Cirrus SR20 deploys ballistic parachute near Banbury

[Contacttower]

I think the training program that Cirrus has come up with is probably pretty good. TAA at Denham for example do it. What probably happened in this case was that the instructor, despite being Cirrus certified did not cover everything he should have.

Now I will be the first to admit to on occasion flying aircraft usually as a one off on holiday for example with autopilots that I did not completely understand (which I would generally avoid using as a consequence) but I would have thought that after the number of hours on type this guy had he would have known the system pretty well.

[Pace]

When i started flying we had NDBs and VORs when RNAV came out it seemed a luxury to be able to place a VOR on your track. The USA had Loran we had Decca.

Taking the latest cirrus it not only has sophisticated GPS but items which should equal safety. Ie the chute, auto wing levelers, Night view terrain mapping, weather mapping etc.

All commendable BUT will the terrain mapping mean that pilots will drop lower in cloud into their destination field because they can see the terrain on a flat screen?

Will they reduce their minima at night?

Will they do a whole host of things which took skill withouit those skills because they are flying a flight sim?

I fully support items which save pilots but we have to also be aware of the negatives of those safety items.

Pace

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by Pace

When i started flying we had NDBs and VORs when RNAV came out it seemed a luxury to be able to place a VOR on your track. The USA had Loran we had Decca.

Taking the latest cirrus it not only has sophisticated GPS but items which should equal safety. Ie the chute, auto wing levelers, Night view terrain mapping, weather mapping etc.

All commendable BUT will the terrain mapping mean that pilots will drop lower in cloud into their destination field because they can see the terrain on a flat screen?

Will they reduce their minima at night?

Will they do a whole host of things which took skill withouit those skills because they are flying a flight sim?

I fully support items which save pilots but we have to also be aware of the negatives of those safety items.

Pace

So are you saying that because somebody might mis employ the technology we should not teach them how to use the aircrafts fitted equipment ?

To me that makes no sense. What does IMO make sense is to realize that a wholistic training program that teaches how to fully utilize the aircrafts capabilities while ensuring that the technologies benefits and the risks are fully understood.

[Pace]

Big Pistons

I am not saying that at all and I am fully for the safety equiptment fitted to Cirrus aircraft! I am all for developments which increase safety but with that extra safety comes confidence and maybe add the word misplaced?

Design a car with crash structures, airbags etc etc etc and then fit a car with high explosives fitted to each corner of the car.

Which driver will be more cautious? the one with explosives fitted on each corner or the one fitted with safety devices?

Something is not working if the accident stats are high on such safety equipt aircraft and that needs to be addressed.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

With many hundreds of sr22 hours let me put a few things straight. The cirrus is a delight to hand fly for long periods, it is a sound ifr platform yes with good aileron authority but nothing more. As an ifr platform it feels a lot more stable than most I have flown. It is as quick as most any singles and does require more careful speed management during the approach but the skills required are not exceptional and wellin with the grasp of the average pilot. IMO there is little between the g1000 and the avidyne, I think the avidyne is slightly more intuitive. As to the chute it is there for everyone, we each dance on a different pin, a fool might fall too easily but a sky god may be equally grateful one day; for that reason I would far rather it was there than not. For the same reason I Stick with the raft even if it may lull some into taking on ortac in February without good luck to them but I will remain grateful for stacking the odds slightly in my favour should I ever be unfortunate enough to be grateful

[rasti121]

I'm no EASA expert on FCL etc but doesn't the word 'complex' figure? And if so would a Cirrus be a prime candidate?

SGC

I'm no expert either but I don't think Cirrus would qualify here - it has a fixed gear, but I think this is FAA rule. As far as I remember JAA Air Law, type rating for aircraft is created "as deemed required by the Authority" - wild card to justify anything as much as I'm concerned.

[IO540]

EASA "complex" is

5700kg+
19 seats+
multi engine turboprop
turbojet

It's a finger-up to America (which advantages Socata and Pilatus over e.g. Beech) but a Cirrus is definitely non complex

Somebody needs to tackle the avionics training issue. It's a bit of a hot potato, and we need to be careful what we wish for in what is already a grotesquely and obscenely over-regulated business with massive barriers to entry and constant barriers to climb thereafter.

Let's say you bring in exams on avionics, into the PPL. If they are anything like the JAA IR ones, they will be 20 years obsolete on content and full of irrelevant garbage, and everybody will be swatting them from the question banks. So a dumb but determined pilot will still get through.

