Renting Cirrus insurance requirements ???

[Cobalt]

In general - minimum hours training requirements are rubbish. Capability in that aircraft counts. Which is a combination of your experience, general capability, and how fast you learn.

I just checked my logbook. My SR22TN (G1000) checkout took a staggering 1 hour and 15 minutes. 3 landings, 1 ILS. Covered stalling, PFL, the usual. Plus a hefty dose of POH reading and half a day of systems and general chat with the instructor.

Why? I was very current on the Columbia 400 with G1000.

On the other hand, my check-out on the Columbia the year before took almost 10 hours, 30+ landings, and quite a few approaches, since it was my first glass-cockpit aircraft and its handling was significantly different from anything I had flown before.


And in both cases, what needed training and whether I was ready to fly the thing on my own was pretty clear to both me and the instructor.


But hey, I am still embarrased if I have to explain to the 1000 hour FAA PPL holder that, in addition to some sensible UK airspace and radio familiarisation, he needs a cross-channel check before we allow him to rent an aircraft and fly to France. I am clearly not sufficiently adapted to the UK training philosophy.

[belowradar]

When you completed your type rating PACE you would have flown a sim for quite a few hours and that sim was considered as good as flying the aircraft.

Human factors comes into this and I would really wonder why a high time commercial pilot with no Cirrus time would balk at the investment of 10 hours to really understand a new aircraft and it's systems ? In my experience for most pilots new to the type (whatever their hours or experience) it is a sensible investment.

And yes if you have been flying a similar type with same avionics then you should pick it up faster but if the insurance states 10 hours on type then 10 hours on type it must be.

Seems like you are experiencing a much needed reality check and finding it a bit annoying

[A and C]

Below radar

The Cirrus is a simple SEP not a rocket ship, to fly it you can look out of the window and use the ASI and Compass............all the rest is just nice to have.

Now please explain to me how someone with the time on aircraft that PACE has needs 10 hours flying on the thing, he needs a look at the low speed handling and a few landings, one flap less, all the rest is just so much bull.

As for this being a CRM issue that is just another abuse of a good idea by the type of people who you normally find in elf & safety roles.

[421C]

Belowradar, I am not writing to be argumentative with you personally, we are all entitled to our opinions, but because in general I find it depressing how easily European pilots are sometimes willing to defend over-onerous rules and regulations.

Human factors comes into this

Really, in what way that is different from HF coming into any differences or type-specific training?

and I would really wonder why a high time commercial pilot with no Cirrus time would balk at the investment of 10 hours to really understand a new aircraft and it's systems ?

For exactly the reason that a high time commercial pilot will be well aware he can convert to many other more complex types in less time. 10hrs is a ridiculous requirement for a fixed-gear SEP.

In my experience for most pilots new to the type (whatever their hours or experience) it is a sensible investment.

Don't you see a huge difference between the following

In your experience 10hrs is a sensible investment for most pilots

and

10hrs is a must for all pilots

Pace is likely a pilot outside your experience, he is not the "most" pilots.

Seems like you are experiencing a much needed reality check and finding it a bit annoying

I think you need a reality check on the difference between things you personally think are good idea and things that should be imposed on others.

If anyone needs to understand why aviation in Europe is so over-regulated, you only need to look at the mindset in some pilots who jump with ease from the former to the latter.

I personally took about 6hrs to convert to the SR22, about 1hr refamiliarising with flying in the US and 3hrs of that was because I wasn't very good at landing it. For a pilot experienced in the G1000 and complex aircraft, it should be about 2hrs minimum. The rest is competence based. I rightly needed more time because I wasn't very competent!

In practice I would expect an insurer to waive the 10hrs requirement for a very experienced pilot.

[Fuji Abound]

421c i dont think this has anything to do with over regulation in europe. I guess all europe would say is if you have a glass sign off you can fly a cirrus. I dont even think you need a vp prop. (now there is a thought). You cant get much less regulated.

