Renting Cirrus insurance requirements ???
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It bemuses me why pilots assume so much - the last group I would expect to do so.
I wasnt arguing that a PAR was a bad option, but when you go partial panel you first have to get to a PAR. As some have pointed out a Cirrus is no rocket ship and you may well find yourself some way from the nearest PAR. However by all means enjoy an hour or so partial panel, its going to be hard work for sure, and its just wrong to suggest an hour or so partial panel in IMC followed by a PAR to minima should be a piece of p*ss.
Peterh - as to SRAs - I was referring to the UK since there had been a mention of the lack of PARs in the south of England.
Does anyone else recall when you pottered off to Manston to shoot two or three PARs and then over to Dunsfold if you weren't bored - happy days.
However in the south since that was the example given you will get a SAR at Southampton, Gatwick, Bournemouth, Farnborough and Manston (well when their head is working in Manston's case), I have done SARs at all of those including Gatwick (
).
.. .. .. and to be fair a SAR is very much like a PAR and equally easy to fly partial panel as long as you have some grasp of power settings to give you a half reasonable descent profile.
I also happen to think a descent over the sea is a great option although a very good friend of mine admits to nearly killing himself. Trip back over Europe, cant remember why but ended up doing a descent over the sea at night, and he was tired after a long flight, weather was bad, and very nearly put it in. He was an instructor at the time, 7,000 hours, with lots of experience, shook him up and he still says was the reminder he needed that he wasn't the Sky God he thought.
Pace - I doubt we will change your mind, and hopefully you will never need to do a reality check in a Cirrus, but happily should you, you might be glad of the discussion.
I wasnt arguing that a PAR was a bad option, but when you go partial panel you first have to get to a PAR. As some have pointed out a Cirrus is no rocket ship and you may well find yourself some way from the nearest PAR. However by all means enjoy an hour or so partial panel, its going to be hard work for sure, and its just wrong to suggest an hour or so partial panel in IMC followed by a PAR to minima should be a piece of p*ss.
Peterh - as to SRAs - I was referring to the UK since there had been a mention of the lack of PARs in the south of England.
Does anyone else recall when you pottered off to Manston to shoot two or three PARs and then over to Dunsfold if you weren't bored - happy days.
However in the south since that was the example given you will get a SAR at Southampton, Gatwick, Bournemouth, Farnborough and Manston (well when their head is working in Manston's case), I have done SARs at all of those including Gatwick (
)... .. .. and to be fair a SAR is very much like a PAR and equally easy to fly partial panel as long as you have some grasp of power settings to give you a half reasonable descent profile.
I also happen to think a descent over the sea is a great option although a very good friend of mine admits to nearly killing himself. Trip back over Europe, cant remember why but ended up doing a descent over the sea at night, and he was tired after a long flight, weather was bad, and very nearly put it in. He was an instructor at the time, 7,000 hours, with lots of experience, shook him up and he still says was the reminder he needed that he wasn't the Sky God he thought.
Pace - I doubt we will change your mind, and hopefully you will never need to do a reality check in a Cirrus, but happily should you, you might be glad of the discussion.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
007
Forget a PAR, I have mentioned plenty of airports close at hand that will happily offer you a SRA, and I suspect they quite enjoy doing so as its not a particularly common request. By all means take someone with you (I would be more than happy) but you really dont need to. Next time you practice or fly an ILS for real just request a SRA and ignore the bars on the PFD.
I guess in the SE (ish) Brize would be the best bet these days?
Forget a PAR, I have mentioned plenty of airports close at hand that will happily offer you a SRA, and I suspect they quite enjoy doing so as its not a particularly common request. By all means take someone with you (I would be more than happy) but you really dont need to. Next time you practice or fly an ILS for real just request a SRA and ignore the bars on the PFD.
I guess in the SE (ish) Brize would be the best bet these days?
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 15th Jul 2012 at 20:23.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would expect you to have no chance with Brize. Is Lynaham still towered up?
Conningsby might
There are just so few mil fields left these days.
Do at least one PAR so you know whats avialable. SRA is pretty solid as a starting point though if you just want to see half the service.
