, the truth is that the last thing the owner wants is anyone flying the aircraft as he makes far more money when the aircraft sits on the ground doing nothing. The nightmare sinario for the owner is when a very good weekday pilot shows up and flys the thing a lot during the week and eats all the owners Proffit.

[Nigd3]

Odai

Not sure if you have already been directed to the review below of the SR-20.
A lot of it is still relevant to the SR-22 so perhaps have a look over this to gain further info on the type.

Cirrus SR20 (and a bit about the SR22) (http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20)

[ford cortina]

Odai, you look to have decided what you want to fly and anyone disagreeing with that, well.

You have stated you are a new PPL holder. the Cirrus is all and good, but it is set up for the tourer,
The one you are interested in has flight directors, glass flight deck with full GPS. Do you really expect us to believe you are going to practice VOR and ADF flying in somthing so simple.
I looked at that aircraft for touring and decided against it.
I will not post my reasons on here.
Part of the fun of flying is just that, the joy of looking outside and mastering your skill. If you want to fly the Magenta line, then so be it, you will be doing it most of your career anyway.

You are a PPL VFR Pilot, this means you should be looking outside more than the guages, instrument flying comes later.
I would look elsewhere, there are better ways to get hours, and take it from someone who has been there, it willnot make a jot of difference what your flying when your CV lands on the HR office desk.:E

[fwjc]

ford cortina

You are right (why pay for fancy kit if you don't plan on using it?). However if you look at previous threads started by the OP, it's clear that he's not big on listening to the advice of some very experienced pilots on here. I'm by no means massively experienced, albeit well over ten years flying, but I've been around the block long enough to know how some things work.

Hence my decision to give up with offering advice based on his questions. It's not up to us to spend his money. He's clearly found a way of hiring a Cirrus for a) less money than a C152 / PA28 and b) less money than the fuel it costs to run the aeroplane. He clearly believes he knows far more than the experienced people on here know about aviation, so I'm thinking maybe his posts are trolling for fun.

[peterh337]

I went through this some years ago when renting out a new TB20GT, for four years.

Just about everybody who could fly already had their own plane. That's the basic problem, which ensures that what is left is very thin.

Airline pilots like rag and tube flying, not nice capable planes, which removes just about all remaining pilots who are current at any "tech" level.

I did get a couple of good people. One of them then lost his job and the other got his wife's thumb-down when she dropped a sprog.

The rest came with various levels of "issues". I had two instructors who messed with the plane (e.g. tampered with the fuel flowmeter to get lower fuel invoices, or claimed the duty drawback and pocketed it). One of the two was a Grade A shyster who vanished not long afterwards. I had a variety of private owners who rarely flew and some insisted on flying abroad with a map+stopwatch (not in my plane, thank you, especially not in France).

I also had to set up a Ltd Company for this (for liability limitation reasons) and then HMRC got interested over BIK.

Too much hassle, which is why almost nobody rents out anything that's half decent. The SR22 "zero equity" ventures charge a massive hourly fee, on top of an eye watering hour block purchase fee which weeds out anybody less than very determined. I suspect most of their business is a pilot taking a classy bird out to LTQ :)

[Odai]

I very much doubt that people rent out expensive aircraft like the Cirrus at the prices quoted, the truth of the matter is that most of the non equity groups are a business that is built on the basis that the monthly fees collected will more than cover the costs.


Well the prices are there and as far as I can tell the monthly cost has always been £150, with the wet rate only recently being bumped to £90 from £80. I've been to the FTO and been shown the aircraft, and I know that it is being used and hired out at those rates. It was in fact my intention to buy a no equity share the moment I finished my PPL, and at one point there was a chance of even finishing my PPL in the airplane. It is only after the recent problems with the owner and a review of my finances that I decided to reconsider other options too.

I don't know why there's such disbelief at the wet rate, it seems perfectly within range given the typical Cirrus fuel burn and cost of Avgas at Blackpool (about 40 litres/hour and £2/litre I think)?

Odai

Not sure if you have already been directed to the review below of the SR-20.
A lot of it is still relevant to the SR-22 so perhaps have a look over this to gain further info on the type.

Cirrus SR20 (and a bit about the SR22) (http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20)

Many thanks for that, very useful. I looked also at the review for the DA40. To be honest, I think I'd much prefer the latter, even to start off on. However, it looks to be literally impossible to find one in the north west. The only place I can find renting out DA40s is Flying Time, on the other side of the country...

You are right (why pay for fancy kit if you don't plan on using it?).

I didn't say that. I said I wouldn't let my basic skills lapse, but that I'd certainly be using the equipment for accuracy and redundancy...

He clearly believes he knows far more than the experienced people on here know about aviation, so I'm thinking maybe his posts are trolling for fun.

fwjc your right I spotted this a while ago with "Odai" and do believe he is just another troll, likewise I get fed up posting things that I feel maybe of use to people.

Thanks for your comments, but I don't think I gave that impression in the slightest nor do I think what you're writing is appropriate. If you dislike what I'm looking to do, don't you think it better to leave me to make my mistakes rather than make such comments...?

I didn't say I wanted to settle on the Cirrus for sure, I simply said I don't think it's a good idea to rule it out at this stage just because of some the debatable reasons given to me. I may choose an airplane now and switch later on when I feel more confident or have completed more advanced training like the IMC or night rating. I did have concerns about possibly finding myself out of my depth in the Cirrus airplane as a new PPL, but those were addressed at the beginning of the thread. Everything else was pages of posts with those who insisted they knew better arguing with myself and other members. Like I've said repeatedly, I appreciate everyone's comments and time but some of the content is just irrelevant to me and I'm not interested in debating it. I appreciate this isn't a typical route for a student looking to be financially conservative, but that is neither here nor there. I am not looking for input on what plane I should be flying or not fly and the reasons why.

All I am looking for, as I've repeatedly said, is advice on how to look for and links to available groups in the NW (I guess I should have started a new thread considering what this has descended into...). Although there has been some great advice in this thread and I now have various appointments to check aircraft out at Liverpool and Blackpool, I would still appreciate any help with this as always. Like I said, the only places I've known to check out are the UKGA classifieds and the Flyer forums. If anyone has any other suggestions that'd be great.

[007helicopter]

I would still appreciate any help with this as always. Like I said, the only places I've known to check out are the UKGA classifieds and the Flyer forums. If anyone has any other suggestions that'd be great.


Odai what I have found best is just turn up at your airports within sensible driving distance, look at adverts on the cafe notice board, chat to people in the Hanger, chat to the training schools and generally make local contacts.

You will soon suss out if the field is suitable and any options to hire what you are looking for.

have you for example been to Manchester Barton?

Occasionally I fly into Barton (SR22) and it looks really interesting and I imagine plenty of options.

[A and C]

With great precision you miss the point, the aircraft you are looking at makes more money for the owner if it never flys so why should the owner encourage it to be flown ?

You as a low time PPL are a dream customer for the group, with the combination of aircraft avalabilty and the limitations of the UK weather on you as a new PPL you will not get to fly the aircraft very much and I would hazard a guess that by the end of year one your hourly cost for an hours flying will be IRO £270.

It would be interesting to get an idea of the composition of the group, because being based at an airfield with instrument approaches the last person the owner would want to rent to would be a high time pilot with an IR and business interests all over the place. Are their any guys like that in the group ?

As always only time will tell if I am correct but I have been around long enough to have seen it all before!

[baldwinm]

I was in the Cirrus group at Blackpool since it was formed (I was in the Piper Archer III group before that) until earlier this year.

A quick calculation, including the monthly fee, and it has worked out at about £140 per hour wet. Availability wasn't a problem for me and have had several trips with overnight stays in France and Eire. The monthly fee was £120 when I joined though.

Availability never proved to be a problem, I just booked whole days in the internet system. You can hold 3 confirmed bookings and one "trip" (multiple days) in the booking system at a time, and this worked fine for me.

Without this group I would never have got to fly a Cirrus and I am grateful for that.

[Kestrel]

Odai,

Nothing wrong with aspirations. Use the experience and advice given here wisely they do know what they are talking about.

Take one step at a time and get your ppl first.

the honey moon period follows (no harm with that).

The first 100 hrs at least after gaining your ppl is the personal character forming basis that will stay with you until the day you stop flying.

My advice: Stay at your LOCAL airfield, get your ppl, then take 6 mths to a year to weigh up things and just enjoy the flying in the aeroplane you have learnt on.

Avoid taking offence as you seem to be doing in your often defensive manor when folks on here give you words of wisdom.

Happy flying

[Pace]

You only learn by hard experience! Many of us here have flown many types of singles and twins in bad weather summer, winter day night!

Many of those aircraft have been pretty basic and that develops your skills and situational awareness in a way that no pilot assist, all singing and dancing aircraft could possibly do.

An aircraft that makes you work and have to think for yourself means that when you do fly aircraft with all the pilot assist aids the two will compliment each other rather than one making up for a lack of skills of the pilot!
Even if you have money to burn I would still recommend that route too!

Pace

[taxistaxing]

My 2p worth.

OP, if you're just flying privately after getting your PPL then there's no reason not to upgrade to the Cirrus, or whatever else takes your fancy straight away.

On the other hand if you're hour builidng towards starting the CPL, as many others have said, it makes sense to do the hour builidng in the the same type of aircraft (and ideally the same geographical area) as you will do your CPL in. Most CPL schools do not use Cirruses (Ciri?) :). That's the approach I've been taking and endorsed by the school I'm planning to do my CPL with.

