Renting Cirrus insurance requirements ???
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to discussing the Cirrus when I was just looking at renting 30 hours on one at a reasonable cost and a reasonable checkout! And not a 1/3 of that time with an instructor holding my hand.
If no glass experience it takes time to get use to and can be a big distraction initially leading to errors.
Last edited by 007helicopter; 11th Jul 2012 at 22:53.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW, the Cirrus I rented had a 500hrs min stipulation for any pilot. Nothing more.
Pace, a suggestion: Do the couple of hours of General Handling, Stalls, PFLs and circuits you actually need, and then take the instructor on your first trip... last time I checked, instructor rates were rock bottom, so it will increase your cost per hour for your 30 hours by less than 5%.
I would guess the typical hour-building instructor will LOVE it - it makes a change from the usual Exercise Whatever PPL instruction, even if he really is your passenger logging PIC time... and he is more likely to need the hours than you...
Pace, a suggestion: Do the couple of hours of General Handling, Stalls, PFLs and circuits you actually need, and then take the instructor on your first trip... last time I checked, instructor rates were rock bottom, so it will increase your cost per hour for your 30 hours by less than 5%.
I would guess the typical hour-building instructor will LOVE it - it makes a change from the usual Exercise Whatever PPL instruction, even if he really is your passenger logging PIC time... and he is more likely to need the hours than you...
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another statistic, in round numbers from memory, is that out of all 1000's of Cirrus Pilots it is a fact that around 60% belong to COPA Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association
But 80% of fatal's are NOT COPA members (including today,s)
Which is a mind boggling statistic and the organisation has done a mammoth volunteer task on raising safety and in fact curbing increases in insurance.
It is a fantastic resource for anyone who fly,s or is considering flying a Cirrus and a bargain at $60 US or so.
But 80% of fatal's are NOT COPA members (including today,s)
Which is a mind boggling statistic and the organisation has done a mammoth volunteer task on raising safety and in fact curbing increases in insurance.
It is a fantastic resource for anyone who fly,s or is considering flying a Cirrus and a bargain at $60 US or so.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would guess the typical hour-building instructor will LOVE it - it makes a change from the usual Exercise Whatever PPL instruction, even if he really is your passenger logging PIC time... and he is more likely to need the hours than you...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are worried that the insurance requirements are not "real" I suggest that you ask to see the aircraft insurance certificate which should be viewed on first check flight, this will clearly show the insurance requirements.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off topic but I was speaking with a pilot who has flown a Columbus 400 and was completely blown away by the aircraft. He said that the handling was delicious and the speed amazing a far superior aircraft to the Cirrus.
Yet the aircraft does not attract the sales! Maybe the selling point with the Cirrus is the chute system?
Odd unless there are technical reasons why the Columbus is not also fitted with a chute system?
How does that fair on insurance requirements?
I am sure the requirements are real but the insurance on any aircraft can be bought down by agreeing to include restrictions on the pilots who fly it!
For instance if you ran a group Seneca twin and told the insurance that you were happy to limit use of the twin to only pilots with a CPL and 500 twin hours it would be far cheaper than saying you wanted PPLs with 20 twin hours to fly.
Insurance can be used to manipulate an effect although I was not for one minute suggesting that was the case with the group I was looking at.
Pace
Yet the aircraft does not attract the sales! Maybe the selling point with the Cirrus is the chute system?
Odd unless there are technical reasons why the Columbus is not also fitted with a chute system?
How does that fair on insurance requirements?
If you are worried that the insurance requirements are not "real" I suggest that you ask to see the aircraft insurance certificate which should be viewed on first check flight, this will clearly show the insurance requirements.
For instance if you ran a group Seneca twin and told the insurance that you were happy to limit use of the twin to only pilots with a CPL and 500 twin hours it would be far cheaper than saying you wanted PPLs with 20 twin hours to fly.
Insurance can be used to manipulate an effect although I was not for one minute suggesting that was the case with the group I was looking at.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 12th Jul 2012 at 07:44.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ive flown the 400 in the states.
The handling is very good. The cockpit feels more compact than the cirrus.
I am surprised that he concluded its far superior, albeit you probably would if the comparison was with a 20.
Personally i think the handling of both a delight. The commonly heard criticism that the side stick is not designed for hand flying imo comes from those who havent hand flown the aircraft. However its fair to say many / most cirrus (and 400) pilots dont hand fly. These aircraft are about going distance in comfort.
