What is it that makes some Cirrus-haters so arrogant and condescending in this assumption that the mythical "cirrus marketing" mesmerises clueless morons into buying the aircraft. It's just outrageous and I think the Cirrus guys on the thread are very restrained in their responses. (I don't fly any of the aircraft discussed in this thread)

Firstly, I've never seen anything from "Cirrus marketing" that looks particularly different or that could be any more misleading or mesmerising than all the other light airplane maketing out there. Secondly, I've never come across a Cirrus owner who was a moron who found $600k in the street. They tend to be professional people and entreprenuers who've worked hard to be able to buy the airplane they want.

All aircraft have a specific set of attributes and every owner has a different weighting of priorities amongst attributes. I think it's just immature not to recognise that any individual's preferences are as legitimate as anyone elses.

The preference the market has for the Cirrus it totally unsurprising. It's just a very attractive product. You line up a Cirrus next to a Mooney and it's a no-brainer which the majority of pilots will pick. The extra speed and range in the Mooney just don't make up for the cramped cabin, dated looks (and, perhaps, the fragile and endlessly insolvent maker). If I really wanted the max speed and range from a single for 1000nm legs, I'd buy a used Malibu with pressurisation and a cabin-class interior. I'd just rather not go than use oxygen in a cramped single for 5hrs. Which leaves the Mooney as the obvioulsy niche product it is. One can respect it as such, but it's pretty nutty to rant on about why the 20x or 50x? more people who buy Cirruses aren't in your little niche. The Beech has some sort of 'traditional' look to it which is nice, but that's about the end of it. Why do I spend the best part of $1m and then have to go after-market for turbos and deice? And the narrow cabin is horrible. Forget the numbers and technical attributes - what's the point of buying an uncomfortable aircraft?

Cirrus make some unconventional decisions which may be annoying (eg. I'd prefer a prop control for the reasons discussed, and a normal stall certification without the BRS) but the decisions they've made, on balance, appeal to more pilots than any other fast single.

brgds
421C

IO540 - Interesting thoughts on the interior. It makes sense. Especially older Cirrus aircraft don't like sitting in the sun day after day. Then again, a lot of cars don't like it either. A G1 to G2 interior change was to make the interior trim panels easier to remove from the plane during annual. A lot got broken going in and out of the plane. This was particularly true of fractional operators who have a 100 hour annual requirement. That meant 6 times per year for removal. My wife and I flew through a fractional for 5 years. She finally said she wanted her own plane and to maintain it her way. While I have seen Cirrus aircraft with that worn out look they have all been 1200 hour plus planes in fractionals that sat in Georgia or Florida sun all day.Usually closer to 1800 hours.

Fuji Abound - What I have seen indicates the molds are fine. Some of the finishing work could be improved. As for the doors, I think more recent ones are carbon fiber for weight. Mine fit fine but if passengers shut during run-up it doesn't work due to the propwash bending the door slightly. It is key to get the two latches sync'd and have that checked each year. The adjustment is simple. The Diamonds I have seen seemed a little better on paint shop work but no major difference. As for interior leather, Cirrus now offers a premium leather if you are willing to pay extra.

I bought my plane used because I couldn't afford a new one. Both my wife and I drive 1996 vehicles. I looked at the new Hyundai and it was nice. I offered my wife a new vehicle but she wanted the avionics upgrade instead. :)

I still don't get it if you make such a 'wanted' product like a Cirrus why there are so many cirrus' on the second hand market and no one picks them up. They're a bargain!

Oh wait, maybe it's because like said before that cirrus don't get any money from second hand sales so their marketing machine isn't working on it. Can't blame them. But if they where really a product that the market would need, they would have been sold directly since it's the best plane you can find out there ? APPARENTLY NOT !!! It's a proof for me, that people who don't know a lot about aviation buy a Cirrus because they just don't know better. On the second hand market things are different, there you have people who compare, calculate and think.

$1600+ depreciation per flying hour, how do you live with that ? No honestly ?

Do you try not to think about it ?

Do you lie to yourself ?

Do you think it's normal ? IT's NOT.

Sternone

Now you know the reason why there are a good many Cirrus for sale at the moment. It is equally true of Diamonds and I suspect true of just about every other aircraft in curent production with the number for sale being approximately proportionate to the number produced.

As I was attempting to explain earlier there is still a niche market in aviation. Really good Mooneys or Bonanazas are hard to find. Moreover I think we would agree, they are built in a different way, although I am still not sure the build quality is enormously better. However just like my analogy with yachts there are some people who will pay the going rate for quality or simply to be different. Mind you even that market is temperamental at the moment - you could get lucky and sell a good Ovation quickly and you might not be so lucky.