The PA28 you did your PPL on may well be "easy to fly" but flying to CPL standards is a different kettle of fish and you will be held up to a much higher standard in pilotage, DR navigation using a stopwatch and compass. Why not use your hour building to hone these techniques? Then you'll have an easier transition into the complex type you will do your CPL skills test on (likely to be an Arrow). You might struggle to "downgrade" to an Arrow once you've got used to a Cirrus with an avionics suite that would shame an A380!

I've tried to practise flying without any electronic assistance where possible. I found that going up in a C172 with a g430 fitted was making me lazy and over reliant on the 'magenta line'. I can imagine this would only be worse in an aircraft like the Cirrus. Going flying without a GPS no doubt seems shocking to some people but I've found it concentrates the mind, and is more reflective of the skill set you are supposed to be hour building towards.

[Kestrel]

Odai

Get your PPL first.

The only other aircraft in your area is a PA-28 Arrow that may satisfy your needs, however shares/ costs can be expensive.

There is nothing wrong with the basic warrior.

Cheap hour building would be to join the scheme at the flying school you are learning at. (Saving money at this stage is key) unless money is not an issue.

[Odai]

Thanks again for the responses.

007Helicopter, this is what I'm doing at the moment, I'm making appointments to turn up and have a look at various aircraft/clubs etc and hope to try and get a feel for the place when I go. At the moment looking at Blackpool and Liverpool (the latter being much more convenient due to distance). At Blackpool I'm looking at AGL, Westair, and Flybpl. At Liverpool I'm looking at LFS, Lomac, and the Azure flying club.

The only other local fields I know of are Warton, Barton, Hawarden and Woodvale.

There doesn't seem to be any clubs open to the public at Warton, nor at Hawarden or Woodvale. As I understand it, Woodvale is an RAF base with Warton and Hawarden belonging to BAE and EADS respectively. Unless I'm missing something?

I am currently based at Barton having done almost all of my PPL training there. It's not somewhere I'd really want to stay for my PPL, at least not for a long term thing like a non equity contract. The main reason for this is its poor suitability during the bad weather over the winter (airfield closing due to flooding etc).

A and C, I understand your point but I think you're being hugely pessimistic. Your estimate for the actual hourly rate assumes I'd fly less than once a month. My schedule at the moment is quite flexible so I'd be looking to fly closer to about 1-2 hours a week. So a conservative estimate is more likely to be around £120 per hour (assuming 6 hours a month, £90/hr, £150/month, landing fees etc). That's not too different from estimates for the 150s/PA28s etc I've found. Especially when you consider that equity shares are not an option at this stage.

Baldwinm, thanks for the insight into the group. When I visited AGL at Blackpool the person showing me around let me have a look at the booking system to see what typical availability was like. It didn't seem bad at all and I don't forsee issues with being able to fit in a couple of hours a week.

Kestrel, just to clarify these plans are all for after I gain my PPL.

Pace, I appreciate this point, but what I'm saying is that just because the equipment is there, it is not the case that I will rely on it. There is nothing to stop me from purely hand flying something like the Cirrus and only relying on DR navigation. If anything, trying to keep up with landmarks and calculating track error angles at 140KIAS whilst handling a slippery airplane has to be more difficult than the challenge posed by a typical (stable) PA28.

Taxistaxing, I am not yet certain I want to fly commercially. However, I am planning my flying on the basis that I will do the CPL to be on the safe side.

I am not sure what you are saying in your post - are you saying that I should learn in an aircraft that is similar to what I will fly for the CPL so that I am used to it and therefore find it easier to fly, or that I should find an aircraft that is more difficult to fly therefore preparing me better for the more demanding challenges during CPL training? If it is the latter I still maintain flying something like a Cirrus over a PA28 or similar is ideal, considering it is more difficult to fly and demands a higher level of accuracy?

Unless your point is that I'd simply be tempted to just use autopilot and GPS.

I agree with your comments, but there's nothing to stop me from flying even something like the Cirrus with just the basic instruments, a map, and a good view outside. :)

Thanks again,

Odai.

[A and C]

One of the Blackpool Cirrus groups has been connected with someone who is to appear at Preston Crown Court in the near future.

If I was you I would make sure of the stability of group before parting with money.


And yes you are correct that I am very pessimistic when it comes to aircraft costs............ After thirty years in the business I am usually correct when it comes to costs, I think that the group has got it's cost predictions wrong if you get the flying at the rate you state, in short it is not financially sustainable.

[mary meagher]

Odai, from your OP, I understand you have about 55 hours and have not yet completed your Private Pilot License.

I don't know anything about the Cirrus, except that it seems to show up in the news when the owner by poor planning or general incompetence has to pull the chute. Destroying the aircraft, usually, but saving his butt, and his passengers.

Much is made of it being a slippery type, and just like in a high performance glider, the approach speed must be nailed.

I'm not going to give you any advice at all, at your stage of experience you still have a lot to learn. But please can I say to all you chaps who find the GPS an exceedingly useful device, which I used extensively and happily when it first appeared, do not spend so much time looking at your fancy instrumentation, but look out for other aircraft. Not a word has been said about lookout in this entire discussion.

[Odai]

To clarify, I do not yet have 55 hours - rather, I expect to complete my PPL around the 55 hour mark.

The reason it has taken so many hours is down to a very long break that I had to take in the middle of my PPL (about 2.5 years).

[ford cortina]

Mary meagher got it one. You are expecting to be a PPL pilot, which means VFR flying, you should be spending most of your time with your head outside of the cockpit learning to navigate by sight, hand fly, trim etc.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if you do get your CPL/IR ME and get a job on jets, there is a good chance you will be flying some basic stuff.
Jet2 have a mainly 737 classic fleet, which means you will need to know your scan, the glass on the classic is not much o be fair, I should know, I fly a 300.


I don't really understand why you feel the Cirrus is different from a 172 etc, they all are the same, they fly and if you mess up they can and will bite you.

The problem is simple, you have already decided to go for the Cirrus, you just want someone to agree its the correct choice.

[A and C]

Perhaps I should not be giving a bit of honest advise and keep my mouth shut, we did quite well out of the first Cirrus chute deployment in the UK, perhaps a few more would futher line the pockets !

[fwjc]

ford cortina
The problem is simple, you have already decided to go for the Cirrus, you just want someone to agree its the correct choice.
I have to agree with you wholeheartedly.

mary meagher
do not spend so much time looking at your fancy instrumentation, but look out for other aircraft
This is a really good point, well made. And so true.

A and C
you are correct that I am very pessimistic when it comes to aircraft costs............ After thirty years in the business I am usually correct when it comes to costs
Again, nowhere near your experience, but enough to know that you are right (from personal experiences)


Odai

Before you go much further with your commercial aspirations, have you confirmed that you can get a Class 1 medical? The only certain way to do this is to go to Gatwick and get yourself one. Otherwise you'll be wasting your time, and could be exploring a whole wide world of GA flying, including touring and having real fun instead. In that case, leaping straight into a Cirrus is a completely different kettle of fish since GA flying is a different proposition to commercial training.

[englishal]

I can't be bothered to read this whole thread as I know it will be a lot of "you should fly a C152 until you get experience, using your PLOG, stopwatch and Compass" and on the other side "The Cirrus is the bees knees"...etc..

I'd go for the Cirrus myself.

[A and C]

The main point of debate is the best way of achiving the skills and experience to get the EASA CPL exams passed with the least trouble.

Above you will find some very good advice mainly centered around the acquisition of basic flying skills, something that that post Air France A330 has become a hot topic within the industry.

Opposing this is a guy who has yet to get a PPL who wants to fly ( in his words ) a slippery aircraft with modern technology that in his opinion will expand his skills. The first thing to address is the will the cirrus help with basic hand flying skills ? Having flown the aircraft I found it to be a good solid touring aircraft with little to make it stand out fron the crowd, as for "slippery" well not really ! The composite construction makes for a few knots at the top end but the conservative construction adds a little too much weight to make the performance spectacularly different from the crowd. One thing is blindingly obvious is that flying the Cirrus is not going to expand your hand flying skills very much.

As for helping expand the skill set for CPL navigation it won't ! Even if the intention is to ignore the screens & GPS just the fact that they are fitted and are a comfort blanket that you will be tempted to look at just to back up your DR navigation, this will soon become your default setting rather than correcting errors in your head.........this is a basic skill and a building block for all navigation, it is also an essential skill for passing the CPL navigation test.

Don't think I am anti Cirrus, it is a great way of moving four people long distances in comfort...........it is not the aircraft that will economically prepare you for a CPL just the fact that a C152 with a basic radio burns 23 lts/ hour as aposed to the 40 lts/ hour should tell you that! Then add the cost of maintenance of all the Avionic kit and the chute and you will see why I think that your costs are based on unrealistic operating costs. The first of the Cirrus aircraft must be getting up to the ten year chute inspection and 12 year engine overhaul time now and I think that some cirrus owners are in for a rude awakening on costs.

Any how when Odai has spent a lot of money on flying the Cirrus and starts the CPL course only to find himself having to do extra navigation training will the situation become clear to one who wants to run before he can walk........those wise heads who above advised that the Cirrus is not he way to go have seen it all before and will no doubt see it again as more headstrong young hopefuls get seduced by the new toys, however since the first days of flying one thing has become very clear. Technology is no substitute for skill.........nowhere is this more clear than in the AF A330 crash were a young pilot managed to hold the aircraft in the stall from above FL300 untill it hit the water killing all on board.

[Fuji Abound]

A and C some good points but maybe a tad dramatic.

Btw you will learn some pretty solid imc skills flying a cirrus just as much as a 172 - the first might have flash glass screens but both fly much the same and will give you the same sensation held in a stall with buzzer whaling.

