cirrus sr22

[Fuji Abound]

Sternone

I was warming to some of your points. I appreciate you are also having some fun so I suspect some of your comments are tongue in cheek. However while you are ahead stay there - your last post was just silly.

vanHorck

Well Garmin and Avidyne (the two main players in the certified market) take different views - excuse the pun. Each uses essentially modular systems so more often than not it is one module than fails. For example I have had the DI fail on a G1000, box 1 fail etc. It no different really to when that component fails in your six pack. The whole system is driven by a central processor and I guess in theory this could fail including all its back up modes. In the same way a screen could fail. Garmin overcame thise by enabling the pilot to transfer the PDF to the MDF so you should only be without the key instruments if both displays fail. Avidyne did not employ this approach (at least until their latest upgrade) so if the PDF fails there is no mechanism to paint that information on the MDF. Similarly both initially used a single solid state gyro - if it fails you are without the AI, but then again how many light aircraft have dual AIs.

Things have moved on and Garmin and Avidyne in their latest offerings emplys dual gyros, interchangeable screens and other technology to improve redundancy.

If it should all die on you for certification anything with glass will have a compass, an electrical or vac gyro, and a ASI enough to get you down perhaps with a hand held GPS in your flight bag.

[IO540]

An LCD has a huge single point of failure - the LCD driver, and (if applicable) the backlight and its inverter.

Most laptop or flat panel display failures I have seen were in the LCD backlight or the driver, and the loss of use was total. In fact I don't recall ever seeing any other kind of LCD failure.

Obviously, a failure in the OAT sensor or its interface will still affect just that one feature - same as with conventional avionics.

The are ample stories of the whole glass system crashing and resetting, and one of them (Avidyne I think) was at one stage not resettable during flight. Stuff like that will contribute to depreciation once the word gets around...

Glass cockpits were a huge opportunity to solve the main reliability killers in avionics - moisture and vibration - but neither have been addressed. The first one was wasted by having ventilation slots in the main box (because they didn't design the thing for low enough power; another story) and the other was wasted by generally commercial construction. So I don't think that long term reliability (10 years plus) will be any better than old style avionics (ignoring old style avionics that were truly crap anyway, e.g. Narco, and some other stuff that is simply a crap design, like a certain autopilot I know about ). And one will have more eggs in one basket. The best bit is that only an authorised dealer can repair the stuff, because Garmin etc are keeping the manuals very close. They learnt a lesson from the freely distributed PDFs which ended up all over the internet and which enabled every street corner freelance avionics man to fix the old stuff. Can't do that with the new stuff. It's a flight back to RGV or whatever, every time. The same old avionics shop line: "Drop in to us, Sir, and we will have a look at it". £300 for the trip, plus hotel, etc. Great stuff. That's why I prefer separates (not necessarily steam gauges; just individual removable electronics like e.g. a Sandel EHSI) because one can order an exchange unit and do a field swap, with zero downtime and zero flying around to dealers.

[paulp]

IO540 -

Good general analysis of Cirrus depreciation forces. However, I can add detail on some of your coments. As for traveling to get to a service center, this is really a warranty issue. Cirrus will only back the warranty when a service center does the work. Avidyne reliability improved over the years but was never some big huge problem. What does contribute to issues on the Cirrus is that there is a lot of stuff. This is true of all of the newer aircraft loaded with lots of goodies.

Failing LCD's hasn't been a big deal AFIK on either Perspective or Entegra. Entegra has had issues with the SSD getting corrupted on the ground during data updates resulting in MFD (not PFD) loss until the SSD could be replaced. R9 now has a much more robust structure with different pieces of data compartmentalized better. R9 screens use 3 rows of LED's and drivers for tripple redundancy per screen. Each display (PFD & MFD) are actually identical so the MFD can be turned into a PFD. Garmin G1000 resets in flight better than Entegra although both will reset. This has to do with the AI only with a conventional AI as backup in the plane. Newer units reset better in flight including Entegra units upgraded to R7. As far as reliability I will put a newer all electric cockpit up against a vacuum pump based system any day. G1000 and Avidyne R9 have moved to line replacable units (LRU's) to aid in an AOG situation. Similarly, R9 and I think G1000 store configuration data separate from the box itself in a module on the cable assembly. That means when a box is swapped it is already configured just by doing a read of the settings. In my plane I have dual air data computers, dual AHRS, an additional bolster mounted backup airspeed, altimeter and electric AI all on dual electrical busses with dual batteries and dual alternators. Oh yeah, I have dual GPS units and 2 dual channel radios. I suspect the pilot will break the plane before the avionics do.

