Cirrus Watch

[Deleted member 27505]

Training is the big key here. As in training the pilots what the CAPS is, how it works, when to consider using it, and how to help it work for you by using it within its operating envelope. This last point is key here: many, many pilots have successfully ejected from aircraft and not survived. If the seat isn't used within its parameters or if the pilot doesn't do what he can (if possible) to help the seat to help him, with regards to parameters, then survival percentage drops dramatically. Both systems are similar in being emergency systems, but both require some detailed training in when, where, how, and why in the use of them. Neither one is a miracle savior.

Precisely.

 

[MikeD]

Precisely.

Too, I agree with @trafficinsight that training and experience likely aren't good selling points or marketing points for potential customers who want to just get in and go. Much like buying some new computer game or a new car......who ever actually sits down and reads the instructions or the owners manual?

But we all know that knowing the systems of one's airplane is paramount, especially emergency systems and their capabilities, but more importantly, their limitations.

I wish there was some requirement in some way for people who fly these aircraft to have to learn and understand this stuff cold.......to understand that this is "need to know" information, not "nice to know" information. It would be nice if the company took the steps to bridge that knowlege gap between the pilot and that information. But as mentioned, they appear to have no incentive to. I would like to think they have all the incentive to if they marketed it better. But that's just my own opinion.

 

[Nark]

@MikeD there is a lot to be said about the rote level and the correlation level of training.
There was a prolific accident in Afghanistan, in which a -60 drooped its rotors. PC went to
lockout, or thought too. He failed to know that at his altitude+configuration he was in NG limiting. Lockout isn't going to help.
Whilst knowing EP's cold, not know systems, or capabilities, really did them in.

I saw our 'sister' ship "reach" rotor droop coming out of FARP. Different flight, same PI damn near did it again with me, yanking the guts out of it, not mindful of torque. Their (his unit's) culture was/is get there fast!!!! Who cares about the details needed to get there...

You're absolutely right, and as @trafficinsight mentioned, selling a really capable aircraft that can do darn near anything is a great selling point, it doesn't do justice when your out in the weeds, and Lady Luck comes calling.

 

[Deleted member 27505]

Too, I agree with @trafficinsight that training and experience likely aren't good selling points or marketing points for potential customers who want to just get in and go. Much like buying some new computer game or a new car......who ever actually sits down and reads the instructions or the owners manual?

But we all know that knowing the systems of one's airplane is paramount, especially emergency systems and their capabilities, but more importantly, their limitations.

I wish there was some requirement in some way for people who fly these aircraft to have to learn and understand this stuff cold.......to understand that this is "need to know" information, not "nice to know" information. It would be nice if the company took the steps to bridge that knowlege gap between the pilot and that information. But as mentioned, they appear to have no incentive to. I would like to think they have all the incentive to if they marketed it better. But that's just my own opinion.

I wish there were some requirement in some way for people who fly these aircraft to have to learn and understand what they were supposed to learn and understand in order to get a PPL in the first place.
Part of the trouble in talking about this is that when we are talking about training emergency systems and limitations to a higher level, we are already at a higher order of the training hierarchy. We are assuming that the pilots we're talking about have solid basic skills and knowledge. Unfortunately, that's just not a valid generizable assumption.
I don't know how much exposure you have to private GA owner/operators as an instructor, but what I see out in that world is shocking. We're talking about levels of competence and knowledge that make me wonder how some of these cats ever passed their initial PPL checkride, let alone the multiple Flight Reviews they've apparently been pencil-whipped through. I see folks who own really nice airplanes who have trouble locating and/or even identifying the POH for their aircraft. One guy once handed me his POH... it was a California Airport Directory. He was not joking. Another guy who had made a point of telling all the IFR flights he had made in the last couple years started up his aircraft and blew through the G1000 initialization screen with blissful ignorance, even after I had told him ahead of time to stop on that page. I had him reinitialize and check the screen.
"What does this screen tell you? I asked.
"Well, that's just a bunch of technical system stuff," he replied.
"Why don't you take a closer look and tell me what you see," I recommended.
"Well, it looks like stuff about databases."
"Ok, what does that date after 'Aviation Database' mean?" I queried.
He had no idea that he even needed to update the db. His was over 8 years out of date.
Another guy could not tell me what inspections were required for his airplane and could not find them in his aircraft maintenance logs.
Another guy could not keep the centerline between the main gear on takeoffs or landings. He could barely keep his very nice aircraft on the runway at all.
A common thread amongst this type is the right hand reaching for the A/P button at about 100AGL after takeoff.
I agree with everything you are saying about systems training. I'm just saying that in many many cases, that's a bit like worrying about the roof shingle rating before you've even got the foundation of the house built.