This is not the RAF.

[Contacttower]

Somebody needs to tackle the avionics training issue.

Indeed. So many instructors I have had, whether it be from a basic engine analyzer to the G1000 have seemly not had a total grasp of how they worked...and they are usually the ones meant to be checking people out in these planes!

[FlyingStone]

Originally Posted by Big Pistons Forever

So for example if you are A VFR only pilot in a technoloically advanced aircraft and inadvertantly get into cloud the first thing you should do is turn on the autopilot in heading and alt hold mode. The aircraft will fly straight and level (straight because you have been taught to always set the heading bug on to your current course) while you asses the situation and then initiate a turn towards the nearest VMC. This would obviously be the last part of a trained response that wouldl start with the pilot decision making to not get into IMC in the first place.

Good suggestion, provided you know the aircraft and the autopilot system. I know a guy (no instrument training excepts basics during PPL) who, when avoiding clouds at low-level engaged autopilot to reduce workload. What he forgot to do is check what the autopilot was set to before it was engaged - it was direct to a waypoint almost 90° off present track and rate of climb 1500fpm. Few seconds later he found himself in IMC, busting CAS and with speed way below what it should be in climb - all at once. This is just one example why autopilot isn't substitute for situational awareness, it is merely a way to eliminate handling of an aircraft (not flying!).

I think the problem with ultra-capable (compared to an average spamcan) piston aircraft, such as SR22 & co. is that owners/pilots tend to have a greater confidence in their instrument flying, since they have all the "toys" (FD, two-axis AP, altitude preselect, EHSI, RMI, ...), even if they've had no real instrument training. Having all the toys helps you jack if you don't know how to usem them properly and when to use them.

[Mark1234]

Hmm. For a slightly different perspective, I'm inclined to feel that the type specific training isn't really the issue here, rather a more basic prioritisation issue - we always refer to the old saw of 'aviate, navigate, communicate' in this case it seems that our pilot forgot to do the aviate part and allowed himself to be distracted by unnecessary systems.

With respect to 'unnecessary' - I appreciate that's a personal view, and somewhat role dependent: If I were flying single pilot IFR, I would take the time to understand the autopilot and all it's modes. I don't fly IFR, and it seemed neither did our accident pilot - I don't understand why autopilot proficiency is a must. If you hire, sometimes the a/c has an autopilot, sometimes it doesn't. If it does, I don't consider its presence. Nothing I do VFR requires an autopilot. While I understand the benefit of the autopilot *IF* you're proficient in it's use, if I was to enter IMC, the last place my attention would go is some esoteric bit of kit I don't understand. Scan, and a steady 180 turn. Should be pretty basic?

[thing]

Speaking as a complete novice I really can't understand anyone flying an a/c without knowing how everything works in that a/c. There's stuff on the a/c I fly that isn't strictly necessary for a VFR flyer like me but I make damn sure I know how it all works. It doesn't take a second to download the manufacturers 'Here's what all the shiny lights and buttons do' stuff. I do have a slight advantage in that I spent decades as an avionics eng so everythings the same but different, but it shouldn't take that long for an a/c engineering virgin to get their head around what the knobs do.

The other thing I can't understand is why anyone wouldn't want to know, isn't it all part of aviation to know how your systems work or are there really people that dumb that share the sky with me?

[rasti121]

EASA "complex" is

5700kg+
19 seats+
multi engine turboprop
turbojet

It's a finger-up to America (which advantages Socata and Pilatus over e.g. Beech) but a Cirrus is definitely non complex

I can see some European Cirrus Jet "depositors"

Good luck navigating those legal murky waters...

[Pace]

Fuji I am far from an expert on Cirrus and probably have less than 15 hrs on the aircraft. The aircraft we flight tested was an early 22.
I do not remember the figures but do remember that roll rates from 45 degrees bank left and right were close on the Firefly.
Hardly a mooney for IMC flight. Time it yourself and then compare to something like a mooney ?
Regardless as an e experienced Cirrus pilot what's your explanation for the accidents ?

Pace

[A and C]

I just can't understand why anyone on these forums should be so stupid as to ask for more regulation, Cirrus a complex type ! Only an idiot would think so.

The Cirrus could be flown VFR using only the compass and a map so there is little need to evoke yet more stupid rules and I see most of the calls for more training coming from this with a vested interest in providing that training.