I do take your point however that over regulation in other areas may lead some organisations to adopt a similiar mind set. As much as i agree with you i think in terms of what a pilot can do with a ppl is pretty remarkable. As i have said from a regulatory point of view there is little a 10 hour pilot needs to do to fly a cirrus. Morever in terms of proving any degree of on going competancy the number of hours flown are incredibly light. Could a 10 hour pilot really go nine months without flying and then fly a cirrus solo?

The forces at work here are quite different. We have discussed why insurance companies and owners might expect more. Whether they are justified is debatable and is being debated.

As i have said you can get a sign off with an hours flight if you are good enough. If an owner thinks he needs longer to make sure you are going to look after his aircraft over and beyond not killing yourself then as so often said on here its his toy, his money, he can do as he wishes.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Well said 421. In my opinion the insurance company will specify a minimum number of hours experience for the pilot and then conversion onto type as required, rather than X numbers of hours of training.

I fly an aircraft that is considerably more complex than the Cirrus, that is both in terms of systems and performance. The limitations of the insurance is that the pilot must have High Performance sign off, Turbine sign off and 1000 hours SEP experience. They also stipulate a 10 hour course (if the aircraft was registered in the UK operated on a JAA licence then it's a specific type rating)

With a turbine, pressurised cabin, retracts and a cruise speed that is not that far off VNe in percentage terms compared to say a spam can ( a speed that can easily be reached should you lose concentration in turbulent IFR and are hand flying it) It's also a type that has a history of insurance claims.

Now the real question is if the Cirrus is as complex and difficult to manage? I would strongly suspect its not.

[peterh337]

I've been in an SR22 a couple of times and it didn't strike me as any different to a TB20 to fly in terms of what it does if you "lose" it.

Any "150kt" plane will be slippery, in that if you bank it to 45 degrees, close your eyes and take your hands off the yoke, when open your eyes 10-20 secs later you will be past Vne.

That's just basic physics. You aren't going to get 150kt or so out of 200 or so HP (speaking of cruise settings) unless the aerodynamics are fairly reasonable.

I think the Cirrus takes more getting used to than a TB20 because of the stick which has a lack of feel to it, and I would be tempted to fly it on autopilot most of the time.

Legally you can fly an SR22 (or a TB20) with just a PPL and diff training which could be as little as a 1hr flight with an instructor with the right authority. Whether that is a good idea is another matter and insurers evidently take a different view. And the instructor won't sign you off until he reckons you are good enough, which will take as long as it takes... 1hr, 10hrs, 30hrs...

I do think systems competence is important but one is entitled to disagree and take the view that the compass (and altimeter etc) is all you need to know.

[Pace]

Fuji

A couple of points. Firstly 5 hrs would be acceptable to me 10 are not. I have had demo flights in both the SR22 and 20 and used one up at Turweston a few years ago for a SEP renewal hence my bet about going green to the S of France.
The best place to learn about the Avidyne is by reading the books and maybe using the PC Sim.
It is crazy to be blowing money trying to work it out in the air.
Then it comes to the point of how many of the 100s of functions do you use?
At the end of the day you fly the plane not the TV screen! Many are nice to have.

Below radar you have a point about some commercial pilots who jump into their A320s for a living and never touch GA but then there are pilots who fly A320s and fly GA as a hobby.
Then there are commercial pilots who fly multiple GA types from Business jets to Turboprops to Piston twins.

It really is not Rocket science and please do not get lost in your TV set in the panel your still flying an aircraft.
Do Not feed the regulators and insurance companies or soon you will be required to fly 20 hrs on the untamed beast of a Cirrus and then you will argue that 20 hrs is justified.



Pace

[007helicopter]

I think the Cirrus takes more getting used to than a TB20 because of the stick which has a lack of feel to it, and I would be tempted to fly it on autopilot most of the time.

I do fly a lot on autopilot as I suspect do the vast majority of Cirrus or other types on long cross countries, Do you hand fly your long trips in the TB20? just curious?

I can not agree the side stick has a lack of feel, feels great to me and very responsive.

This debate is not about Cirrus in general because different renters, insurers, owners can all set there minimum criteria for a check out.

This is about the specific renter that Pace has contacted who has an insurance requirement for any new renter regardless of experience to have a 10 hour transition, That organisation has done it to reduce annual insurance cost.