Conningsby might
There are just so few mil fields left these days.
Do at least one PAR so you know whats avialable. SRA is pretty solid as a starting point though if you just want to see half the service.
Last edited by mad_jock; 15th Jul 2012 at 20:27.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would imagine in a similar situation the chute wouldn't save them either because they would be outside the deployment envelope.
Which is why so many of us reckon that the IMC is such a brillant add on even if its not kept current.
Which is why so many of us reckon that the IMC is such a brillant add on even if its not kept current.
You would of course after going through whatever options you had make the chute pull at a safe altitude.
I find it odd to consider a rating brilliant even if not current, sorry to bang on but just see it as part of the problem of pilots stacking it in in IMC due to lack of currency.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace - Fuji it would be a pleasure to fly with either of you and will drop my contact details via PM
It seems a bit futile all of this discussion on PARS and basically there is next to no where to practice or put into practice in the event of......so all a bit academic, but I will try, and will certainly get a few SRA's and turn off the PFD
Still back to Paces 10 hour checkout dilema.,,
It seems a bit futile all of this discussion on PARS and basically there is next to no where to practice or put into practice in the event of......so all a bit academic, but I will try, and will certainly get a few SRA's and turn off the PFD
Still back to Paces 10 hour checkout dilema.,,
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its the not loosing control that increases dramatically your chances of survival. The training at least gets the pilot to be able to hold straight and level once
Can the chute be pulled in a mucho past Vne spiral dive?
Can it be pulled inverted?.
Can it be pulled in a flat spin?
CAn it be pulled in a inverted flat spin?
Can it deal with a full power tail slide?
I haven't really looked at it to be honest but do they provide a deployment envelope?
And there are a few and if your flying up North you pass quite a few as well Leeming etc have them. So it wouldn't be wasted, you could do one on the way up. And you really don;t need to practise them. They are by far the most simple approach available.
The attitudes and forces when some one looses it are in the hands of god and certainly not known to the designers.
Can the chute be pulled in a mucho past Vne spiral dive?
Can it be pulled inverted?.
Can it be pulled in a flat spin?
CAn it be pulled in a inverted flat spin?
Can it deal with a full power tail slide?
I haven't really looked at it to be honest but do they provide a deployment envelope?
And there are a few and if your flying up North you pass quite a few as well Leeming etc have them. So it wouldn't be wasted, you could do one on the way up. And you really don;t need to practise them. They are by far the most simple approach available.
The attitudes and forces when some one looses it are in the hands of god and certainly not known to the designers.
Last edited by mad_jock; 15th Jul 2012 at 20:39.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can the chute be pulled in a mucho past Vne spiral dive?
Can it be pulled inverted?.
Can it be pulled in a flat spin?
CAn it be pulled in a inverted flat spin?
Can it deal with a full power tail slide?
I haven't really looked at it to be honest but do they provide a deployment envelope?
Can it be pulled inverted?.
Can it be pulled in a flat spin?
CAn it be pulled in a inverted flat spin?
Can it deal with a full power tail slide?
I haven't really looked at it to be honest but do they provide a deployment envelope?
The max demonstrated speed is 185 knots, I know of one incident at 235 knots it worked and one at 270 knots it failed.
I do not know if strictly in design criteria but categorically it has worked in real life while the aircraft totally inverted and in various spins.
I do not know what a full power tail slide is so can not comment.
It is also designed to be deployed at 2000ft but has worked at around 400ft, or at least the occupants walked away.
The aim ideally would be to slow down to 135 knots if possible and deploy, but if control lost in a spin then I personally would deploy regardless of speed because at that point I am out of control of the aircraft and hope to avoid ever getting in that situation.
it has never failed yet to save the occupants in a Cirrus when deployed within design criteria.
There have been around 40 ish successful Cirrus outcomes including over water, mountains, built up areas, tress etc.
Eventually there will have to be some that do not work out well and that will skew the success rate on a what is so far a fairly low number.
I do not claim to be any expert on this but with all the facts and history of accidents made available to me plus time in the full motion SIM training on the chute pull I have firmly set my own decisions on what scenarios I would use the chute.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pointing near vertical with full power on going backwards. Which is a common way of loosing it from what I have seen of students under the hood.