[dublinpilot]

All this talk about systems and knowledge of the AP, yet I read the report and keep asking myself if the pilot was intensionally flying in IMC, and thought the AP was engaged.

I find it difficult to believe that someone would take their eyes fully inside to reprogram their gps system, if they were in VMC and the VMC was deteriating to such a point that they'd decided to return to their departure. In such conditions a VFR only pilot's priority would always be to stay out of IMC if at all possible, which isn't consistant with letting the AP manage the turn while you program the GPS.

If they really were in VMC, I'm pretty sure that they'd at least be looking outside every 5 seconds to make sure they don't go into IMC. When weather is this bad, you usually are working very hard to stay in VMC while figuring your way to where you want to go. I can't imagine anyone leaving that to the AP and expecting to be in VMC for very long.

I really wonder if they were intensionally in IMC, and the mistake they made was thinking that they'd engaged the AP, when in fact they handn't, and then needed to come up with an excuse to explain the circumstances.

Am I reading too much between the lines?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Speaking as a complete novice I really can't understand anyone flying an a/c without knowing how everything works in that a/c.

I sometimes fly a 172 with G1000. I know how about 2% of it works. Does that mean I shouldn't be flying it? - I can use the basic flight instruments, the radios, the transponder, the VOR and ADF and ILS and GPS, but there's vast amounts of it still unknown. Are you really saying that nobody should fly such an aircraft until they know all 487 different ways of inputting a waypoint?

(Don't worry, I won't be trying an instrument approach in IMC on my own until I've learned another 2% or so.)

[Rod1]

I fly a state of the art machine with EFIS, computer controlled prop etc etc and I probably use 30% of the functionality and understand another 30%. No AP though.

Rod1

[IO540]

I sometimes fly a 172 with G1000. I know how about 2% of it works. Does that mean I shouldn't be flying it? - I can use the basic flight instruments, the radios, the transponder, the VOR and ADF and ILS and GPS, but there's vast amounts of it still unknown. Are you really saying that nobody should fly such an aircraft until they know all 487 different ways of inputting a waypoint?

No, but you should understand its full functionality to the extent applicable to your privileges, which are (e.g.) VFR. So yes you do need to know how to enter a flight plan, for example, and the different autopilot modes.

Otherwise, you get people fiddling with knobs trying to work out what they do, engaging the autopilot only to find it is holding a constant VS of "zero" instead of holding altitude (a subtle difference which bites you nice and slowly), etc.

I know you can fly your spaceship on a map, compass and stopwatch, but nobody (apart from some pilot forum personalities) is actually going to be doing that.

Consider yourself lucky you are in "dumb pilot" JAA-land. If you were in FAA-land, the examiner is going to require a demonstration of competence on all installed equipment (to the extent applicable to the flight test scope).

[Jetblu]

I know 2 pilots who flew a complex capable 300HP Turbo, retract u/c, VP Prop with Garmin 530W/430W coupled to KFC150 autopilot with ALT Preselect, coupled HSI/RMI & Radar etc etc and left all this behind to fly a Cirrus, because the Cirrus had a parachute

I think some people believe that this red button will always be the get out of jail free card. And so far, I understand that belief has been substantiated many times.

[Mark1234]

No, but you should understand its full functionality to the extent applicable to your privileges, which are (e.g.) VFR. So yes you do need to know how to enter a flight plan, for example, and the different autopilot modes.

Why? I know IO probably knows a sight more than I ever will, but to me this smells of being blinkered to anything but ones own style of flying. Fortunately for me most of the stuff I play with doesn't have any of this stuff fitted, so it's a moot point - but if it's safe to fly a plane without one, then it's also safe to not use the one that's fitted. Not everyone wants to twiddle knobs, muck around with magenta lines, etc, nor do they necessarily feel a need to play with it. If a GPS is fitted, I don't mind the moving map/airspace, but normally I'm not bothering with punching all the numbers. On the flipside, I am a strong believer in knowing about the relevant systems, failure modes and so on - pitot static, vp prop failure modes, radio nav, night flying illusions and so on - it isn't just laziness.

What is inexcusable is allowing yourself to be distracted from taking care of the things that matter by mucking around with the gadgetry (whether you know what you're doing or not), which seems like it might be the case here. Being able to prioritise what is important (like keeping the aircraft right side up) is one of the fundamentals for any pilot, surely?