It is this organisations policy and choice to do what ever they wish and if that drives away experienced guys like pace then that is up to them.

[007helicopter]

The best place to learn about the Avidyne is by reading the books and maybe using the PC Sim.
It is crazy to be blowing money trying to work it out in the air.
Then it comes to the point of how many of the 100s of functions do you use?
At the end of the day you fly the plane not the TV screen!

I agree the majority of the Garmin & Avidyne stuff is best learnt on the ground but does need to be practiced extensively in the air.

While of course you fly the plane and not the TV screens if you are going IFR or doing instrument approaches believe me you had better be pretty good at flying those TV screens and use the GNS430's with ease or else you are going to be in deep sh1t.

[Fuji Abound]

007helicopter

Yes, I would also agree about the side stick. This is another element of the Cirrus that is often brought up. I think often so by pilots who have very little time on the aircraft. Like anything new it seems "odd" at first. In fact I so much enjoy flying with the stick that I often hand fly entirely and have often flown for several hours using only the sidestick. My personal preference now is conventional stick, side stick and yoke. I guess the only reason a yoke was put in an aircraft was because the designers thought they should make an aircraft seem more like a car.

Pace - I agree with almost everything in your last post so you see we disagree very little! Your point about the screens is of course valid but I didnt know whether your jaunt to Nice was going to be partly in IMC. I think you will find there isn't much else to look at in IMC. Of course you don't need all the bells and whistles to fly in IMC but I guess having a command of the basics is no bad thing.

421C - thinking about it you sum up very well a point I made earlier. So many posts are based entirely on personal experience (perhaps not surprisingly). One thing I realised from running a Group is things are sometimes not quite as you would expect! In fact when flying with someone else you are often better starting with no expectation and having no idea of their past experience or hours - usually the experience and qualifications comes as no surprise, but not always, usually the attitude is comparable, but not always! We naturally look at things from our own point of view so its entirely understandable that you and Pace could and would be comfortable in a Cirrus in a couple of hours but I know there are many pilots (not especially with your experience) that would not. Insurers don't have the luxury of flying with you so they calculate experience and premiums in a different way, you might not agree with their calculations but again perhaps that's because your perspective is different from theirs!

One of my stars is Raymond Blanc; they were only saying when he employs a chef he doesnt ask them what they have done or how they would cook a jugged hare, he asks them to fry an egg. The chef that thinks any fool can fry an egg and proceeds to do so without care or passion proceeds no further. There is an analogy there somewhere. If you have spent 300K of your children's hard won inheritance you might not only want a competent pilot but one who appreciates how to look after the aircraft. There are another two element that don't necessarily go together. It am take a big longer to work out if the pilot is going to look after your aircraft in the way you would wish.

[Cobalt]

Fuji,

Raymond Blanc asks the chef to fry an egg. He does not insist on the chef frying nine more eggs, regardless of the quality of the first egg fried.

[Fuji Abound]

Cobalt - dont worry, one egg, one hour all good for me, you get to know more about most pilots in the first ten minutes than in the next 50 minutes. I am all for making it as short and sweet as possible unless of course the pilot shows no regard for the aircraft during that hour - which was the reason for the analogy.

[Pace]

Fuji

But then it should still come down to your judgement on what the individual pilot needs.
A bit like a first solo where you make a judgement on whether the student is safe to go and make it around on their own.

Its a bit like saying you will go solo at 20 hours regardless of whether you are ready earlier or need 40 hrs!

On the Avidyne there should be an abbreviated operation list surely ground studies and basic operation is the best way.

Often its the long legs with nothing to do on a cross country where you can play around with the functions and get into teh heart of the unit.
I would be interested how you teach the Avidyne?

One word of caution on reliance on autopilot is that with my experience I would never rely on autopilots I have had too many failures in jets too.
We have flown Citations hundreds of miles just below RVSM airspace with failed or not fully functioning autopilots.

They are something to monitor at all times and trust in none.

Pace

[belowradar]

The Cirrus is a simple SEP not a rocket ship, to fly it you can look out of the window and use the ASI and Compass............all the rest is just nice to have.