If you spin you are actually at a relatively low speed desending and the airframe is unloaded. You speed up when you recover.
Fair enough as I said your PIC its your call.
If you spin you are actually at a relatively low speed desending and the airframe is unloaded. You speed up when you recover.
Fair enough as I said your PIC its your call.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horribly In the short time of this thread there have sadly and totally avoidable been 2 cirrus Fatals. No 89 and yesterday No 90 went down in Utah. Peter Branugh and his wife were on their way from concord ca to aspen . Radar contact was lost at 11:11 yesterday 50 miles east of Milford Uta.
The wreckage is now found.
Both were flying in what appears challenging weather, Both appear to be VFR pilots not on an IFR flight plan.
During this accident chain (I assume they had an option to recognise the situation, admit defeat, divert or other sensible action but ultimately pull the Chute, but I am only speculating)
Statistically they are both likely to be Pilot error and not mechanical or electrical failure.
Pilots in all makes and types seem to keep doing this
So with all the discussion about Cirrus, if you have the option of a chute, in a genuine emergency situation, or for what ever reason you have lost control of the aircraft or an off airport landing please pull the chute, likely write the plane off, take some flak on PPrune and then get on with your life.
In an emergency or serious avionics failure Do not attempt heroics to land at an airfield with low ceilings unless you are totally and utterly competent and in complete control of the aircraft at all times with proven skill, knowledge and training with enough kit on board to safely assure the outcome.
The wreckage is now found.
Both were flying in what appears challenging weather, Both appear to be VFR pilots not on an IFR flight plan.
During this accident chain (I assume they had an option to recognise the situation, admit defeat, divert or other sensible action but ultimately pull the Chute, but I am only speculating)
Statistically they are both likely to be Pilot error and not mechanical or electrical failure.
Pilots in all makes and types seem to keep doing this
So with all the discussion about Cirrus, if you have the option of a chute, in a genuine emergency situation, or for what ever reason you have lost control of the aircraft or an off airport landing please pull the chute, likely write the plane off, take some flak on PPrune and then get on with your life.
In an emergency or serious avionics failure Do not attempt heroics to land at an airfield with low ceilings unless you are totally and utterly competent and in complete control of the aircraft at all times with proven skill, knowledge and training with enough kit on board to safely assure the outcome.
Last edited by 007helicopter; 16th Jul 2012 at 07:11.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been around 40 ish successful Cirrus outcomes including over water, mountains, built up areas, tress etc.
I wonder if other types with BRS are showing a similar trend.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mad Jock the chute handle is in the roof between the two front seats and relatively easy to operate if armed but I am sure 007 or Fuji will elaborate.
Many rely on the autopilot one thing that crossed my mind is that in bad weather and entering severe turbulence the autopilot not holding and the pilot being made to hand fly.
I had a couple of test flights in the aircraft and timed the roll rate 45 deg right to 45 deg left it was the same as an aerobatic Firefly so quite lively and nothing as stable laterally as a Mooney.
Maybe the answer is as 007 says to be more conditioned to using the chute!
But then we come back to the question of whether the chute itself encourages pilots to fly in conditions they would normally avoid?
Pace
Many rely on the autopilot one thing that crossed my mind is that in bad weather and entering severe turbulence the autopilot not holding and the pilot being made to hand fly.
I had a couple of test flights in the aircraft and timed the roll rate 45 deg right to 45 deg left it was the same as an aerobatic Firefly so quite lively and nothing as stable laterally as a Mooney.
Maybe the answer is as 007 says to be more conditioned to using the chute!
But then we come back to the question of whether the chute itself encourages pilots to fly in conditions they would normally avoid?
Pace
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where is the chute handle?
And are 4 point harnesses fitted as standard?
And are 4 point harnesses fitted as standard?
it is an option to be considered and not always the best or first option.
Yes 4 point Harness with Airbags in the straps.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But then we come back to the question of whether the chute itself encourages pilots to fly in conditions they would normally avoid?