Pays your money as the saying goes. If you can afford a cirrus its a more comfortable way to build hours but for sure much more costly. If money were no object personally i would fly mostly the cirrus but enjoy some hours in a small variety of other types which would nicely round ones flying skills.

Ps i do think you might be a little anti cirrus ;).

[fatmanmedia]

i have to agree with A and C, but i would add one thing, i would not learn that well in a Cirrus too much temptation to use the power of the G1000, if i wanted to get the most of out learning i would go with something very basic a Virus SW, or a Piper Cub, i would not go to the expense of working towards my CPL until i could fly using nothing but my compass, stopwatch and map and maybe aE6B Flight Computer.

I love computers, i love the technology in aircraft today, but having basic skills down dead is the only way to go.

Fats

[007helicopter]

we did quite well out of the last Cirrus chute deployment in the UK, perhaps a few more would futher line the pockets !

A & C for all the Cirrus basher's and the idiot pulled the chute brigade you could re phrase this to "The only Cirrus chute pull in the UK in the last decade" your post implies there has been more than one.

BTW was that one repaired and flying again or written off? just wondered how you did well out of it?

[englishal]

I think there are differing views across the world on what is best for an airline pilot wanabee. I have heard quite the opposite stated in the USA, whereby the airlines PREFER someone who has been "brought up" on Glass cockpits and modern tech, rather than someone who has 1500 hrs in a C152. I guess it makes them easier to train in some respects.

In the UK you are probably quite correct, but in the UK we will still use stopwatch and compass even if we had a G1000, because "it is the proper way".

[A and C]

The aircraft is back in the air following repairs.

Englishal

I don't really see the idea of training basic skills on glass as an advantage, especially when if all the electrics fail on your Boeing or Airbus all you have is the very basic instruments that you first met when you stepped into a C152.

Should the worst happen (after the old gits like me have retired) then your glass trained FO is going to have an uphill struggle to fly the aircraft just when he could do without the steep learning curve. That is exactly what happened on the AF A330.

I would say that the move to glass from the start is driven by the bean counters.

In a perfect world pilot training would start with twenty hours on the Piper Cub followed by the rest of the basic flying on the SF260, Unfortunatly outside the military this would never happen.

[007helicopter]

The aircraft is back in the air following repairs.

Cirrus SR20 N470RD | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/egbj/7833114394/)

N470RD Looks smart after its repair's

[Pace]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if you do get your CPL/IR ME and get a job on jets, there is a good chance you will be flying some basic stuff.
Jet2 have a mainly 737 classic fleet, which means you will need to know your scan, the glass on the classic is not much o be fair, I should know, I fly a 300.

Ford

One of the Citations I fly is a CLASSIC :E But with a highly advanced GPS system KING90B :ok:
The one I brought back from India was such a wreck you did not need a simulator for emergency training ;)
All good for the soul!!!

Pace

[Tinstaafl]

No glass anything in the Beechjet I fly. The only moving map is in our heads.

[Fuji Abound]

Fatmanmedia

FWIW although the G1000 is an option few Cirrus are Garmin friendly - most are fitted with Avidynes.

[fwjc]

I don't think it matters what avionics are in real commercial aircraft. The OP has obviously made up his mind, and to be honest, looking at his other posts, I would be very surprised if he ever actually ends up as a commercial pilot.

My guess is that he will join the ranks of the very happy PPL/IR types who can afford to fly the more kitted-up, faster aircraft. I'm sure he will gain maximum enjoyment and pleasure from this, probably taking in several European trips. I suspect that some of the pilots in this category get a real kick from mixing it with commercial traffic, and take delight in looking down on other types of GA flying as "less advanced" since they're part of this "exclusive" club. My sense is that the OP might well feel very happy and fulfilled in this environment.

I anticipate some indignation and abuse for this, but it's not intended as a negative statement. It is merely my thoughts based on observation. There are many flavours of GA pilot, all gaining pleasure from different types of flying. Eg the aerobatic crew, who don't like straight and level for longer than necessary to show the judges that a manoeuvre is complete; the hardcore weightshift brigade, who delight in freezing their nuts off in pursuit of very low cost, high value fun; the vintage rag and tube stalwarts who twirl their moustaches whilst expounding the merits of a side-slip approach to achieve a perfect 3-pointer; and the usual newbie crowd, who all got their tickets at the same time and like nothing more than hiring a club 4-seater to cost share their way to a £65 bacon sandwich. They're all equally valid and relevant, and all have their (natural) prejudices.

The OP has demonstrated quite clearly that he is unwilling to listen to advice that goes against his preconceived ideas, even when evidenced and given by experienced people. So I would suggest to let him get on with it. He will learn his own path by experience, probably getting his fingers burned and slightly ripped off in the process, although hopefully not.

[mary meagher]

Alas, money does not buy judgement. I cringe to think of the family and friends that are persuaded to fly as passengers in light aircraft who are all too unaware of the statistics.
Over in the USA, we used to call Bonanza V-tails "doctor killers". The medical chaps make a lot of money, and are clearly superior beings, at least in their own minds. Sometimes they manage to write off their entire family.

How difficult it is to come to terms with hostile weather enroute, and make that Uturn, when an important meeting or the company car is waiting at your destination.....or you have promised the girlfriend a trip through the alps....

Unless your aircraft has at least two reliable engines, a pressurised cabin enabling you to fly above the weather, and you hold a current night and IFR rating, its safer and often quicker to go by road.

[thborchert]

FWIW although the G1000 is an option few Cirrus are Garmin friendly - most are fitted with Avidynes. All Cirrii from about 2009 onwards are Cirrus Perspective by Garmin, a derivative of the G1000 with some (important) added features, e.g. a keypad. No option since about three months after introduction.

Over in the USA, we used to call Bonanza V-tails "doctor killers". The medical chaps make a lot of money, and are clearly superior beings, at least in their own minds. Well, looking at the cold, hard facts of the accident record, the term was BS for the Bonanza then and is for the Cirrus now. There is no indication that an abundance of inexperienced (and presumably rich) pilots get themselves in over their heads in these aircraft. Sorry to burst the bubble that makes so much sense for some...

[englishal]

its safer and often quicker to go by road.
But not half as much fun :E

[thborchert]

There is nothing wrong with the basic warrior.

There's TONS of stuff wrong with the basic Warrior. It's old and decrepit, a design likely from way before even the OP's parents were young, it is just plain not sexy and utterly unappealing. (It also lacks a door, but that would get into "hard" reasoning). I never cease to be amazed at what we pilots put up with. Those soulless pieces of junk we are generally flying suck, plain and simple. It's just that most of us can't afford anything better.

IMHO most pilots don't appreciate this much since they have neither experienced a new aircraft design themselves nor have their passengers (BTW, doesn't matter if it's a Cirrus or a DA40 or a Corvalis or even a TB). If you take the basic warrior from the 70s, most pilots will simply walk up and get in. Most passengers will walk up, hesitate and start a barrage of questions: Tell me again how old this is? What did you say the rules for maintenance are? and so on. Take them to a Cirrus, and the pilots will spend a half hour drooling over it before they board. Passengers, OTOH, will simply get in, buckle up and wait for you to go - after all, it looks like the Audi they drove to the airport in.

[Fuji Abound]

All Cirrii from about 2009 onwards are Cirrus Perspective by Garmin, a derivative of the G1000 with some (important) added features, e.g. a keypad. No option since about three months after introduction.

As i said most cirrus dont have garmin ;).

Unless your aircraft has at least two reliable engines, a pressurised cabin enabling you to fly above the weather, and you hold a current night and IFR rating, its safer and often quicker to go by road.

What a wonderful generalisation but perhaps not fitting of a pilot forum.

[fwjc]

thborchert
Take them to a Cirrus, and the pilots will spend a half hour drooling over it before they board

You prove my point exactly. I can show you a whole bunch of pilots who wouldn't give a Cirrus a second glance. I personally am no more interested in them than I am in an Evektor Eurostar - nicely designed, some minor foibles, expensive and for all it's clean presentation, doesn't particularly excite me.

Different aeroplanes are designed for different jobs, different pilots like to do different things, and therefore different aeroplanes are right for different pilots. There's no need to go around slagging off a Warrior - if you want to do a CPL, in many cases that's what you'll use, for good reason. If you want to whizz off to France, take your TB or Cirrus, etc, etc.

[thborchert]

As i said most cirrus dont have garmin http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif.

Hmm. I was under the impression that "most" and "about half" are different. But what do I know...

You prove my point exactly. I can show you a whole bunch of pilots who wouldn't give a Cirrus a second glance.

And I'm afraid you miss mine. First, I doubt that your bunch of pilots gets excited over a Warrior, or a Skyhawk. Second, I believe we can all agree that our numbers are dwindling. One reason (albeit far from the only one) IMHO is that learning to fly in a design from the 50s, with odors and body secretions accumulated since the 70s, is not an attractive proposition at the cost it incurs. No 15-year-old would hang a poster of a Warrior (or a Warrior cockpit) in his room. A Pipistrel Panthera? Different story. Warriors don't capture the imagination anymore, if they ever have.

[mad_jock]

No 15-year-old would hang a poster of a Warrior (or a Warrior cockpit) in his room. A Pipistrel Panthera? Different story. Warriors don't capture the imagination anymore, if they ever have.

You be suprised.

I get kids taking pics of my 25 year old steam cockpit and are chuffed to bits getting chucked in the Captains seat while I do the walk round and the FO sorts out the load sheet. And we have the added bonus of a 25 year old cartridge portaloo type bog adding to the on board atmosphere.