Like it or not cirrus captured a moment in the ga industry. They make a good product, they market it well and its nice to fly. Then again its a privilege to fly most aircraft in this category and each will have those who reckon theirs is the best thing since sliced bread. Peterhs tb20 is a superb aircraft and if you want something that is as good as a cirrus without all the insurance and training issues and of course without the worries of a chute look no further.
The handling is very good. The cockpit feels more compact than the cirrus.
I am surprised that he concluded its far superior, albeit you probably would if the comparison was with a 20.
Personally i think the handling of both a delight. The commonly heard criticism that the side stick is not designed for hand flying imo comes from those who havent hand flown the aircraft. However its fair to say many / most cirrus (and 400) pilots dont hand fly. These aircraft are about going distance in comfort.
Like it or not cirrus captured a moment in the ga industry. They make a good product, they market it well and its nice to fly. Then again its a privilege to fly most aircraft in this category and each will have those who reckon theirs is the best thing since sliced bread. Peterhs tb20 is a superb aircraft and if you want something that is as good as a cirrus without all the insurance and training issues and of course without the worries of a chute look no further.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
No I have selected the Cirrus as steed of choice and renting suits my situation rather than share ownership.
I had a quarter share in a Mooney M20J a few years ago but do not want to go the ownership route certainly not at present.
I actually like the chute "option" even after our long discussions on the chute in the other thread which was a worthwhile and informative debate.
I do not like the fact that 1/3 of my 30 hrs I want to rent will be wasted on doing something which should take no more than 2 hrs in the air in my case.
That maybe a deal breaker if true
Pace
No I have selected the Cirrus as steed of choice and renting suits my situation rather than share ownership.
I had a quarter share in a Mooney M20J a few years ago but do not want to go the ownership route certainly not at present.
I actually like the chute "option" even after our long discussions on the chute in the other thread which was a worthwhile and informative debate.
I do not like the fact that 1/3 of my 30 hrs I want to rent will be wasted on doing something which should take no more than 2 hrs in the air in my case.
That maybe a deal breaker if true
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 12th Jul 2012 at 08:54.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cirrus ballistic chute recovery
Peter I don't hold with your view about the avionics and engine, why should they be written off ?
It is unlikely that any insurer would wright off an engine or the aircraft Avionic fit after a heavy landing that involved a small amount of airframe damage.
Most ballistic chute landings don't do more that minor damage to the landing gear and so the shock to the airframe is likely to be no more that a badly executed landing, also the nature of composite structure is to fail in a progressive way rather than metal that resists and then fails compleatly. The ability of the composite structure ( just like wood) to absorb energy in a progressive way is not only good for the survival of the occupant but also for the equipment fitted.
My own felling is that Avionic equipment gets a far harder ride when it is sent from the manufacturers to the factory by UPS or FedEx than it will get in a ballistic chute recovery as long as that recovery involves flat ground ( the wheels contact first) and the surface wind is not a factor in a high ground speed arrival into a solid object.
A large part of the insurance problem with composite aircraft is the lack of knowlage within the GA maintenance industry of composite repair that results in aircraft that are reparable being written off for no good technical reason, thus driving up the insurance cost.
It is unlikely that any insurer would wright off an engine or the aircraft Avionic fit after a heavy landing that involved a small amount of airframe damage.
Most ballistic chute landings don't do more that minor damage to the landing gear and so the shock to the airframe is likely to be no more that a badly executed landing, also the nature of composite structure is to fail in a progressive way rather than metal that resists and then fails compleatly. The ability of the composite structure ( just like wood) to absorb energy in a progressive way is not only good for the survival of the occupant but also for the equipment fitted.
My own felling is that Avionic equipment gets a far harder ride when it is sent from the manufacturers to the factory by UPS or FedEx than it will get in a ballistic chute recovery as long as that recovery involves flat ground ( the wheels contact first) and the surface wind is not a factor in a high ground speed arrival into a solid object.
A large part of the insurance problem with composite aircraft is the lack of knowlage within the GA maintenance industry of composite repair that results in aircraft that are reparable being written off for no good technical reason, thus driving up the insurance cost.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace - well as I have indicated you can certainly get a check out done in probably a couple of hours with the freedom to fly solo after and covered by group insurance. Please PM me further if I can be of any more help.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But 80% of fatal's are NOT COPA members
It's like the fact that healthy people are much more likely to buy life insurance
Slightly off topic but I was speaking with a pilot who has flown a Columbus 400 and was completely blown away by the aircraft. He said that the handling was delicious and the speed amazing a far superior aircraft to the Cirrus.
Yet the aircraft does not attract the sales! Maybe the selling point with the Cirrus is the chute system?