The drawbacks I see with glass involve tapes vs. round gauges. That takes getting used to and I don't think it draws your attention as quickly as the position of a hand on a dial not being correct.
Something due to Cirrus that I do think is a big advance is the wide AI instead of the little imitation of a standard mechanical AI done prior to Entegra. Cirrus (specifically Alan Klapmeier) pushed for it. It allows peripheral vision to better pick up an attitude change.
As far as relaibility there are certainly gauge wiring issues on the 2002 era planes although most are fixed now.

I so rarely see Cirruses having done long trips;

Not true in the US. A major part of the use profile in the US is the long cross country and a lot of the European owners I know fly long trips. I like looking at FlightAware > Aircraft Type This shows aircraft in the US ATC system. That is a good indicator of poor weather and long cross country use by type. When you consider the number of each type registered in the US, this gives a good indicator of the extent to which the plane is used for long cross country and bad waether flying. This relates to the average risk profile each type is exposed to. For example there are way more C182's registered than SR22's. More Mooneys have been made than SR22's.

If you look here you can get an idea of trip length. Do this for different times of day remembering the time difference and different days of the week and it is interesting.

sternone

The BRS is a false safety argument, the fatal numbers of the Cirrus fleet proves that. With all their safety items they should be the safest, and they are the worse.

Now there you go again saying things that aren't true. Cirrus is far from the worst and is similar to Mooney and Bonanza. I agree the record should be better. I have thought long and hard about that and all I can figure out is that it is the pilot and the mission rather than the plane itself that dominates. The airspeed limit is 133 kts IAS and it has worked far above that. It did fail on a deployment at close to 300 kts.

Justiciar -

You pose an interesting safety question regarding glass cockpits. The problem is that as capability increases people increase their missions till they hit their risk level. Their are studies on this subject. In some ways the safest plane might be one with no GPS (encourages off airway trips), no VOR (concept of airways like highways encourages long trips and use like a car for travel), AI (encourages flight into clouds) ... If you fly only in the pattern at a little used airport and only do it on sunny days you can make flying safer. Glass cockpits tend to come with a lot of stuff that encourages an expansion of the missions flown in the plane.

I agree that dirt cheap air travel has removed some of the romance of GA. As for marketing to non-GA people, Cessna used to sell the Land-O-Matic gear on the 182 and talk about it being almost as easy as driving a car.

[IO540]

paulp

I agree generally but there is a world of difference between the support network in the USA and the one in Europe. Don't even get me started with some very specific examples between how Socata USA has to look after its customers out there, versus over here

I also agree re warranty issues affecting things greatly, and yes one ends up going back to the dealer. Not because one legally must (that would be illegal in Europe) but because a 3rd party maint firm will have "a challenge" extracting money from the factory..... and also won't have the expertise to do much beyond draining the oil. Warranty issues remain a big issue and it is quite normal for in-warranty owners to threaten litigation at least once.

As far as reliability I will put a newer all electric cockpit up against a vacuum pump based system any day.

So would I, but that is a poor example. Most 'modern' pre-glass cockpits are nearly all electric. In my 2002 TB I have just one vac instrument: the main AI (KI-256). I'd get rid of it in a flash, but there is no (legal) means which doesn't have a pile of drawbacks, huge cost, and new complexity (like installing a G500/600 and a substantial backup battery). A dual alternator system has no excuse for not having total redundancy.

[Justiciar]

Glass cockpits tend to come with a lot of stuff that encourages an expansion of the missions flown in the plane.

Yes, that was one of the points I was trying to make, probably badly. My general concern is that mentally the glass PFD may be seen by some as a substitute for basic airmanship and that however nice and modern the avionics look they do nothing to enhance the capabilities and limitations of the airframe. For this reason some may be tempted to fly beyond their or the aircraft's limitations.

The other issue is the complexity of the systems and here I have no direct knowledge. However, I do get the impression that the all glass PFD along with the current certified GPSs can amount to considerable extra work load in certain circumstances. OK, this can be addressed to a degree by the amount of training a pilot is given or prepared to undertake, but when the proverbial hits the fan we all know how easy it is to become mentally overloaded and for performance to drop. Again, perhaps a contributory factor? Aircraft with complex systems on public transport flights have two pilots for a reason!

[IO540]

I'd say there is a gradual progression whereby each bit of additional automation reduces pilot workload.