 

[killbilly]

I mean, the presence of an ejection seat in a tactical jet doesn't mean that the pilot isn't going to bother with emergency procedures and just punch out at the first sign of trouble. Similar with the PAARS system we had in the F-117; it was understood that it was for an in-extremis spatial-D situation (of which the 117 was very susceptible to inducing) to where either normal recovery measures didn't work, or the situation was only getting worse and recovery not happening.

You've mentioned PAARS before - I'm curious: did you ever have to try it out, or train with it?

Honestly I'd say that the marketing of a piston single as a serious business aircraft leads to those attitudes, and getting into situations that kill a minimally trained pilot, more than just the presence of a safety system. The system itself may be a factor, but the sales pitch attracts a certain clientele.

Words mean things, and when I hear "certain clientele" it tends to be a dog-whistle for "rich guys with bigger egos than they should have." Not saying that was your intent, but that's what experience has led me to decode from that phrase.

It might be more accurate to say that one of Cirrus's target demos is small-medium businesses who need an airplane for business travel; I had a short interview with an operator of a Cirrus for exactly that role flying for him part time. Didn't get the job - my TT and Cirrus experience were inadequate for his insurance needs - but it did lead to an interesting discussion.

The CAPS system is somewhat favorable to an insurance company, because they're less likely to have to pay out on a fatality than they might on other types of aircraft. I don't know the actuary numbers or anything, but a LOT of corporate behavior is dictated by insurance companies. (As an aside - the last three companies I worked for had rules about more than two C-level execs on the same flight at any given time - it was not allowed per our corporate insurance. Same insurance that wouldn't let me operate an aircraft in furtherance of the business.)

I don't doubt that there are lots of rich guys with more ego than they should have; cliches become that way for a reason. But I think the discussion about who Cirrus markets to - and who buys from them - is a little more nuanced than that.

 

[trafficinsight]

Sort of but no.

The "rich and a big ego" characteristic is really only secondary. If you can buy a Cirrus you're doing alright.

But we're not talking about who buys a Cirrus, we're talking about who dies in one.

The marketing is classic "hey if you buy this you're never going to have any trouble with it." Used car salesman tactic. "Where you want when you want with no hassle" is an irresponsible and dangerous lie to tell a fledgeling aviator. That's more what I'm getting at.

I'll qualify that with this statement:

The mechanic in me believes that no piston single should be marketed as anything but a pleasure craft with occasional utility when conditions allow.

The Alaska folks should be here any minute

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[MikeD]

You've mentioned PAARS before - I'm curious: did you ever have to try it out, or train with it?[//QUOTE]

Yes, you have to train with it every so often to remain familiar with how it works as when it works, it does so quickly and can be quite disconcerting as to how much of a sense of urgency it has in doing its job for you. It also has to be checked on Functional Check Flights. Essentially, you set up a nose high and nose low unusual attitude, even with extreme pitch/roll attitudes, and press the button. It will seek the fastest way to the nearest horizon, roll wings level, and establish 5 degrees pitch up/250 kts. And it will surprise you how fast it goes about doing it.....within its G limitations, but it's using all those limitations, as to that system, it thinks you're in imminent danger of impacting the ground.