Odd unless there are technical reasons why the Columbus is not also fitted with a chute system?
Yet the aircraft does not attract the sales! Maybe the selling point with the Cirrus is the chute system?
Odd unless there are technical reasons why the Columbus is not also fitted with a chute system?
In 2011 Cessna delivered just one of them.
I don't why it has been a flop. Perhaps a number of reasons
- Cirrus sucked the market dry in the good days (which they were able to do because every other player was totally inept and flogging what was basically WW2 hardware with some eye candy in the panel) and Cessna started when not only the horse but also the underlying economy were both on their last legs
- Inept marketing (that stupid looking businessman claiming he can do 3 deals per day because of the ease of travel)
- They had big problems with the thermal (electric) anti-ice system. I have heard various stories, always denied by others, about the heated elements getting too hot and damaging the wings/elevator. Maybe it was just new technology, not tested well enough. Cessna are a long term player and they would have taken time to sort this before pushing too many out.
- The great performance is bought with avgas, and lots of it
Especially given the fixed gear, which is nuts for a fast plane. If it was retractable it would be amazing. The 400 pushes the "fixed gear is simple and gives you cheap insurance, and to hell with avgas cost" paradigm further than anybody else, and everybody knows it's false now. What the aerodynamic body gives you is entirely thrown away with the fixed gear, because if throttled to 11USG/hr (peak EGT) it does 138kt which is exactly the same as my TB20. The other company which just kept making ever faster avgas burners, at any stupid cost, was Mooney, and they are dead now, apart from the spare parts operation.- It is very pricey now, and touches some other areas which deliver much more mission capability. Current ads mention $750k with all the eye candy. I know one can make the new v. old argument at every level in flying (or indeed cars, etc) but for $1M you can buy a very nice used Jetprop, which (FL270, 270kt TAS, short field capability, boots, radar, pressurisation) will totally and utterly thrash any piston plane (apart from a Spitfire, etc) and anybody with $750k cannot be totally unaware of this. Oxygen at FL200+ is OK if flying solo but not so good for passengers.
Peter I don't hold with your view about the avionics and engine, why should they be written off ?
Intermittently faulty avionics get recycled into the exchange avionics pool and just keep going round and round, p1ssing off successive owners, until they end up with an owner who has the resources to sue.
This stuff particularly gets up my nose because a while ago I bought two KC225 autopilot computers, at a very good price, both with original Honeywell overhaul documentation. I took them to an avionics shop (a H. dealer) to calibrate so I had them as immediately usable spares. One was found to have a duff display which didn't surface for about an hour.
Honeywell washed their hands of it, saying it passed their bench test. Even a letter from the avionics shop, and photos from me, didn't shift them. Absolute bastards, but this is fairly normal in avionics. I eventually got it sorted by blowing away my entire "favour reserve" by getting a certain individual I knew inside Honeywell (not in the UK) to put in a word for me. I got another overhauled unit, but this chap no longer answers my emails
Last edited by peterh337; 12th Jul 2012 at 16:32.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter
I had a share in a Mooney we had one idiot pilot member who crashed the aircraft not once but twice.
The first bang was attempting to land on a grass airfield too long too fast in france which resulted in a bent prop.
Not wishing to cut his holiday short to Corsica the fool bent the prop straight and continued his European tour vibrating around the skies with total disregard to the fact that 3/4s of the aircraft did not belong to him.
By the time the **** got back we had no end of avionic and electrical problems due to flying with continuous vibrations
So I can well understand how a vertical descent at high speed into the ground can damage sensitive and delicate electronics
Pace
I had a share in a Mooney we had one idiot pilot member who crashed the aircraft not once but twice.
The first bang was attempting to land on a grass airfield too long too fast in france which resulted in a bent prop.
Not wishing to cut his holiday short to Corsica the fool bent the prop straight and continued his European tour vibrating around the skies with total disregard to the fact that 3/4s of the aircraft did not belong to him.
By the time the **** got back we had no end of avionic and electrical problems due to flying with continuous vibrations
So I can well understand how a vertical descent at high speed into the ground can damage sensitive and delicate electronics
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 12th Jul 2012 at 16:46.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So guys how do your avionics get from the factory to your aircraft?
The chances are they have gone via one of the major players in the logistics game, be it DHL, UPS, FedEx TNT or whoever I have seen the sorting sheds and the way the boxes are bounced about is far worse than anything that an average landing by chute is going to put on the avionics, if the landing gear and it's mounts are undamaged it is unlikely the avionics will be.