When I thought of buying a 42 everyone wanted one - the market was really strong and prices reflected the strengh - how that has changed, you cant give them away now.

I dont know why you are so fixated on depreciation. Have you looked at the price of some cars when new and compared this price with their second hand value a year after?

Finally I dont know why you apply logic to an illogical situation. Look on eBay at some of the consumer items purchased weeks before and being sold for a fraction of their new price. You have only got to discuss with a woman the logic of spending £4,000 on a bag and I know of some men who are worse; well come to that any man that buys a new light aircraft! I can think of at least one chap I know who has sold three cars in the last 14 months each pruchased new and each involving a very signficant loss; one of the cars he had for three weeks and it cost him £8K - I make that nearly £16 for every single hour he owned it.

In short you are wasting your time trying to make a rational financial argument for ever buying a new aircraft. :)

If you want value for money buy something a few years old - it has always been that way. Most of the depreciation works itself off in that period but with any luck you will not have to spend too much on the item for a few more years. I was always fond of telling people that I actually sold the first aircraft I owned for more than I paid for it - I really did. However, in reality the maintenance costs were high, much higher than on an aircraft a few years old and of course I didnt add the "capital" running costs onto the purchase price.

Fuji, I'm just comparing the huge depreciation on a Cirrus with any other plane around on the market.

The cirrus is the worse in every case. That's the whole issue.

I suspect the huge Cirrus depreciation of the last year or two is a combination of

- the collapse in the GA market (only nichey products, with demand supported by no longer being made, have held up well - recent-model Mooneys and TB20GTs come to mind)

- a constant flow of new models with flashy new kit

- a LOT of sales in recent years, probably satisfying years of pent up demand for something modern and Made in America (just like Cessna sales rocketed after the USA passed that GA revitalisation Act)

- modern marketing, successful at digging out completely new customers who think of them as cars so depreciation is not much of a concern

- assorted teething troubles with the older Cirruses, perhaps? (One hears many stories of major avionics failures of the Avidyne kit, and I can't help wondering why, on my long trips, I so rarely see Cirruses having done long trips; could be that their European customer profile is not into going anywhere far, or it could be regular issues)

- similar to above, I might suspect significant downtime/hassle, caused not by the product being generally unreliable but by the need to fly it back to the dealer for most work (I know if I had a Cirrus then local maintenance would be hard and avionics work impossible with any glass cockpit model; it's a flight back to the Garmin/Avidyne dealer for anything at all). I would not expect this factor to translate to more Cirrus sales but the customers have nowhere else to go if they want something modern, and once you have had a glass cockpit you won't be going back from that.

I don't think there is anything "wrong" with a Cirrus as a plane (well apart from the lack of rpm control, and fixed landing gear :) ) but - along with a lot of other stuff out there - I sure would not want to own one unless I was based at an airport with a Cirrus dealer and the appropriate glass cockpit avionics dealer. That's why I am sticking with my TB20GT (sellable for about 140k which is a drop from 197k over 7.5 years) and if somebody offered to install a G600 for free I would not go for it.

Unless you read the Aviation Consumer article reporting 10% of owners had in-flight engine failures. I know that article has been partly discredited but the real story behind the numerous engine failures is awfully hard to establish. I know one bloke who used to fly them for business, daily and he saw many failures in the fleet (though mostly "just" cylinder cracks rather than stoppages).

There is no good solution to this mission profile, below the turboprop level which is much more costly.

Are you?

Lets see the comparison with say Diamond or any other volume manufacturer.

I have a pretty good idea what you can actually buy a 42 for at the moment. I also know what some of the Cessnas are actually changing hands for.

This is a very entertaining thread! Particularly amusing is one person's negative obsession with Cirrus.

It seems to me that you cannot divorce these issues from what goes on in the wide world and from the hugh social and economic changes which have occured in the post war years but particularly in the last ten to fifteen years.

In the immediate post war period there was the start of a new golden age in aviation, mainly in the US. As factories switched from war to peace time production we say the genesis of whole new ranges of aircraft manufactured to then modern standards with modern materials. Piper, Cessna, Mooney and Beechcraft all developed their iconic products in the immediate post war years. America was not bankrupt like the UK. People had money, these manufacturers were producing aircraft which were faster, easier to fly and safer. People had money to burn and personal transport was something that many aspired to, in an age when commercial air travel was still expensive.