Nothing does as much as an autopilot. But even then it is a pilot workload issue. I would not depart of any significant flight if the AP was duff, but once got a failure on the way to Greece and had to fly by hand most of the way there and then all the way back. It was not an issue but one cannot easily take pictures, have a pee, mess around, etc. The flight is still safely possible, of course, but it isn't fun anymore. I was lucky on that one - had a passenger who could hold the wings level, etc.

And in difficult IFR conditions, a lack of an AP could push a less than current pilot outside what he can handle. Some PT ops require an AP for this reason - even those pilots are gold plated ATPLs with a medical every week it is recognised they are not superhuman and the pilot workload reduction is a vital safety improver.

I think too many pilots do fly without a proper systems understanding, but this has always been the case. I recall talking to one pilot who thought a VP prop was driven through a variable-ratio gearbox Now we have the same at a higher level - pilots who fly with a G1000 and don't know what most of the features do. This was just as possible with a GNS530 for example but there is a difference: the 530 was probably flown by the owner who probably did read the manual, whereas a G1000 could likely be in a DA40 flown by a renter.

I don't think an IFR GPS is extra work as such. One loads the route before the flight, but (especially if one has an AP) one can do this during the flight too. The level of pilot interaction with a GPS enroute is really minimal. The real problem would be if one didn't understand it and tried to work something out when airborne.

[Fuji Abound]

Yes, I guess glass does encourage pilots to take on trips they might otherwise not - but is that such a bad thing?

The reality is that most pilot's basic navigation skills are poor or very poor. They are nervous about flying any distance and infringing CAS or not finding their destination. They are nervous about entering the circuit incorrectly or wrongly identifying the active runway.

If glass solves some of those concerns it is not a bad thing at all.

In IF conditions it massively simplifies flying an IP or ID or just generally flying the route accurately. Once again I would hazard this is no bad thing.

It may encourage some pilots to set off in conditions which are marginal - the typical non instrument pilot flying in conditions close to IMC. That is I think a genuine concern albeit I suspect this has more to do with the belief that the auto pilot will handle the flying rather than taking comfort in the glass.

In fact I think the systems are very simple for a VFR flight. I can barely think of any combination of buttons you could press that would result in a problem or would need cause the pilot concern. Almost whatever you do the basic information remains on the display.

Using the system for IF is a different matter. The test is having set up for an arrival at a particular destination can you reprogram the system in flight to change the destiantion and set up a new IA ending on an ILS. There are plenty of opportunities in my opinion to get the system into a "loop" and become over involved with twisting and pushing in an effort to sort things out. The only answer for this is to really know the system in side out - IMHO you should not be flying glass in IMC unless you are really comfortable with all the systems.

[IO540]

At the extreme, I would not fly at all (except a trivial local jolly down the coast) without GPS. It takes just one little c*ockup (forget to restart the stopwatch, etc) and bang there you are in CAS, and the CAA won't give you any credit for doing things the proper WW2 way...

Above that, there is going to be a progression.

Obviously, better data presentation will expand the mission capability. Not the raw technical one (only stuff like de-ice equipment can do that) but the one at which the pilot feels comfortable.

In the same way, a BRS chute would expand my mission capability because I would not need to worry as much about overflying large forests or mountains. A 2nd engine is probably better (though I would be suprised if the total fatal stats support that, because it is so easy to get killed in a twin at low speeds) but it costs an awful lot of money, ongoing.

I don't think many people are happy talking about a BRS chute expanding mission capability but it must have that effect, and IMHO legitimately so because so much is down to personal attitude to risk.

[007helicopter]

I so rarely see Cirruses having done long trips;
Not true in the US

10540 that did surprise me you say that, I know you fly long trips and so does virtually every Cirrus owner I know in the UK and the rest of Europe.

Regarding Glass or Steam guages I think for me it took it a good 50 hours to get reasonably comfortable with the glass and while I know there is still a lot to learn with the GNS 430's and other kit I feel very comfortable after about 200 hours and would not feel confident with going back to traditional gauges without some serious re training and practice, I guess it is just whatever you get used to.

[421C]

pilots who fly with a G1000 and don't know what most of the features do. This was just as possible with a GNS530 for example but there is a difference: the 530 was probably flown by the owner who probably did read the manual, whereas a G1000 could likely be in a DA40 flown by a renter.

I think you have it the wrong way around. Plenty of rental aircraft have GNS430s but I bet you can't find a G1000 aircraft for rent anywhere that doesn't require a reasonably involved ground and flight training course before someone with no G1000 experience could rent. I think the G1000 pilots "who don't know what most of the features do" is a forum myth, except perhaps the bottom layer of non-essential features, which is fair enough.