The aviation nut 15 year olds will have anything they can get there hands on there walls be it a tommy, warrior or spitfire. One lad at the school used to arrive the day after flight international came out with an exploded section view of any aircraft you like. We used to hide it for a while and claim it was missing or it hadn't turned up in the post yet. Could never have to heart to prolong the teasing to long.

Some folk get there rocks off on spanking new techno kit.
Some get the same for vintage.
Some for tail draggers

Some like myself really don't care what the cockpit is like as long as the engine starts and we can go flying. The cheaper it is the more flying we can do. Lest face it most of the time you are looking out the window so as long as the seat isn't a torture device I will fly anything.

[mary meagher]

Hey, Fuji Abound, I have no problem at all with the OP or anyone else with deep pockets spending their no doubt hard earned money on the sexiest aircraft available and flying it solo all over the world.

Eventually after being frightened a few times, and realising exactly how expensive and impractical it is to use a light aircraft as transportation, they will realise that the true purpose of GA is having fun. You and I and most of the senior posters on this forum probably have several thousand hours of experience, and spent a lot of money on Cof As, insurance, repairs, hangarage, fuel, maintenance, etc etc etc. And spent a couple of extra days on a journey stuck on an island somewhere as a tropical storm/an embedded thunderstorm with tops to 35,000', or typical British weather, makes it necessary to stay away from home longer than planned.

Lots and lots of people all over the world would love to become airline pilots, thinking of the uniform, the attractive cabin crew, the respectful passengers, the Tower saying United 747, cleared for takeoff, and the powerful jet thrust as you push the throttles forward and the heavy surges into the sky for another 9 hour trip across the Atlantic. O yes. Thinking flying light aircraft will eventually lead to such a career, and then you find out you are a flying bus driver, and most of the time it is exceedingly tedious, and the cabin crew won't even talk to you because a few years back some of the pilots crossed a picket line, and you are locked in a very tight cockpit stuck in your seat for most of those nine hours, breathing interesting fumes and developing DVT....great career!

But at least you have more experience than the average PPL, and you and the system usually bring the trusting passengers safely to the destination.

No, I have no problem with expensive sexy aircraft, especially if they are gliders, now there is the state of the art! but what I object to is the mindset of the newbe that he would love to impress the friends and family by taking them flying. I can still remember taking one of my sons up, and coming very close to a midair, and another son up and he spent most of the flight throwing up.
Taking up the public for flight experience, and I've done a lot of that, in a glider, as soon as they go quiet and pale, you can land in five minutes. On a cross country power trip, it is really not a lot of fun for a passenger.

End of rant.

[A and C]

You have obviously been crusing around the cheap end of the market were people don't look after their PA28's, you won't find any aircraft in the condition you describe at my local flying club.

All the PA28's at the Airways Flying Club at EGTB are kept in first class condition inside and out, this seems to prove that your statements about PA28's are more of a reflection of the end of the market you are frequenting rather than the aircraft it's self.

[thborchert]

All the PA28's at the Airways Flying Club at EGTB are kept in first class condition inside and out,

I'm sure they look great. If you have the time, bring five non-pilots between 15 and 35 to your field, show them the aircraft and tell them it's the latest and greatest private flying has to offer. Then ask them what they think.

Should I really be the only one here that considers a PA-28 to be functional yet utterly unattractive especially to newcomers, I'm happy to learn that all hope is lost. ;)

[A and C]

I have yet to find someone who thinks that when they learn to drive a car or a motorcycle they will be presented with a new BMW M3 or Ducati at the driving school, they would expect a functional car or motorcycle no more, no less.

The PA28 meets the same needs for the new pilot.

[mad_jock]

Most don't care two hoots to be honest.

Most people don't have a clue whats new and whats old.

The plastic pigs alot of folk don't actually like because they don't look like an aircraft that they percieve. High wings also are less favoured than low wings. Also the auld tin cans look more robust than the new machines mainly because they are.

Stick a new shiny paint job on an aircraft, new carpets and a seat refurb and 95% of the clueless will think its spanking new. The fact that the engines compression are on the limits and all the filters are blocked on the vacum system is neither here or there.

Yes there are folk out there that have an eye for the bling electronics but most especially in scotland when given the choice of bling or paying less money per hour will always go for the cheaper option.

[Fuji Abound]

Mary

There is a great deal in your last post with which I agree. Light aircraft in this country are almost never a practical means of transport. I actually use mine for this purpose but I realise it is rare. I am fortunate in being able to decide if the weather is unsuitable and able to rearrange my trips in some other way if it is not. There are times when I use the aircraft for business that come with a big smile - of course I enjoy the flying, but more importantly I need only think of the times I have been in traffic on the M25 for hours on end to appreciate flying.

Experience counts for so much. Doesn't everyone who learns to fly have unrealistic perceptions. I recall when I thought light aircraft were a practical means of transport. A few holidays to Europe with returns planned on a particular day soon put pay to those perceptions. Do we all get too close to the edge? I suspect we do. I have certainly done a few very stupid things which could have turned out very differently - I guess I got lucky. Flying is as safe or as dangerous as you make it, a bit like cycling, and even then we still dance on the head of a pin to some degree.

The glamour of commercial flying is just another allusion of flying that seduce many. While I cant write from personal experience, I do know a number of commercial pilots well. They all tell me without exception that on balance they have enjoyed their careers - this is a sentiment I rarely hear expressed about other careers. Good for them. On the other hand I do note they all say times are changing - and they would think carefully about the same career again. Like many things in life - its not what it was!

As to light aircraft, some couldnt care what they fly, some like the challenge of aeros, some like a sleek tourer, some glide - each to their own. I have flown my share of well used rental aircraft, and on the whole they are fine. I make no bones, these days I like something that is reasonably quick, I like a cockpit that is clean, functional and dry rather than musty, tired and littered with u/s placards. I enjoy aeros and tail wheel but I would rather fly an Extra for aeros and tour in a Cirrus. As you may have guessed, I like two engines or a chute. ;)

Were I starting out again would I do it differently? In some respects, I would. I would have joined a group of seasoned pilots much sooner - a group that was willing to pass on their experience. I would spend some money with a good club that had a variety of aircraft on their fleet as soon as I had got between 50 and 100 post PPL hours to my credit - if I could afford to. I would do an instrument qualification as soon I was certain I was going to keep flying and could afford to do so. If I found I enjoyed flying a Cirrus and could afford to do so that is what I would have done. If I had commercial aspirations I would have listened to the excellent advice here and else where and thought carefully about what sort of flying I needed to do to give me the best opportunity of pursuing that career.

.. .. but yes, most of us fly for pleasure. Isn't it always the case that when a hobby becomes a business it changes fundamentally - sometimes to the good, sometimes it shatters all of your illusions. My friend is a commercial long haul training captain - he dead heads into Heathrow, does his stint, and then calls me to ask if we can go do some aeros. I tell him yes, but you are mad. He says totally, but this is flying, the day job pays the bills. As they say across the Pond - go figure. ;)

[Hodja]

Should I really be the only one here that considers a PA-28 to be functional yet utterly unattractive especially to newcomers...
For what it's worth, I agree completely.

The *only* reason we stick w/old heaps like Warriors or mid-70s Skyhawks is cost.

The majority of newcomers are price-sensitive (private flying is ridiculously expensive), and *price* is the single determining factor for most student pilots.

One of my flight schools had a line-up of SportStars, Piper Warriors & C172 RG for their private & commercial training. The SportStar rented for about 10% less than the spamcans & I never heard *anyone* mention "how cool it'd be to fly one of those Warriors". The private students always went straight for the cheapest option.

A few years ago the flight school had a C152 as well, which was quite popular due to the low rental. Interestingly, I rarely see any of those around anymore - I suspect the mighty C152 is finally reaching its end-of-life broadly speaking...

[A and C]

There are none of the VLA aircraft yet on the market that are robust enough to replace the Cessna 152, any one who try's to operate them on a flight school will soon find out this is the case and be trying to find good C152's that have had the SID's checks done.

The airframe life of a C152 is 30,000 hours a quick look at the construction of a VLA will show you that one is unlikely to make 5000 hours........no matter how sexy you may think they look the numbers simply won't stack up.

[Odai]

Just to clarify a few things, which I have already repeated before:

- I certainly do not have "deep pockets". I am looking to be as financially conservative as possible, being a student at university, while balancing this with the benefit of a more modern airplane. As it is, the Cirrus group I've found would allow me to fly for less than a lot of PA28s/172s etc I've found in the NW. Especially considering an equity group isn't an option due to costs. I appreciate one or two of you do not believe the costs are viable and that the group is likely to fold, but that's another matter.

- I am not certain the Cirrus is what I want to go for, it is simply an option I'm not ruling out at this stage. It may be that I start out in one airplane and change later on. It could also be that I fly more than one plane regularly for my hour building, as I've found good offers on hour building rates at various places during quiet periods etc.

- Whilst I am not 100% certain I want to fly commercially, I am working on the assumption I will for now to keep my options open. I want to be instrument rated in some way no matter where I end up, and any of those options available to me require some hour building anyway - so I still have time to decide later.

- I understand there are various risks with regards to my skills if I go flying a glass cockpit like the Cirrus as opposed to some steam gauge warrior. However, I've already said several times that I appreciate the importance of basic skills and that I do intend to keep them sharp, no matter what I end up flying, for the rest of my flying life.

Once again, I really do appreciate all the time and effort people have put into their advice, but a debate is really not relevant to what I'm looking for which is any advice people might have on club/group etc airplanes I can fly in my area (NW). I appreciate now I should probably have started a new thread with a different title for that.