Does this encourage me to do it more often, No
Would I fly at Night without a chute in a SEP, not sure.
I also feel more secure when I fly over rough terrain, mountains and water, so does this increase my risk profile, maybe.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots who are apparently incapable of flying on instruments (legally or otherwise) and who depart into "impossible" weather, and either get killed or pull the chute, are always going to draw flak, not just on p pr u n e but everywhere else.
There is a sizeable community of pilots who routinely depart into "impossible" weather, and usually they don't get killed because if you know about Va, and can keep the wings level etc, then you should be "ok". Your wife/etc may never fly with you again
There is also a sizeable IFR (IR rated) community that departs into weather I wouldn't be seen dead in, and usually they get away with it. Oddly enough the ones that get killed are those who were flying "VFR" at the time, either while waiting for an IFR clearance, or to save >2T route charges, or doing some other weird stuff.
There is a sizeable community of pilots who routinely depart into "impossible" weather, and usually they don't get killed because if you know about Va, and can keep the wings level etc, then you should be "ok". Your wife/etc may never fly with you again
There is also a sizeable IFR (IR rated) community that departs into weather I wouldn't be seen dead in, and usually they get away with it. Oddly enough the ones that get killed are those who were flying "VFR" at the time, either while waiting for an IFR clearance, or to save >2T route charges, or doing some other weird stuff.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe very few pilots depart into challenging weather because of the chute.
On the other hand I do believe some pilots will fly at night or over terrain that doesnt offer good forced landing opportunities because of the chute. I am one. I have always found myself to be very uncomfortable in a SEP at night and although I have run up some hours I would no longer chose to fly at night in a SEP without a chute. With a chute it worries me a great deal less. I also sail, and perhaps because of that I have always been very uncomfortable flying long sea legs when I know the sea conditions are rough. The idea of landing into a 5 foot swell just doesnt appeal. With a chute it also worries me a great deal less.
However, I also believe that because the Cirrus is such a capable aircraft pilots are lulled into a false sense of security. In fact a Cirrus is not that capable. It is no more or less capable than most SEPs; the fact that it is faster and has gee wiz avionics is nothing to do with anything. Unfortunately pilots dont always realise that and think a Cirrus will "take it".
Of course a Cirrus does have some useful additional capabilities. It does have an abundance of power, which can be useful, it does offer the best situational awareness of anything in the class, when fitted with weather and radar if used properly they are life savers, and so is the green panic button. So Cirrus have done a great deal to provide some useful tools to keep you out of trouble, but I think that is the key they are there to keep you out of trouble. If you get into trouble the de-ice, anti-ice will put you in front of most SEPs as will of course the chute, but beyond that it is still a light single thats going to be thrown around just like any other light single.
I always recall my first trip in a twin in some rough weather. It was really unpleasant and I shall happily admit to be unnerved (is that a posh way of saying scared!). Hitting my head on the roof really hard a couple of times probably didnt help. Of course because it was a heavy twin I thought I could fly in anything. It was humbling to listen to the CATS arriving at Gatwick - yes they were working harder than usual, and yes I only heard one other light aircraft on air the whole flight, but it was humbling how well the CATS were taking it in their stride. There really isnt any substitute for size, is there.
On the other hand I do believe some pilots will fly at night or over terrain that doesnt offer good forced landing opportunities because of the chute. I am one. I have always found myself to be very uncomfortable in a SEP at night and although I have run up some hours I would no longer chose to fly at night in a SEP without a chute. With a chute it worries me a great deal less. I also sail, and perhaps because of that I have always been very uncomfortable flying long sea legs when I know the sea conditions are rough. The idea of landing into a 5 foot swell just doesnt appeal. With a chute it also worries me a great deal less.
However, I also believe that because the Cirrus is such a capable aircraft pilots are lulled into a false sense of security. In fact a Cirrus is not that capable. It is no more or less capable than most SEPs; the fact that it is faster and has gee wiz avionics is nothing to do with anything. Unfortunately pilots dont always realise that and think a Cirrus will "take it".