Now please explain to me how someone with the time on aircraft that PACE has needs 10 hours flying on the thing, he needs a look at the low speed handling and a few landings, one flap less, all the rest is just so much bull.

As for this being a CRM issue that is just another abuse of a good idea by the type of people who you normally find in elf & safety roles.

I actually admire your pugnacious attitude but for all of the wrong reasons, I love the fact that all of the rest is "so much Bull", I find it funny to be compared to "elf & safety" as I am definitely not a member of that gang. Definitely a new experience for me to absorb these viewpoints and comments......quite a laugh really ! I have often come out with statements like this myself so I guess I am getting a taste of what it is like to be on the receiving end.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I find it hard to believe this thread has gone on for 4 pages.

Pace:

You apear to be personally offended that that you are being required to do 10 hours of dual. I think this is a totally pointless attitude and whinging on about this in pprune IMO verges on the unprofessional.

Like many other areas in aviation mandatory hours minimums are being applied. You have two choices.

1) Do the 10 hours, or

2) Ask the owners of the aircraft that you want to fly to make an application to the insurance company to evaluate your experience and accept a reduced level of required training. I have personally had several instances where I was able to get insurance required minimums reduced or even waived on application of a specific request.

If the owners do not want to make the application or the insurance company does not want to bend then suck it up and pick choice 1 or find another airplane !

[A and C]

Below radar

It s so nice to be appreciated ! As Pace said in his post above the avionics are best learned on the ground so why spend expensive time in the air teaching them, what matters is if the pilot can control the aircraft.

Most of these Avionic systems can be switched back to a basic HSI if you wish so use of these systems is not mandatory and in some cases the full EFIS navigation display can just confuse the situation with too much information, last week I turned off the map and put up the basic HSI to aid clarity during a VOR approach to runway 22R at Nice.

The most important thing with advanced Avionic systems is to make sure that you are the master of the system and select the appropriate display, don't become a slave to the system and become overloaded with information that distracts you from the task in hand. Most people fly the Cirrus VFR and for his the basic tools are the ASI, compass and looking out of the window.

I would question if too much information and too little looking out of the window were factors in the unfortunate accident at Shoreham some time back?

[belowradar]

A & C

Thanks for your insight's which are quite interesting

Perhaps we should rip out the avionics and just look out the window all the way to Nice.

I definitely think that a review of the 5 dangerous personality types from FAA ppl syllabus would be of assistance here

Impulsive
Invulnerability
Macho
Resignation
Anti-authority


3 Out of 5 is pretty good going. Not just a case of technical proficiency but also of attitude and personality (formed at a very early age), you might think that you are Neil Armstrong but if you don't have the right attitude then not worth the hassle anyway.

[A and C]

Below radar

What an interesting observation, I am not anti authority, overly Macho and certainly not invulnerable but what i am is very anti bull***t.

I see the appropriate use of automation as the key to safe flight, a little basic pitch and power knowlage is the very first lesson in the PPL sylibus but an A330 was lost in the South Atlantic because the crew got so distracted by technology that they ignored PPL lesson one.

I see mandating ten hours of instruction in an SEP for a person with the background that Pace has as totally inappropriate and a typical reaction of someone viewing life from behind a desk. That is not anti authority as the mandate has nothing to do with safety and a lot to do with box ticking on the part of an insurance company employee NOT any one in an airworthiness function.

I can't help getting the impression that you have become seduced into thinking that automation is the key to safe flight, it is obviously a great aid but without a solid understanding of the basics the automatics will just take us down down the same road as the A330 crew.

[007helicopter]

Most of these Avionic systems can be switched back to a basic HSI if you wish so use of these systems is not mandatory and in some cases the full EFIS navigation display can just confuse the situation with too much information, last week I turned off the map and put up the basic HSI to aid clarity during a VOR approach to runway 22R at Nice.

A&C you have a lot of posts and clearly a lot of experience but clearly not much time in a Cirrus as you are not going to be turning off the avionics in a Cirrus and doing an ILS approach anywhere using the basic HSI