[ford cortina]

- I understand there are various risks with regards to my skills if I go flying a glass cockpit like the Cirrus as opposed to some steam gauge warrior. However, I've already said several times that I appreciate the importance of basic skills and that I do intend to keep them sharp, no matter what I end up flying, for the rest of my flying life.

How pray tell do you do that on a Glass Cockpit, with state of the art GPS?
The Cirrus is designed to flown that way. As said earlier it is a tourer.
You would not expect a Airbus to be flown using Conventional Navigation now would............but you are not listening, despite your protesting otherwise, so I will waste my time no more, after all all i am is a experienced Airline and Biz Jet pilot, you know better.
I wish you the very best of luck, you will need it

[007helicopter]

I appreciate now I should probably have started a new thread with a different title for that.

Odai by putting the word Cirrus in your are going to get mixed views and a lot of old wives tails chucked if for good measure.

If your title had been "Newbie looking to upgrade to C182" I bet you would have got at maybe 7 or 8 reply's and not 8 pages.

Either way good luck with your PPL, in my opinion fly whatever you like for the next 50-100 hours and do not think of it as hour building but just enjoying getting to grips with building skills.


In my totally uninformed opinion it probably will not make that much difference for a future commercial route if that ever became a reality (which is a tough path)

Rule the Cirrus out because I guess it will likely take you more than 10 hours to get anywhere near signed off and a bit of a waste of money that could be used for flying more of what you are already use to.

[007helicopter]

certain infamous private investigator

On a vaguely more interesting note any more news on our esteemed DIY legal eagle?

A bit of gossip might be a tactic to get this thread locked...

[mary meagher]

what ho! Our friend Odai has now disclosed he is a student at university....

Which accounts for a certain immaturity in his thinking.

Nevertheless it is always fun to indulge in a bit of cirrus bashing.....however, I was very impressed with a glider in Oregon that came with a built in ballistic recovery system....no need to wear a parachute! ( they were willing to let me fly the glider, but as I was unfamiliar with the territory, I declined). The glider, though still in the development stage - this was about 8 years ago - had already been tested in an emergency, and came down nicely in the wilderness.
A good landing is one you walk away from, a very good landing is one where you can use the aircraft again, and this rather nice glider, 14 meter wingspan I seem to recall, was able to be used again after they buffed a few dents out of the gelcoat....but then it was of a very light composite construction (like a dreamliner?) and so not as heavy as a Cirrus.

[fwjc]

He's hardly a poor hard up student - to do his planned 6 hours per month at his quoted hire rates for the Cirrus, he's looking at spare cash of ~£700 per month. I wish I could afford that much.

[Pittsextra]

why is it someone raises a question - even if its just for the sake of starting a conversation - and then it decends into a p155ing contest? either that or some private investigation where everyone presumes to know everything about everyone..

[Odai]

why is it someone raises a question - even if its just for the sake of starting a conversation - and then it decends into a p155ing contest? either that or some private investigation where everyone presumes to know everything about everyone..

Thanks, this is exactly what I was thinking.

I initially asked for some advice regarding concerns I had about the suitability of the Cirrus for an inexperienced PPL. That was addressed. I then decided, instead of opening another thread, to ask for advice on looking for alternate aircraft. What followed next is clear....

I don't think it's appropriate at all and it's obvious I'm not about to get any useful advice out of this mess now, so best to just leave it before it gets worse. It's a shame, as there were some users who, very kindly, genuinely tried to help.

For the record, fwjc, this is my training and I consider it an investment for my future. I certainly won't be flying as often once I am qualified (not just because of the costs) so I may as well enjoy it for now and try to minimise the costs as best I can. Besides, I don't think comments about my personal financial situation are at all appropriate on the forum...

Above the Clouds, may I suggest if you don't find what I post agreeable you simply ignore it? Your posts here and my other thread aren't remotely useful and would only make the situation worse. If you think I'm a 'troll' that's fine, but I posted genuine questions and thankfully I did get some helpful advice.

[007helicopter]

Make up your mind do you have a PPL or are you still under training

Unless I am mistaken I believe he is still training and soon to complete PPL and then looking at options (albeit maybe trying to run before walking) but I think the TROLL thing is a bit harsh

[Odai]

Above the Clouds, from my first post:

"Hello,

I am finally close to completing my PPL, and have thus been considering my options for recreational hire, and possibly CPL hour building if I decide I want to work towards the fATPL. I am currently flying the PA28-161 (having flown the first half of my course on the Grob 115A). "

[thborchert]

Above the clouds,

Are you serious? You can post any advice you want here, that's certainly more than welcome. But to start personal attacks at anyone who doesn't accept your posts as the gospel you seem to consider it, well, that's beyond ridiculous!

[fwjc]

The observations on your financial situation are based on information you have provided - firstly the monthly and hourly rates of the particular group you told us about and that you express an interest in, and secondly your statement that you plan to fly around 6 hours a month while you are hour building. The maths isn't difficult. If you don't want people to know what you have available to spend, don't give them the information.

I don't agree with the harsh troll accusations, although I had previously thought you might be trolling for fun (making trolling posts and being a troll are two different things, btw). But you do tend to come across as naive and willing to reject anything that goes against why you want to hear. I think that's a part of the reason for the sorry degradation of this thread into petty gossip and sniping - people have given up trying to offer you sensible advice and suggestions.

Fwiw, on the subject of suggestions, I still strongly recommend you get yourself a Class 1 medical. Just to be sure you really can get one, particularly given your history. It could significantly change your perspective and focus and save you from mis-spending money. One of my colleagues was convinced he couldn't get one and dismissed his dream but took a punt, tried it and got through. He's now flying for a living. Another thought it wouldn't be a problem, but they discovered a condition he didn't know he had and he's now limited to a class 2. He changed his career plans and is now an engineer and weekend PPL, with a lot less debt than the first guy.

[Saab Dastard]

Above The Clouds

Has had a 7-day forum ban imposed to encourage him / her to play nicely next time. All take note, please. :E

SD

[Odai]

How pray tell do you do that on a Glass Cockpit, with state of the art GPS?

By not using the GPS and just sticking to what you were taught at PPL, as I've said before? :ok:

fwjc, I don't have my class 1 but I have been told by my AME and a consultant at Gatwick that I should be fine for that. It would be the first thing I do before studying for my ATPL exams, but for now I will be hour building as even if I don't end up going commercial I do want to be instrument rated (which itself needs a number of hours post PPL).

[taxistaxing]

Taxistaxing, I am not yet certain I want to fly commercially. However, I am planning my flying on the basis that I will do the CPL to be on the safe side.

I am not sure what you are saying in your post - are you saying that I should learn in an aircraft that is similar to what I will fly for the CPL so that I am used to it and therefore find it easier to fly, or that I should find an aircraft that is more difficult to fly therefore preparing me better for the more demanding challenges during CPL training? If it is the latter I still maintain flying something like a Cirrus over a PA28 or similar is ideal, considering it is more difficult to fly and demands a higher level of accuracy?

Unless your point is that I'd simply be tempted to just use autopilot and GPS.




It's not that the Cirrus is necessarily more difficult to fly, more than you'll presumably have learned with steam instruments, and will be faced with steam instruments in your CPL test, so 100 hours of 'glass', sidestick and much higher speeds in between might make the transition back tricky.

I went up with one of the CPL instructors at my local school shortly before starting my hour building for a few pointers and actually 100 hours isn't that much time when you consider what is required. It's very much 'back to basics' flying. His suggestions were: stay local; practise diversions until you can go up without a plog and 'divert' every leg of you route; and practise circuits and general flying being really brutal with yourself about maintaining headings, accurate height in the circuit etc. That seems to have been born out by the advice posted on this thread.

Also - yes you can switch the GPS off (although I expect the Cirrus system is very integrated into the avionics so are you sure it's that straightforward?). Just don't underestimate the "comfort blanket" effect of having a GPS in the aircraft. If you have nothing but the very basics it actually improves your situational awareness and you'll spend more time looking out of the aircraft (which is what DR navigation is supposed to be about).

At my flying club, on group flyout days, I'm the only one getting out my whizzwheel and chart rather than an iPad (I get a lot of stick for it too, and have been accused of being dangerous for not carrying a GPS :hmm: ). I've never yet busted air space or got lost. On one flyout I was bawled at by a pilot staring at his GPS convinced I was about to bust the stansted zone (I knew I wasn't because I was reading my CAA chart and knew exactly where I was). Not trying to turn this thread into a GPS versus DR slagging match, but you get the point.

I would consider speaking to the school you will do your CPL at and get their input. I can well understand the desire to fly a Cirrus (and you're quite right it's your money and no-one else's business what you do with it), but just make sure that you practise for your CPL in the most useful fashion. After all you aren't losing anything if you upgrade afterwards.

All the best with it.

[sparks-flying]

Very well put taxistaxing!

To add to that. I'm sure the 10 hours required to be signed off on the cirrus is just an insurance requirement that the pilot must have at least 10 hours on type in the last 12 months. Therefore once you have shown yourself to be proficient inoperating the aircraft, which in my experience is in most cases is less than 5 hours, the remainder of the 10 hours could be spent as an intro to CPL level handling and navigation. Or could be counted toward an IMC course ( if instructor can teach IMC).

Good luck whichever route you choose.