Of course a Cirrus does have some useful additional capabilities. It does have an abundance of power, which can be useful, it does offer the best situational awareness of anything in the class, when fitted with weather and radar if used properly they are life savers, and so is the green panic button. So Cirrus have done a great deal to provide some useful tools to keep you out of trouble, but I think that is the key they are there to keep you out of trouble. If you get into trouble the de-ice, anti-ice will put you in front of most SEPs as will of course the chute, but beyond that it is still a light single thats going to be thrown around just like any other light single.
I always recall my first trip in a twin in some rough weather. It was really unpleasant and I shall happily admit to be unnerved (is that a posh way of saying scared!). Hitting my head on the roof really hard a couple of times probably didnt help. Of course because it was a heavy twin I thought I could fly in anything. It was humbling to listen to the CATS arriving at Gatwick - yes they were working harder than usual, and yes I only heard one other light aircraft on air the whole flight, but it was humbling how well the CATS were taking it in their stride. There really isnt any substitute for size, is there.
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
Just touching on your point about Sky Gods.
I have now lost 7 good friends in Aviation 2 just recently both extremely experienced SKY GODS. One a retired Easy Jet Captain the other a very cautious and experienced multi thousand hour pilot.
When I think of some of the flying I have done and got away with in the past and look at them it is very humbling.
Sky Gods are the characters of fiction the rest of us are just human who try to do what we do to the best of our ability.
Sadly other than ground accidents any aircraft accident is likely to kill you and hence the Cirrus idea of introducing a chute to lower its occupants safely to the ground was awesome as the the loss to family and friends from these accidents is awful.
So I applaud the chute but as in anything which brings positives there are usually negatives and enhanced confidence is one which lures pilots into the very situation where they need the chute.
I am sure that is stronger than you give credit for
Pace
Just touching on your point about Sky Gods.
I have now lost 7 good friends in Aviation 2 just recently both extremely experienced SKY GODS. One a retired Easy Jet Captain the other a very cautious and experienced multi thousand hour pilot.
When I think of some of the flying I have done and got away with in the past and look at them it is very humbling.
Sky Gods are the characters of fiction the rest of us are just human who try to do what we do to the best of our ability.
Sadly other than ground accidents any aircraft accident is likely to kill you and hence the Cirrus idea of introducing a chute to lower its occupants safely to the ground was awesome as the the loss to family and friends from these accidents is awful.
So I applaud the chute but as in anything which brings positives there are usually negatives and enhanced confidence is one which lures pilots into the very situation where they need the chute.
I am sure that is stronger than you give credit for
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 16th Jul 2012 at 13:06.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cirrus again
It is interesting that every time someone posts a message about Cirrus there is a huge amount of correspondence, often very much misinformed. Let me make a few points based on many years of experience flying Cirrus's.
1. There is a large difference between flying an SR20 and and SR22. The SR20 has a HP approximately 2/3rds of the SR22. The effect of this is that the SR20 is reasonably docile, although still very sleek in performance. In my view anyone wanting to fly a Cirrus and who is not experienced in flying many different aircraft, would do well to start with an SR20. The only thing to watch is overloading especially on a hot day: otherwise it is a joy to fly and very easy to land. Average true air speed about 135 kts using 9.2 US gals/hour.
2. The SR22 is a faster machine and more powerful, and personally not what I would recommend to a beginner. Average true air speed about 167 kts at 14.8 US galls per hour. Landing can be trickier, although I have learnt that it works best by getting the speed over the number down to about 74-77 kts, and holding off the runway for as long as possible. Any attempt at placing the aircraft onto the runway will tend to cause a bounce.
3. Both aircraft have glass cockpits, of differing complexity. It is really important to be familiar with these before take-off, especially if going into IMC. By the way, both aircraft are extremely good IFR machines: if you let go of the controls it does not drop a wing (like say a Cessna 172) but remains stabilised for a long time, thus making it ideal for changing frequencies, writing down instructions etc. For me the only drawback is that I have to remember to keep looking out the windows rather than stare at the graphics.