The fact of the matter is the Avionic company's know how they ship their products and build them to take the shipping, however the company lawyers like to build in a little slack to cover themselves, and the best of this is the insurance company is likely to pay them to supply new equipment.
The chances are they have gone via one of the major players in the logistics game, be it DHL, UPS, FedEx TNT or whoever I have seen the sorting sheds and the way the boxes are bounced about is far worse than anything that an average landing by chute is going to put on the avionics, if the landing gear and it's mounts are undamaged it is unlikely the avionics will be.
The fact of the matter is the Avionic company's know how they ship their products and build them to take the shipping, however the company lawyers like to build in a little slack to cover themselves, and the best of this is the insurance company is likely to pay them to supply new equipment.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's true but the packages are normally padded.
When an SR22 hits the ground in a chute descent, the passengers are to some extent shielded from the G by the deforming seats, but the avionics don't have any protection. If you hit a hard ground, the stuff in the panel will get 100G 500G or whatever.
When an SR22 hits the ground in a chute descent, the passengers are to some extent shielded from the G by the deforming seats, but the avionics don't have any protection. If you hit a hard ground, the stuff in the panel will get 100G 500G or whatever.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peterh337 - yes, but if you work the calculation without taking into account the defamation of the honeycomb under the seat at a descent rate of 1500 fpm the cockpit is only experiencing a g loading of between 2 and 4. We commonly sustain this level of g during basic aerobatics and its not unusual to experience +8 or more. Perhaps the avionics are suffering much less g than one might think after a chute deployed landing. I have no idea at what g level one could expect damage to occur to pcbs etc.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter
I take your point about the occupants being isolated from the G forces when the aircraft lands by chute as the structure below the seats deforms to absorb the energy in a high rate of decent.
So it follows that if the energy absorbing structure below an occupied seat is intact and undamaged the forces on the whole aircraft are likely to have been quite low, undamaged seat support structure is part of the picture that an inspection after a chute landing has to take into account.
I think for the benefit of some on this forum who think that people just stick these aircraft back together in a barn with a bit of glue I should add that any repair of this scale would have to be done by a EASA 145 company ( that will exclude 85% of the GA maintenance company's) and that all repairs have to be some in accordance with detailed instructions from a properly authorized design organization ( that is almost always the aircraft manufacturer).
The repair of composite aircraft is something that is not well understood by the GA metal bashes who in the past have written off aircraft with light damage that could have been fixed in a few weeks.
It is all well and good for people to express opinions on these forums but in all but a few cases the opinion holder has only half the picture that was delivered to him buy a bloke in a bar who says he is an expert. The peope who fix these aircraft are properly qualified and have all the facts at there disposal along with their own experience of fixing aircraft and that of the aircraft manufacturer.
It is the cost of composite aircraft being written off that is forcing the cost of insuring such aircraft up to the point that silly requirements are being asked of pilots just to fly a pretty basic SEP.
So it follows that if the energy absorbing structure below an occupied seat is intact and undamaged the forces on the whole aircraft are likely to have been quite low, undamaged seat support structure is part of the picture that an inspection after a chute landing has to take into account.
I think for the benefit of some on this forum who think that people just stick these aircraft back together in a barn with a bit of glue I should add that any repair of this scale would have to be done by a EASA 145 company ( that will exclude 85% of the GA maintenance company's) and that all repairs have to be some in accordance with detailed instructions from a properly authorized design organization ( that is almost always the aircraft manufacturer).
The repair of composite aircraft is something that is not well understood by the GA metal bashes who in the past have written off aircraft with light damage that could have been fixed in a few weeks.
It is all well and good for people to express opinions on these forums but in all but a few cases the opinion holder has only half the picture that was delivered to him buy a bloke in a bar who says he is an expert. The peope who fix these aircraft are properly qualified and have all the facts at there disposal along with their own experience of fixing aircraft and that of the aircraft manufacturer.
It is the cost of composite aircraft being written off that is forcing the cost of insuring such aircraft up to the point that silly requirements are being asked of pilots just to fly a pretty basic SEP.
Last edited by A and C; 13th Jul 2012 at 10:39.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it goes further.
The idea is the nose wheel lands first, deforms, collapses and absorbs energy, then the main wheels, repeating the process, and finally the added protection of the "crumple" of the frame and honeycomb beneath the seats. Of course it is not totally predictable; the wings might impact first if a tree stump happens to be at the end of the wing! Doubtless the dynamics would then be different.
However which ever way it would be surprising if the G loads were greater than the G experienced in basic level aerobatics.
On the other hand should an aircraft land conventionally and impact on the landing roll the G could be significantly higher and doubtless much more likely to compromise the avionics, never mind the occupants.