SF

[Pace]

Sparks

Not our fault Guv is often an excuse given for insurance requirements!
Just consider this ! When an owner/ operator agrees a insurance requirement while there maybe an insurance requirement often the owner/operator will add restrictions on purpose to suit their own agenda.
I flew for an operator who built in a multi engine minimum of 500 hrs! Yes the insurance company were happy to add that minima and it reduced the insurance!
The real reason ! The operator used a merry band of experienced pilots who he charged out at a high rate.
This protected them from less experienced pilots undercutting the rates!
So genuine insurance requirement or built in ???

Pace

[Odai]

Many thanks taxistaxing for the tips.

I will indeed practice what you mentioned.

Regarding your comments about the GPS, I understand what you mean by the GPS being there as a comfort blanket, as I have flown in PA28s with and without GPS at my PPL school. I guess knowing that all you have with you in the air are a map and compass will keep you on your toes a little more but surely it just comes down to self-discipline in the end?

Regarding the transition back to steam gauges, it shouldn't be an issue as the only schools I've considered so far, Flying Time and CTC (modular) both use DA40/DA42s for their commercial training. I would also just use the DA40 for my hour building, it sounds ideal, but unfortunately there just don't seem to be any whatsoever in the NW. :sad:

As I understand it, Oxford have also taken delivery of a fleet of glass 182s for their MPL programme, so maybe glass cockpit will become even more of a trend into the future?

Sparks, that does sound about right. I was thinking of finding an instructor to teach me the night qualification (rating now?) during those 10 hours, in the Cirrus, if I decide to go for that airplane. That way if I only need a few hours to familiarise myself with it the rest won't be wasted.

Thanks again

Odai.

[mad_jock]

It takes 1 sim session to get used to flying glass on a type rating.

Going glass to steam the scan has never developed for the 6 gauges unfortunately this has led to pilots failing type ratings.

Hour building you need to find the cheapest aircraft then do quality trips to broaden your experence base.

The added experence of glass SEP isn't really sort after in europe. And in someways the new GA glass far outstrips airliner glass.

If you had a plan that you were going off to Africa to fly G1000 fitted carvans I could see the point to hour build using it. But if your goal is to get a job in the EU there really isn't much point.

[Fuji Abound]

MJ - yes, glass is so much easier. A quick session is more than enough for the basics, but if you haven't got the basics you will be all over the place with steam gauges.

I cant help but feel those that have learnt on glass (and there are quite a few these days) need to do a "steam gauge" rating before let loose on anything else.

This thread is quite fun isn't it - albeit seems to be everything that is going on, on PPRuNe these days. ;)

[Pace]

This thread is quite fun isn't it - albeit seems to be everything that is going on, on PPRuNe these days.

Fuji

Are you referring to the Cirrus threads? a change of moods where everyone is blowing kisses at everyone else or the The pprune Soap! huge episodes still to come :E

Pace

[flydive1]

the The pprune Soap! huge episodes still to come :E

Pace

Still in stand-by for news;)

[mad_jock]

Aye Fuji I quite agree.

And after putting the time in on steam and glass I have yet to have all the instrument stop reading on steam. Unfortunately it happened quite a few time on EFIS. And the good old steam skills came into play again.

[007helicopter]

Good news By the way 2 more successful Cirrus chute pulls in the last 10 days, both loss of oil pressure / engine problems which is quite unusual, both all occupants walked away, both in area's where a conventional forced landing would have had a reasonable chance of success, both were experienced guys with a couple of 1000 hours each & IR's etc.

No 38 was in Arizona

No 39 was Australia

[Pace]

F900EX

I tend to support A & C on this as there equally seem to be a spate of stupid accidents where basic piloting skills have been grossly lacking.

This has raised concern that the aircrafts abilities and equipment are being used to make up for a lack of basic skills by SOME pilots!

This is a worrying trend with the very capable Cirrus as well as creating a false sense of security through those pilot aids whether through the displays or chute systems!

SOME pilots appear to be lead into conditions they are ill trained or equipt to be in.

Pace

[mary meagher]

magenta lines? what's all this about magenta lines? I follow roads.....

[007helicopter]

Fully agree, the whole magenta line syndrome is the norm these days from PPL teaching

I thought they taught zero about GPS in the PPL? just a load of tosh about a wizz wheel that quite frankly I have not seen anyone use in the last decade, and like wise neither have I seen a slide rule used in an engineering environment, but each to their own.

[007helicopter]

As you say each to their own, but I am happy with my backup plan when the screens go blank, hope you are.

Yep, comfortable with my back up plans.

[mad_jock]

Yep, comfortable with my back up plans

Big handle in the ceiling? :8

PS just so your 100% certain yes I am taking the wee in a none having a dig manner

[Pace]

Big handle in the ceiling?

MJ

And that about says it all :{ Oh well hope it works?

Pace

[007helicopter]

Fair points, (I did make a bit of a daft comment about wizz wheels) you guys who have either flown for decades and were trained commercially or military I am sure have far superior DR skills than I or an average PPL could reasonably expect unless they have a serious interest in becoming good in traditional navigation and practice it a lot, some people enjoy that. I personally do not.

In terms of back up the Cirrus has plenty of redundancy in terms of the 2 GNS 430's on independent power supplies, and yes I do carry a further GPS as final back up if it all does go wrong.

With all the risks in flying losing GPS is not one I worry about.

[007helicopter]

PS just so your 100% certain yes I am taking the wee in a none having a dig manner

Don't worry I got it loud and clear.

[mad_jock]

To be honest I was never allowed to use the whizz wheel in both commercial and IR training and haven't had to use it since unless PPL instructing.

I got taught to work out your max drift and then use the clock factoring to work out your drift then use percentages to work out the GS.

In the air I mostly use the 1 in 60 rule.

And some PPL's are actually very switched on with DR and would put some commercials to shame. Its a perishable skill though and if its not exercised you will make stupid mistakes. Which is why I prefer to exercise my mind then check it against the GPS and if they disagree I check both again. The rare times they don't agree its a 50/50 between me getting my lefts and right muddled and the gps being pointed towards somewhere in the middle of china.

Oh and I have twice avoided busting airspace by having the NAV radios setup when a map update had a VOR offset from its proper position.

[007helicopter]

F900 I am sure things get lost in translation. I would agree and of course have nav skills and use them to fly helicopters vfr and without gps but what I am trying to say not very well is that in general I admit virtually all my fixed wing flying I do rely on GPS and suddenly finding a complete failure in a cirrus with only a compass left in IMC would be a challenge I would prefer not to face or to rely on my DR skills in this situation and therefore carry a back up GPS for this very unlikely event.

there is nothing superior about it. I agree it was typo

It was mean't to read that the commercial guys, military and those with an interest in traditional navigation techniques have superior DR skills.

[Fuji Abound]

I was flying back to the UK from Worm - the GPs was a hand held moving map - in fact a Garmin 195 - not so good when the screen packed up, then Nav1 failed and the AI. So the six pack was a 4 and half pack or something like that and there was a strong temptation to duck below the undercast except for those dreaded masts which seem so popular in that part of the world across the low countries. Its flat for as far as the eye can see - why do they need such high masts?

There are times when the old skills are a comfort and your glad you were taught in the old ways.

These days we would pull the chute when the electrics quit completely and the hand held fails, well we might be tempted anyway, even if the engine keeps purring, well at least so long as it is not diesel powered, in which case electrics, avionics and hp go hand in hand. Its progress, but just not as we know it.

[Pace]

007Heli

You have been a devout defender of the Cirrus and all it has to offer and Tend to agree with you up to a point.
There are those who fly and those who have to fly! To be told in the middle of winter that you will collect someone in a twin at 0900 in Inverness and fly them to somewhere in the South of England tends to focus the mind.
If you are a pilot who flies for the pleasure, choose one all singing and dancing aircraft on days you select then your attitude and experience will be very different to those of us who have to.
Those of us who have to may get an all singing and dancing aircraft one day and then some steam driven basic aircraft the next so have to rely on basic skills and knowledge attained through surviving in **** weather where you only have those basic skills and a highly developed situational awareness to guide you through.
When you do get an all singing and dancing aircraft it is a luxury! The systems become a back up to those skills and experience and that is the way it should be! When I see some of these accidents One questions WHY a competent pilot should get into such situations?
That is stating facts not trumpet blowing.

pace

[mad_jock]

And also for us that fly every day it is also quite rare that everything is working. There is always some snag getting worked on.

A mate sent a photo of the deferred defects page on a plane with 35 total landings in the techlog. It had 3 open entrys and it went tech on him that day as well.

[Tinstaafl]

Funny you should write that, Pace. Today I was in a C414 with more magenta lines than I could use at once: Garmin 600, dual Garmin 750s and the like. Saturday night I was co-pilot in a Beechjet 400. Nothing even close to whiz-bang. Even the single GPS is text based. The week before in it I had to use my CR5 whizwheel. <gasp!>

And to follow The furious &/or psychotic Scottish one's comment: Today's trip involved getting through a storm line but without Wx radar and with a failed XM weather downlink. So much for all the toys so....back to the old ways! Mark 1 eyeball, listening to traffic around me, seeking verbal descriptions of ground radar from Flight Service and listening to ATIS/AWOS broadcasts from airports ahead of me to build a mental picture of what was where.

It's very easy for the shiny & wonderful electronics to become crutches, not assistants. I'm firmly in the old curmudgeon camp. Learn & practice on steam. When proficient it's easy to incorporate the toys. Not so going the other way.

[englishal]

It would be a lot less stress though, flying through your storm front in a Falcon 2000 with HUD, and all the gadgets you can imagine. Maybe some people just don't want to fly old dogs of aeroplanes.

I hate vintage aeroplanes. I am not into them at all, and I would rather stay at home than fly a Tiger Moth. Some might call me weird, but I just don't get them. I'd rather fly an Extra than a Spitfire even....