Things have now changed in a way which makes it very difficult for any company to be a volume producer of touring aircraft. Air travel is dirt cheap, destinations have proliferated and at the same time aviation (GA) has become more regulated, fuel much more expensive and air space more congested and restricted, at least in Europe. People have more and varied things to spend their money on so aircraft come down the list. It is no coincidence that the average age of pilots is going up (as is the average age of attenders at things like Oskosh).

Against this background, it is hardly surprising that to make a profit a company like Cirrus has to market like a car maker or washing machine seller! They see their mission as to turn a personal light aircraft from being a specialised product to something akin to a main stream consumer product, all be it an expensive one. Compare the present to the former PC market. It was not long ago that to buy a computer you went to a specialist; now any store sells them!

There will still be a hard core of avaitors who dislike the modern image and marketing of Cirrus and prefer the older design of a Mooney or a TB20. However, they will be in a minority and as time goes on they will be an ever diminishing minority. No manufacturer will ever again I suspect build to suit such a small market. Recent events at Mooney show that it is virtually impossible to weather an economic storm of the sort we have just been through.

My prediction (not much of one really as it is already happening) is that the future of light aviation is in small LSA/VLA aircraft which are cheap to operate, can fly from small strips (useful with the cost of landing at many licensed airfields) and which run on mogas or diesel (the future is limited for Avgas thanks to new environmental lobbying in the US and elsewhere). They will be day VFR, which is all the majority of pilots aspire to. No, these aircraft are not as robust as a Piper or a Cessna, nor do thay have the payload, but they are hugely cheaper to build and to operate.

Arguments about depreciation of Cirrus versus Piper or Mooney are irrelevent. Any new product of this sort will depreciate hugely - even a new certified LSA will depreciate significantly, as does almost any consumer item these days. Mass produced anything will tend to wear and look tatty quicker than something made 50 years ago (comparison with cars is very relevant). That is "progress". That same object will at the same time be far cheaper to manufacture and to manufacturer to a high standard and be a more technically competent product than something 50 years old.

Depreciation of DA42s and DA40Ds is high for a different reason than that for SR22s: the engine manufacturer going bust and voiding the warranties, so dramatically increasing the running costs.

Partly true I have no doubt.

However you can buy a 42 with a fixed price guarantee from Diamond for replacing the engines with the new diesels for a remarkable price.

Moreover Thielert seem to have resolved most of their issues, the prices of parts has fallen dramatically and perhaps a 40 or 42 with Thielerts is not such a bad buy.

However many of the 42s were sold to flying schools to replace ancient twins. Many have already upgraded their fleet and in the same way as Cirrus the ones keeping their bank managers happy with profits will be selling of their early 42s and replacing them and the ones not keeping the bank manager happy will be selling them because they need to.

It all adds up to a market with similarities across the fleet and elements unique to certain types - I suspect the uptake of Diamonds by schools has been far higher than the up take of Cirrus.

Yes, the depreciation situation on the Thielert-engined Diamonds is quite suprisingly "not bad", now that Thielert are again shipping parts.

However, one should not completely disregard the possibility of Diamond itself getting into financial trouble. The whole GA business is in dire straits, Diamond are extending themselves financially on a number of fronts (they seem to have resumed development of the D-Jet, after reportedly shelving it 6-12 months ago, and they spent a load of $$$ getting the paperwork for the Austro engine signed off) and they have now bet the whole shop on the Austro engine being reliable.

Their only hedge against this utter disaster is their old business which must still be generating some cash, and the very rapid move they did to get an avgas DA42 certified for the US market.

If the Austro engine causes problems, Diamond will be in severe difficulties and the Austro engined owners will be in an even deeper water. With Thielert, there were able to rely (with any non-private buyers) on separate contracts for airframe and engine but with Austro they won't be able to do that. I don't know whether there will be a certified downgrade from Austro to Thielert (for a from-new Austro engined airframe) but can you imagine facing such an option? A bankrupt airframe maker, and you have to chuck away a worthless engine and install an engine with a known poor reliability record made by a firm operated by an Administrator :)

421C

Excellent post. A bit of sense at last.

This is really a marketing discussion. This aircraft is largely aimed at the US market and many owners will have bought/leased through their businesses and use them accordingly. They will take any loss just like they would for their company car or machinery necessary for their business.

Last time I was in Florida I was stunned by the number that I saw. As for the comment that they are not used for long journeys, I would say that is far from the truth.

Any business will tell you that large numbers sold equals large numbers second hand. The on-going program that Cirrus have of updates and new models is consistent with building the business for the long term. I don't suppose that they sat in planning meetings saying 'Hey, let's build a new airplane to old specifications'. They designed it for their core market i.e. IR, GA friendly.