I've just been flying a G1000 WAAS + GFC700 C182 in the USA, doing LPV approaches etc. There's no comparison with a legacy panel. None. IO, I know you'd want to remove a G1000 and put a multi-box legacy panel in, but I think you might be about the only guy on the planet who would!
brgds
421C

[Fuji Abound]

I bet you can't find a G1000 aircraft for rent anywhere that doesn't require a reasonably involved ground and flight training course before someone with no G1000 experience could rent.

I would agree for VFR but disagree for IMC. You need very little training for VFR and I know of one school where that is exactly what you get - its enough, but not enough for IFR/IMC.

[sternone]

It's clear that the Cirrus marketing is aimed for the non-pilot and especially his wife. That's the reason the BRS is there.

[Fuji Abound]

Sternone

It is clear you have raised some good questions but also you have had a little fun.

I am going to leave you to it now.

[IO540]

Well, I can think of a whole airport where one can't (AFAIK) rent anything with a GNSx30 (a proper IFR installation I mean, with a full working AP etc) but (as Fuji says) one can rent a DA40/42 with a G1000 with minimal VFR training.

Also, I've just been reading some stuff on GPS/AP integration for LPV approaches, and it does get a bit tacky because the GPS has to fake an ILS glideslope for the benefit of the AP, etc. Maybe integrated avionics (with an integrated AP, which means Garmin unless Avidyne get their act together) will be the norm by the time we get them and they are operationally relevant.

421C - I know you are lucky to be based where you can get all such bits sorted while you wait If I was based there, I'd no doubt have different views. But I am out in the sticks, with close to zero local support, yet I like to fly occassional trips to the far corners of avgas availability. And sleep at night. This is possible only by a careful choice of which cowboy's hardware one flies behind. The operational aspects of our respective mission profiles are different

[sternone]

Fuji, yes, I love these kind of discussions, let's hope Cirrus makes a better plane out of it.

It seems to be very hard for some Cirrus lovers to accept that there are problems with their lovely bird.

[paulp]

In the same way, a BRS chute would expand my mission capability because I would not need to worry as much about overflying large forests or mountains.

Gutsy comment. I find the biggest comfort for me is when flying over low IFR i.e. clouds down to the deck..

Regarding glass cockpits a hard thing for me to adjust to was that you couldn't set the horizon line like on a conventional AI. Instead the PFD represents the pitch relative to the horizon as you would view it looking outside.

I think glass is undergoing a transition from counting features to making things easier. R9 is much simpler than the older Entegra/Garmin 430W setup.

[MichaelJP59]

Also, I've just been reading some stuff on GPS/AP integration for LPV approaches, and it does get a bit tacky because the GPS has to fake an ILS glideslope for the benefit of the AP, etc. Maybe integrated avionics (with an integrated AP, which means Garmin unless Avidyne get their act together) will be the norm by the time we get them and they are operationally relevant.

Not sure of the terminology, but once that's achieved would one have in effect a mini-Airbus where you could switch AP on after take-off and only re-take manual control below decision height on the approach? Or could you even auto-land

[IO540]

You can do that today, almost.

If I had GPSS enabled (4 wires to connect, and a simple AP config change) I could fly a whole route hands-off. All the way to the end of the ILS glideslope (well below 100ft, I can tell you). No vertical nav of course; that implies an auto throttle system.

Autoland however requires a radar altimeter, and some software Not to mention an auto throttle...

[Fuji Abound]

I have flown several routes with four or five legs from 200 feet to 200 feet on the autopilot alone without touching the the flying controls once (other than the power lever). [Of course I mean in the sim in case anyone wants to be pedantic about the height at which the autopilot was connected / disconnected ]

[paulp]

Not sure of the terminology, but once that's achieved would one have in effect a mini-Airbus where you could switch AP on after take-off and only re-take manual control below decision height on the approach? Or could you even auto-land

This is where things are headed. If you look at doing an LPV approach with a Gramin 430W/Stec 55X combo there is a lot of back and forth mode switching. Also, the first part of the missed is completely by hand. You don't remove the SUSP until you can go direct to the next waypoint. By contrast, Entegra R9 does all of the mode switching for you. It also understands the initial part of the missed (fly runway heading till at xxxx altitude then...). Currently, other than the glideslope portion, altitude and climb are manually entered. Once the DFC100 digital AP is available I will have vertical navigation i.e. I will be able to enter crossing altitudes into the FMS and have the AP fly them including all approach altitudes. At the moment the approach altitudes show up in the FMS on the waypoints and on the map display but are advisory only due to AP limitations.