Although I was "classically" trained on steam instruments :) I would prefer a nice modern aeroplane over an old crappy PA28 any day. Our Commander is relatively old, and steam driven, but it has crossed our mind to upgrade to Glass even if it doesn't add any value to the aeroplane, purely for flying enjoyment. In the meantime we have 430Ws, GPS's and iPads to keep us going.....

[Fuji Abound]

Englishal

Me 2.

Flying airways is easy. Its all done for you and if it isnt legs are long and well suited to trad. Nav.

I would still quite like to see some of these old timers navigate around say londons busy airspace ocas. I dont mean point to point but on the fly lets say a surprise circuit of gatwick through mig alley below the 2,500 stub. Make it a real challenge and do it in imc if you like.

Come on, step up, no gps.

[Pace]

Englishal

Think I will put you in touch with the owner of one of the Jets I fly! Its 30+ years old and most half modern club pistons would put her to shame
Everything original steam with wait for it :ugh: a King 90B GPS.
It does the job but is annoying loading by hand 30 odd waypoints for a trans Europe flight.
Weather Radar is also original! Oh for the luxuries of FADEC an FMS a nice MFD but I cannot even get him to upgrade to a Garmin 430 never mind spending $200,000 on decent kit.
As MJ states a lot is workarounds expecting something not to work fully.
But with all that she is RVSM and struggles to FL390 but God do you have to work!
That jet has soul and flying something like her is good for the soul :ok:
Take these Magenta line pilots who need pilot assist here and there and parachute handles if an engine goes bang to compensate for a lack of basic skills stick them in that jet and they would not know where to start!

But yes please ask him nicely for me to cough up $200,000 and I can watch some nice displays! It is coming up to Christmas :E

I would still quite like to see some of these old timers navigate around say londons busy airspace ocas. I dont mean point to point but on the fly lets say a surprise circuit of gatwick through mig alley below the 2,500 stub. Make it a real challenge and do it in imc if you like.

Fuji

Come on most of us have been doing that for 25 years in IMC with 200 cloudbases below in a wide mix of aircraft and kit. Know that airspace back to front! As I said good for the soul.

Fuji what do you do the day you are asked to fly an aircraft which is NOT all singing and dancing through that airspace in IMC? decline because your skills are not up to it without a full box of toys and tricks ? I know in your own particular case your skills are more than up to it toys or no toys :ok:



Pace

[mad_jock]

I am 100% sure that if the HUD wasn't working in the Falcon 2000 or some of the other nice bits of kit and the boss wanted to go somewhere you would be flying or out of a job.

We do have GPS and use it everyday. But we have the get of of jail free card skills as back up and we keep them current even though we have the gizmos as well. Mainly because we do have to use them.

[Fuji Abound]

Fuji what do you do the day you are asked to fly an aircraft which is NOT all singing and dancing through that airspace in IMC? decline because your skills are not up to it without a full box of toys and tricks ? I know in your own particular case your skills are more than up to it toys or no toys http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Pace, yes but even with the skills navigating around the Gatwick zone OCAS in IMC using DR and VORs is going to challenge the skills of most. As you know the airspace is tight. If you can follow roads and its visual nav. its not a problem.

I suppose my point is its one thing to fly airways with a six pack with long(ish) legs and conveniently placed VORs and quite another to fly complicated short legs around southern UK airspace.

[007helicopter]

I did my IMC rating with Steam Gauges in a PA28 around 6 years ago, since I got the Cirrus with its "toys and gizmos" then in actual fact other than helicopters I have not ever flown an aircraft with steam gauge's fixed wing since,unless I get into something strictly VFR then I likely never will.

My skills on steam Gauges I am sure have eroded dramatically but being totally proficient on steam gauges will have little benefit if all the screens go blank in a current Cirrus, the only navigation tool left would be a magnetic compass, I would not fancy IMC around London airspace with just that in IMC or any other airspace.

Old school pilots hats off to you, you had no choice when you learn't and it gives you an added dimension to back up. I also agree also if you fly a whole variety as Pace said you need to be well equipped to handle what you are given and where boss man wants to go.

I do have the luxury of choosing based on my own needs and do fly quite a lot for personal business but invariably and often do cancel due to weather or any other reason and either take an alternative transport or go another day.

I also question anyone's ability to rely on DR in completely foreign airspace, mountains, tight airspace, high workload, stress of the failure, stress or carrying PAX, I am sure it can make for a challenging time and even proficient guys getting overloaded.

Personally I prefer the current modern tools GPS provide, which are reliable and readily available and spend my time getting as competent and proficient as I can with them.

Another point regarding the risk of my attitude I do not recall one Cirrus fatality or accident that was a result of "all the screens going blank"

I am sure however this could and probably has happened to some guys with partial failure if they are not well trained on all the systems.

[mad_jock]

I am sure it can make for a challenging time and even proficient guys getting overloaded.

Yep self bollocking button gets pressed afterwards.

Even a couple of weeks doing visual approaches you loose your edge.

The airframes are all quite young but given time and usage the wiring problems will start occuring.

[englishal]

But yes please ask him nicely for me to cough up $200,000 and I can watch some nice displays! It is coming up to Christmas
Actually, in the days before the Falcon, my buddy was flying a Citation for this rich bloke. It was as you described pretty much, old, and half the avionics were out of date. They left Vegas and in some bad weather they managed to fly pretty much through a thunderstorm as the wx radar wasn't working properly and experienced severe turbulence. This scared the owner so much, that the next day he agreed to a $200,000 avionics upgrade.

I suggest you find a few thunderheads and fly close to them :E

[Pace]

the only navigation tool left would be a magnetic compass,

007Heli

There is one navigation tool you have missed ATC do not forget them ;)

Pace

[007helicopter]

There is one navigation tool you have missed ATC do not forget them

Pace

I was assuming all screens blank, including GNS430's so likely no radio

However the ICOM would give some coverage so fair point.:ok:

[Adrian_B]

Please find enclosed an interesting accident report by the Swiss "NTSB". The pilot of a cirrus SR22 was flying IMC from Geneva to Berlin, when near Berne the alternator failed.

It turned out the pilot did not know very well the systems of the Cirrus SR22, which are only partially redundant. He did not have access to the landing plates of LSZH (Zurich) as they were in the system that was shut down. He failed to alert ATC to his serious situation and the airplane crashed in the last turn before attempting a VFR landing, probably due to a low speed stall.

The Cirrus seems to be a very nice plane, but it is way more complex than a PA28 and you have to know and understand it very well. To revert to the initial question, I doubt that it is the right plane for a fresh PPL pilot, but in the end it is ODAI's call.

I also guess ODAI might need more than just 10 hours to feel confortable on the plane (I remember having trouble adapting to the speed and systems (constant speed propeller, gear, avionics) of a Mooney after having done all my training and hour building on a C152 an PA28).

LINK
http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/2146_e.pdf

[Odai]

Out of interest, what is so difficult about using steam gauges, or transitioning back to them after glass?

After all, it's just another way of presenting the same information. Sometimes the instruments even look visually the same (like a steam DI versus the graphical one on a screen).

Thanks Adrian B for the advice.

[mad_jock]

Its the scans that you have to use with them and the cross referencing the information. Mainly in instrument flying

When you first start out you need to think dot to alt wings to DI where the dot is you pitch refence on the AH and wings is the roll reference for straight and level.

Each manover or phase of flight has its own scan depending whats the important information. After a bit you don't even realise you are doing it. And your eye will take in the required info and your hands and feet will sort it out and give you capacity to think at the same time as well.

The glass is just presented with little requirement to scan and if you do fixate on one instrument the others are within your field of vision.

Once you have the steam scan battered into you its a bit like riding a bike you might be a bit rusty but it soon comes back.

[mary meagher]

Welcome, Adrian B, to the hot steamy topic du jour for Private Prune Flyers. I think you are well qualified to contribute if you transited directly from 152/PA28 to the Mooney, which can give the pilot quite a shock, having been brought up, so to speak, on fairly simple equipment and relatively slow speed.

Thanks, Fuji for mentioning the useful technique of I Follow Roads to avoid the naughty bits round Heathrow, etc. F900EX, you may have misunderstood my use of the term, in fact I did gain the IR, but it now has decayed beyond use. Following roads still works very well.

Fuji, I can very well imagine your feelings in transiting from Worms (well named) under a lowering cloudbase, and wondering why they needed all those humogous ariel installations.... I got lost over France a while back near Tours, in February, trying to fly VFR in a Supercub, getting lower and lower and decided to follow the river into Tours figuring they couldn't construct an ariel in the river. Tours were very kind and welcoming over the VFR, but I did notice a small strip by the river and lobbed into that instead. Survived again.

007heli, you remark that you cannot recall a single fatality or accident in a Cirrus that was the result of ALL the screens going blank....

Actually what goes blank is the pilot's mind.

[007helicopter]

Actually what goes blank is the pilot's mind.

Mary I can vouch for that.

[Fuji Abound]

Thanks Mary.

As to all this talk of glass I think there can be no doubt it is easier to fly with glass than without. It brings together a great deal of our experience of how best to present information to the brain - a bit like safety, its no accident that it is designed in the way it is. ;) One day it will be surpassed by HUDS, we already know these are an even better way of presenting the same information.

In its short life it has become dramatically more reliable. Even at the GA level there is far more redundancy built into Garmin's latest incarnation than the first G1000s I flew with.

Of course it has huge commercial advantage as well. It so much easier and less costly to slip in a couple of glass screens and modular avionics than all the wiring and plumbing that accompany a conventional set up.