4. Now the question of the CAPS. Thus keeps coming up with people on both sides of the argument. Good thing or bad? The thing to remember is that the CAPS is there for a purpose, and unless you have a plan to use it there is little point in having it. The evidence has clearly shown that fatalities rarely occur when the CAPS has been used, but a number of fatalities have happened when pilots have tried to land in fields etc. COPA have regular CPPP (Cirrus Pilots Proficiency Programmes) usually twice a year in Europe. I consider it important to attend at least one of these in order to learn about the aircraft and especially the use of the CAPS. The routine that is now being taught is that after take-off when retracting the flaps you automatically touch the CAPS handle (the theory is that this plants in your mind that it is there to be used) , and you say "flaps, CAPS, speed" as a matter of habit. Furthermore it is recommended that unless one is over an airfield and can make the runway, CAPS should be employed with an engine failure. CAPS has been demonstrated to work even at quite low heights. Members of COPA say "Pull early, pull often!". Most times there is a fatal accident with a Cirrus people ask "why did't he/she use the parachute?"
5. Finally, here is a recommendation. At Poznan (Poland) airport they have installed a full-motion Cirrus simulator at Aero Poznan. You can take a cheap Ryanair (yes I know!) flight to Poznan and get a lot of useful practice in various skills useful for flying a Cirrus. I have tried it and learnt quite a lot. You also get a chance to visit a very nice city! Flew there recently in my SR22: journey time normally 4.5 hours, but because of a strong tailwind did it in 3.5 hours!
1. There is a large difference between flying an SR20 and and SR22. The SR20 has a HP approximately 2/3rds of the SR22. The effect of this is that the SR20 is reasonably docile, although still very sleek in performance. In my view anyone wanting to fly a Cirrus and who is not experienced in flying many different aircraft, would do well to start with an SR20. The only thing to watch is overloading especially on a hot day: otherwise it is a joy to fly and very easy to land. Average true air speed about 135 kts using 9.2 US gals/hour.
2. The SR22 is a faster machine and more powerful, and personally not what I would recommend to a beginner. Average true air speed about 167 kts at 14.8 US galls per hour. Landing can be trickier, although I have learnt that it works best by getting the speed over the number down to about 74-77 kts, and holding off the runway for as long as possible. Any attempt at placing the aircraft onto the runway will tend to cause a bounce.
3. Both aircraft have glass cockpits, of differing complexity. It is really important to be familiar with these before take-off, especially if going into IMC. By the way, both aircraft are extremely good IFR machines: if you let go of the controls it does not drop a wing (like say a Cessna 172) but remains stabilised for a long time, thus making it ideal for changing frequencies, writing down instructions etc. For me the only drawback is that I have to remember to keep looking out the windows rather than stare at the graphics.
4. Now the question of the CAPS. Thus keeps coming up with people on both sides of the argument. Good thing or bad? The thing to remember is that the CAPS is there for a purpose, and unless you have a plan to use it there is little point in having it. The evidence has clearly shown that fatalities rarely occur when the CAPS has been used, but a number of fatalities have happened when pilots have tried to land in fields etc. COPA have regular CPPP (Cirrus Pilots Proficiency Programmes) usually twice a year in Europe. I consider it important to attend at least one of these in order to learn about the aircraft and especially the use of the CAPS. The routine that is now being taught is that after take-off when retracting the flaps you automatically touch the CAPS handle (the theory is that this plants in your mind that it is there to be used) , and you say "flaps, CAPS, speed" as a matter of habit. Furthermore it is recommended that unless one is over an airfield and can make the runway, CAPS should be employed with an engine failure. CAPS has been demonstrated to work even at quite low heights. Members of COPA say "Pull early, pull often!". Most times there is a fatal accident with a Cirrus people ask "why did't he/she use the parachute?"
5. Finally, here is a recommendation. At Poznan (Poland) airport they have installed a full-motion Cirrus simulator at Aero Poznan. You can take a cheap Ryanair (yes I know!) flight to Poznan and get a lot of useful practice in various skills useful for flying a Cirrus. I have tried it and learnt quite a lot. You also get a chance to visit a very nice city! Flew there recently in my SR22: journey time normally 4.5 hours, but because of a strong tailwind did it in 3.5 hours!