I just received notice of an emergency AD for various TCM engines that immediately grounds SR20s, until their lifters are inspected. Over on COPA, they're saying it applies to the SR22 as well. That should leave the skies quiet for a while.

I have read the AD. It is by serial number and only affects very recent aircraft. Also, since people like to make things Cirrus specific, please remember that it applies to a broad range of TCM engines no matter the airframe manufacturer. It currently does not list the IO 550N but I believe this is an oversight and will get corrected.

Oh well, Lycoming crankshafts, Continental tappets... no end to this "$15,000 a job" saga. I wonder if Conti will be paying for their crap QA. Lyco paid for the early crank batches, but didn't pay for the remaining 5500 :)

This thread started with a question of the safety of Cirrus. I notice in many posts the unchallenged statement that glass cockpit is the way forward and that it is very difficult to manufacture and sell an aircraft with conventional instruments. Why so?

Understandably, glass has made its way in to the airlines, where the whole process of aviation is very different. However, does glass make for a safer cockpit? There may well be a false assumption amongst buyers that it does and this may be where the problem lies. Essentially the same information is presented in a more compact format. It is questionable whether the format is any safer and personally I have found these instruments more difficult to read as part of a scan than conventional dials. Interpreting a speed or altitude from a ribbon and figures is not as effective under pressure as reading the position of a needle. Furthermore, does this expensive instrumentation contribute to the depreciation, by having a high(er) initial cost along with greater difficulty of maintenance (as IO has alluded to)? Modern glass instruments also seem to suffer from far more frequent upgrades leading to buyers perhaps chasing the latest version and flooding the second hand market.

Discuss :ok:

IMHO "glass" is a must, for simple fashion reasons.

There is little doubt that glass does present information more clearly.

I think most purchasers are unaware of the drawbacks, or they don't care.

With regards glass there is no doubt it will take a pilot accustom to a six pack time to adjust. You cant tell which you prefer until you have been behind glass for at least ten hours and perhaps more.

I can imagine the amount of information availlable from typical glass systems maybe daunting to some, and more daunting is the need to be comfortable with the controls which are many orders of magnitude more complex that traditional instruments. If you are comfortable with computers it probably will not bother you, if you are not, I can imagine some being terrified.

Be it IFR or VFR one of the keys to safe flying is situational awareness. Nothing comes close to the situational awareness provided by a 12" TFT colour MDF or whatever spec it is because at a glance you can see exactly where you are on the chart and if needs must exactly where you are in the IAP. I find it difficult to see how some of the CFIT would have occurred had the aircraft been fitted with a MDF.

To be fair the PDF is simply replicating the six pack and adding a little more information so in itself it probably doesnt advance matters a great deal, but you can paint the map or the approach on most PDFs in a pop up box or beneath the rose which I think advances situational awareness enormously. Also the PDF is more adaptable to pilot grabbing attention by flashing up urgent warnings in a way that is hard to miss.

For those comfortable with glass I think it is a substantial step forward in providing pilots with the information they need in an easy to assimilate form.

On other issues I have no idea whether glass will prove cost effective. I would guess it is much cheaper for a mnaufacturer to install glass in terms of the labour required. Clearly at the moment the systems are more expensive whilst the manufacturers are profitering and paying off their R and D costs but my guess is glass is much cheaper to manufacture. In the marine world you only have to consider how cheap chart plotters are now and I dont suppose the technology is all that different.

Inevitably there is an issue with repairs. It will take time before avionics shops have the skills to repair glass in the field and indeed are authorised to do so. However it should not be forgotten that many of the underlying systems are simply the boxes we are accustom to having on our panels but driven by the keys on the PDF / MDF. For example the GPS nav component of the G1000 is really nothing more than two 430 s. Since the systems are modular swapping certain of the modular components in the field should not be an issue.

IO540 will know better than me but I have a feeling solid state electronics are in the end more reliable and cheaper to repair than something with a whirring mechanical gyro. If that is so in the long run glass should serve us better.

Is it? What is the failure rate of glass panels and what basic instruments are you left with in case of a panel failure? What are the risks of an inflight "reset" and what time does it take?

I'm old fashioned... I still prefer the old dials combined with a good moving map display, so if one thing goes, I still have the rest...


Everyone to their opinions! :-)

Oh I left out one thing: the cirrus parachute has a speed limit, and 90% of the time you are probably going too fast to deploy it.

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

Sternone

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

vanHorck

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IO540 -

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

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

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

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

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

sternone

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

Justiciar -

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

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

paulp

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Above that, there is going to be a progression.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sternone

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

I am going to leave you to it now. :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can do that today, almost.

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

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

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

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