I doubt the clock can be turned back, and I doubt anyone is seriously suggesting it should. Of course that doesnt mean there isnt a place for more conventional setups and, just as with cars, I have no doubt some of us will still be attracted to Morgans.

Who would have thought even a few years ago you could buy a standalone AI, all solid state, for under a grand - no mechanical gyros, no vacuums, just a sexy box of modern technology that would reassure any pilot mindful that his AI could wind down at any moment.

but you should understand the technology - or should you? I doubt many do. We all learned how a gyro works - but actually do we really care? We need to approach how we train pilots to fly technology differently. It is in this respect little has changed between today and yester year. In the example previously given the screens failed and with it the pilot found he couldn't access the plates. Well the pilot was no worse off than any other pilot flying any aircraft. Have you never been "caught out" not having the correct plate? Isnt it still a luxury to have a fully functioning AI, whether or not the glass has failed? There is nothing in that scenario that hinders the pilot making a well organised approach, other than being able to overcome his sense of panic that the glass screens no longer work. It is basic training, and if the pilot cannot fly the aircraft with a functioning AI and a functioning radio then something has fundamentally gone wrong with the training - it has nothing to do with whether there are two black glass screens, six dials or a handle in the ceiling. It has everything to do with "what would you do if the screens go black", "what would you do if the electrics fail", "what would you do if you want to land some where but the pax has spoiled the plate with the coffee or something worse".

My other issue is checklists - why do we have them? Well they do become even more important with glass. There is no doubt that were you to fully understand the inter relationship between the various systems you systems knowledge would need to be extensive - but why reinvent the wheel? If you get an annunciation that the fans have failed on the avionics stack do you expect the radios will cook themselves and fail? However thorough your knowledge of the systems are you really likely to know the answer? Indeed should you land at the very earliest opportunity in case a fire results? No, your best bet is to know how to immediately put your hands on the check list, how to find the relevant section and how to follow the prescribed action. In the aftermath the first thing the "investigators" will ask you is - "did you go to the check list"? Would you have gone to the checklist?

[mad_jock]

There was an article in GASCO which mentioned a study in I think in Austrialia which found that the there is an increased risk of an accident on both landing and departure using glass. It was something to do with the brain being able to process a rate of rotation of a needle better than a strip moving in high stress situations.

[ford cortina]

Regarding the Zurich crash and lack of plates.
A training Captain once told me that if you dont have the plates, all you need is this: a heading to fly and Frequency, with that you can almost fly any ILS or even a VOR. It's just a bit of maths. (3 degree glide, 9 miles out be at 3000 feet, similar with the VOR, if you can ask ATC for elevation you can even set 200 baro)
I know Zurich well, we used to fly in there at least 3 times a week. It can be a bit tricky, shame he did not talk to ATC,.

To be honest Glass is such a nice thing to have, having flown the 737-800, I loved it. Of course the Cirrus's avionics is far more complex than that.

Seeing there are a lot of partial glass 737's and other aircraft out there, I should know I fly one, it makes common sense to train in a basic steam gauge aircraft.

[phiggsbroadband]

Hi, even if there is no loss of power to the glass panels, there is still the problem that you loose the Nav page when looking at the Checklists page.

I suffered the equivalent in a steam gauge C172, when I ripped my right shoulder muscles whilst retrieving the Pooleys Flight Guide from the back seats. It made it a bit painfull to fly a two handed landing.

[ford cortina]

With the greatest of respect Phiggsbroadband, should you not have one hand on the throttle (we use Thrust Levers) on approach and landing?

[mary meagher]

nahh, Cortina, just set the throttle correctly, speed, attitude, floats touch down and there you are....o yes, that's for water, isn't it?

Fuji poses the question, have you ever been caught out without the right plate?

Coming back from Texas in a 172, with a passenger, very late at night, so stopped in Mobile to top up the fuel. That was the good move. Eases the mind to know you have a few hours in the tank. Because as we sailed along, bound for Gainsville, and then Saint Pete, Jacksonville enroute spoke up and told me that Gainsville was down in fog. How about Lake City? Sorry, that's down in fog too. What about returning to Mobile. Very sorry, that is also down in fog!

Fortunately my passenger was sound asleep and not listening to the conversation.

"Tallahassee is still open, with scattered and broken." Well, I replied, I don't have the approach plates, so could you give me a vector? Yes, said Jacksonville, but when you go below 5,000' you are below my radar.....

O well. Lead me to Talahassee, I replied and I will have a look. So he did, and lo, when we were directly overhead (this was 2 am EST) there was a gap in the clouds, and there directly below was the airport, and it was all lit up!
So just like returning from towing up a glider, we dove down through that hole in the cloud, as Tallahassee Tower had confirmed no known traffic, and learned later that this was the first time they had gone to all night operation and fuel was available! And there was a real live met man, in his little office with all his latest gen. He guaranteed that Saint Pete would be clear, so we flew in the moonlight, over a sea of fog like milk, and sure enough at dawn, the clouds parted and we brought the 172 safely back to the flying club.

I love flying at night in America!

[007helicopter]

Well, I replied, I don't have the approach plates, so could you give me a vector?

Mary as a back up do you use an IPAD? ForeFlight Mobile for iPad & iPhone (http://www.foreflight.com/ipad/) have an incredible app for the USA for peanuts. Plates - Sectionals - weather an loads more, probably one of the best aviation apps I have used.

[englishal]

Fuji poses the question, have you ever been caught out without the right plate?
Oh yea! IFR to VFR on top clearance to Catalina Island in a steam driven Seminole with no GPS. Expecting VFR at about 4k, so left all the plates in the back (apart from departure field and IFR chart). VFR never transpired, no way could I reach them but decided to continue IFR to see if VFR transpired as it was forecast. Started shooting the approach from memory, and luckily had VFR conditions before minimums.

Went back IFR all the way with the plates up front ;) ILAF(ifr)FT!!

[mary meagher]

Sorry, 007, I'm obsolete altother, have to fly with a safety pilot now. Wouldn't know what to do with an app....

[phiggsbroadband]

By two handed, I meant one on the stick and one on the throttle / Flaps.

[007helicopter]

BTW Mary your love night flying in America motivated me to book my instructor for a thorough night workout next week to get me back and current as I have been tending to avoid night flying for a couple of years.

Thanks for that.

[Fuji Abound]

It is such a shame night flying in the UK is so difficult.

It is really hard to find any where to go, always assuming you can get back. Why oh why cant more places close at an almost sensible time - 8 pm wouldn't be too bad - I know, cost, planning and pilots cant be trusted to operate the runway lights.

I recall my first rip at night in the States to Merritt Island from Miami.

What time do you close - says I,

Close says he - what do you mean,

Well, says I, I need to know the latest time I can arrive,

Ah, a Brit, says he, we don't close, we are happy to see you at 2 am if you like, but there probably will not be anyone else here,

So I did, and there wasn't.

Magic.

[taybird]

Fuji - last night you could have chosen from Sywell, Coventry, Conington, Cambridge, Leicester and East Midlands Airport, at least until 8pm. On top of that, at least three of those airfields have on site restaurants. That's just in one small part of the country. I'm sure there are others closer to you.

[Fuji Abound]

Taybird - yes, and that is pleasing to see.

However, lets be frank 8 pm is not exactly late, and for many the assumption is their "home" airport doesn't close earlier - not a lot of point going somewhere if you cant go back.

I fully understand that many fly for the pure pleasure of flying - I have no bone to pick with those that do, but I have got to the point of liking a purpose. I would prefer not to partake in the usual burger run (although I still do on occasion).

Still its the way it is, I just accept that nearly everything is closed by 8 or earlier. :bored:

[mad_jock]

There is you lot wanting to fly at night.

Heres me that hasn't done a day landing in a month and a half (80 plus landings). Northern lights is quite pretty though ;)

H'mm another month and a half and I will be outside 90day day landings :p

[taybird]

Why oh why cant more places close at an almost sensible time - 8 pm wouldn't be too bad

And you said 8pm wouldn't be too bad!

[007helicopter]

He guaranteed that Saint Pete would be clear, so we flew in the moonlight, over a sea of fog like milk, and sure enough at dawn, the clouds parted and we brought the 172 safely back to the flying club.

I love flying at night in America!

Thanks Mary Meagher, your post touched a nerve with me in that I have never been very confident at night flying, your post reminded me to get on with it and get current again, I have a rather under used rating.

Anyway moved the Aircraft to Biggin which closes 9.00pm, Booked a Cirrus Instructor for 2 days and managed to log around 7 hours with him, 2 trips to france, 10 instrument approaches at night, 12 plus night landings, a far bit of interesting weather and I am now current and much more confident at night.

A nice trip to Cambridge tonight for a few extra ILS practices and further night landings and I feel back where I should be so thanks again for that post that jabbed me in the ribs.......

[mary meagher]

Thank you for your kind words, 007, and well done on renewing your practice and confidence. In these northern climes there is a lot more night than day this time of year, and having the rating renewed helps you to relax when the flight plan gets a bit unstuck.

Once long ago, when newly night rated at Booker, I was taking a lad up in a glider over High Wycombe. It was his 16th birthday. We found lift at twilight over the city, oozing warmth it was, so we stayed there and enjoyed it, he was thrilled. My plan B was to plonk in on the power side at Wycombe Air Park if it was too dark to land on the gliding side, but didn't need the diversion, as the loom of the ground was sufficient, just with the ambient light.

I was quite surprised to notice that the instruments in the glider glowed in the dark! Gliders don't usually fly at night, but if the wind is on the ridge, you could stay up all night ....displaying of course the required red light on the tail.....