The idea is the nose wheel lands first, deforms, collapses and absorbs energy, then the main wheels, repeating the process, and finally the added protection of the "crumple" of the frame and honeycomb beneath the seats. Of course it is not totally predictable; the wings might impact first if a tree stump happens to be at the end of the wing! Doubtless the dynamics would then be different.
However which ever way it would be surprising if the G loads were greater than the G experienced in basic level aerobatics.
On the other hand should an aircraft land conventionally and impact on the landing roll the G could be significantly higher and doubtless much more likely to compromise the avionics, never mind the occupants.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
We are all armchair guessing I am sure Cirrus have the actual figures of a descent under the chute in still air onto a flat unobstructed surface as well as the shock loading not G forces onto the avionics.
G forces are irrelevant its abrupt shock loading which is relevant!
Obviously conditions and surface will have a major impact (excuse the pun)
Ie with 30 kt winds on the surface and into the side of a building, hitting trees, lampposts, power cables or steep sided terrain or even into water will change the whole outlook on such a landing both in terms of avionics and occupants!
Into water the avionics are buggered anyway
I know what flying a vibrating Mooney with a slightly bent prop did to the avionics in our group aircraft! Buggered them!
Pace
We are all armchair guessing
I am sure Cirrus have the actual figures of a descent under the chute in still air onto a flat unobstructed surface as well as the shock loading not G forces onto the avionics.G forces are irrelevant its abrupt shock loading which is relevant!
Obviously conditions and surface will have a major impact (excuse the pun)
Ie with 30 kt winds on the surface and into the side of a building, hitting trees, lampposts, power cables or steep sided terrain or even into water will change the whole outlook on such a landing both in terms of avionics and occupants!
Into water the avionics are buggered anyway
I know what flying a vibrating Mooney with a slightly bent prop did to the avionics in our group aircraft! Buggered them!
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 13th Jul 2012 at 12:22.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace - I don't think we are guessing, the figures are available and well documented on the net and in fact have even been discussed here in detail.
Obviously there are elements of any forced landing that cant be predicted (its conceivable the aircraft could land on a chimney) but the descent under chute is at a predictable rate and the amount of energy the aircraft is carry is equally predictable unless someone wants to rewrite the laws of physics. Whats unpredictable is how much of that energy will be transmitted around the aircraft.
I think subjecting avionics to severe vibration for a long period of time is quite a different scenario (peterh I am sure can shed some light).
I am not either supporting or not supporting the recycling of avionics after a chute deployment or any other forced landing because I don't know how much G avionics are designed to take or for that matter how much g they may experience in transit. What I do know is it would be wrong to create the impression that a Cirrus will suffer "extreme" g during a chute landing. In fact as I have said it is probably a lot less than sustained in basic standard aerobatics.
I am probably creating the impression I work for Cirrus! Of course I don't. I also accept you dont have anything particularly against the aircraft. What worries me is whenever a discussion comes up about the aircraft it degenerates into wild speculation about insurance, chute landings, and the inability to fly the aircraft for any length of time using the side stick rather than the auto pilot. There are a few other pet subjects. Where I can I like to try to give balance to such ill informed speculation be it on this subject or others because otherwise PPRuNe just degenerates into Daily Mail style reporting which for me would be a shame.
Obviously there are elements of any forced landing that cant be predicted (its conceivable the aircraft could land on a chimney) but the descent under chute is at a predictable rate and the amount of energy the aircraft is carry is equally predictable unless someone wants to rewrite the laws of physics. Whats unpredictable is how much of that energy will be transmitted around the aircraft.
I think subjecting avionics to severe vibration for a long period of time is quite a different scenario (peterh I am sure can shed some light).
I am not either supporting or not supporting the recycling of avionics after a chute deployment or any other forced landing because I don't know how much G avionics are designed to take or for that matter how much g they may experience in transit. What I do know is it would be wrong to create the impression that a Cirrus will suffer "extreme" g during a chute landing. In fact as I have said it is probably a lot less than sustained in basic standard aerobatics.
I am probably creating the impression I work for Cirrus! Of course I don't. I also accept you dont have anything particularly against the aircraft. What worries me is whenever a discussion comes up about the aircraft it degenerates into wild speculation about insurance, chute landings, and the inability to fly the aircraft for any length of time using the side stick rather than the auto pilot. There are a few other pet subjects. Where I can I like to try to give balance to such ill informed speculation be it on this subject or others because otherwise PPRuNe just degenerates into Daily Mail style reporting which for me would be a shame.