Cirrus Watch

[denverpilot]

Neither here nor there since I can't quote names or say how I heard, but we all know it's a small world...

Our intrepid low-timer was fairly well known at the departure airport and the direct quote passed to me was, "he flew a lot of XCs with the autopilot on".

Make of that what you will. Personally I don't mind the A/P being used heavily, especially at night over bad terrain, but the comment wasn't said in a positive light.

Have to put the correct altitude into George or George will hit tall things. I guess we all know that.

 

[texas_pilot]

You kind of answered my rhetorical question.
The granite doesn't care about your engine. Neither does the corn. That's my point.

All the other factors you listed weren't part of my question, by design. Route selection is important, absolutely. However an engine failure at night, you're screwed regardless of the terrain your over.

Yep, sure gets quiet when the twirly thing stops.

 

[Deleted member 27505]

Neither here nor there since I can't quote names or say how I heard, but we all know it's a small world...

Our intrepid low-timer was fairly well known at the departure airport and the direct quote passed to me was, "he flew a lot of XCs with the autopilot on".

Make of that what you will. Personally I don't mind the A/P being used heavily, especially at night over bad terrain, but the comment wasn't said in a positive light.

Have to put the correct altitude into George or George will hit tall things. I guess we all know that.

Wasn't there a nursery rhyme about George?
Memory's weak, but something like...

Georgie Porgie, how Cirri fly,
Kissed the mountains, pilot die.
Set the Alti the wrong way,
Georgie Porgie get no more play.

 

[nibake]

SR-20s have a service ceiling of 17,500' and do not have a TIO-550. Parts of that post apply to the 20 and parts of it apply to the 22. I feel like you didn't read or process the entire post and immediately went on the defense for the SR-20. Cirrus has offered the wing leveler button as early as 2008. http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/cirrus-perspective/

I'm not going on the defense for anything, just noting that I've flown multiple 2008 SR20s and an SR22 AATD and none had a wings leveler. There was also nothing in the POH implying that it was on option that other models might have. I'm not saying it's impossible.

 

[hammerhat]

I teach at CTC, have flown multiple 20s and 22s, can't think of one that didn't have the button, not sure if it's even possible to order a Cirrus without it these days. It's definitely mentioned in the FOM and is emphasized in Cirrus standardization course materials, since the "blue button" is now part of the pax briefing.

 

[denverpilot]

Wasn't there a nursery rhyme about George?
Memory's weak, but something like...

Georgie Porgie, how Cirri fly,
Kissed the mountains, pilot die.
Set the Alti the wrong way,
Georgie Porgie get no more play.

Ouch. That's rough. Really rough.

I teach at CTC, have flown multiple 20s and 22s, can't think of one that didn't have the button, not sure if it's even possible to order a Cirrus without it these days. It's definitely mentioned in the FOM and is emphasized in Cirrus standardization course materials, since the "blue button" is now part of the pax briefing.

There's a bunch of old steam gauge Cirri around here that don't have it. Part of that is there was a big marketing push and one of their bigger affiliate schools in the local area and lots of early adopters.

Last guy I talked to on the ramp who owned one was kinda sounding desperate for a partner as once the newer SR20s came out, his no longer rented well on a leaseback and he was feeling the pain of a long term mortgage on the thing. He tried pretty hard to see if I wanted out of my 182 co-ownership to join him in his old SR20.

I smiled and said I'd think about it (didn't want the guy jumping off a bridge or anything, still paying on that loan that cost more than my first house). Here's hoping he found some relief from his fiscal woes.

We own the 182 outright. Not a chance in Hades I would go into debt for an original SR20. Nice guy though.

The co-ownership across the hangar row from us has an SR22T. They seem happy with it. They must make a crap-ton of money, which I say, more power to them... but it's out of my league, for sure. Pretty airplane.

Not "costs more than my house" pretty, but if you have the means, someone's got to buy them, I guess. I hate debt. With a passion. Almost more than I hate politicians.

 

[Bear]

A very candid lengthy 'CAUTION' opinion.

'an owner's review by Philip Greenspun, ATP, CFII, in July 2005, updated July 2017'

http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20

 

[CFI A&P]

I'm not going on the defense for anything, just noting that I've flown multiple 2008 SR20s and an SR22 AATD and none had a wings leveler. There was also nothing in the POH implying that it was on option that other models might have. I'm not saying it's impossible.

Just because you are not aware of it, does not mean it doesn't exist. In my earlier post I had a link to an article about the blue wing level button. Here is a YouTube video and I even quoted another user's post that flies a fleet of them equipped with a blue wing leveler button.

I teach at CTC, have flown multiple 20s and 22s, can't think of one that didn't have the button, not sure if it's even possible to order a Cirrus without it these days. It's definitely mentioned in the FOM and is emphasized in Cirrus standardization course materials, since the "blue button" is now part of the pax briefing.

 

[nibake]

Just because you are not aware of it, does not mean it doesn't exist. In my earlier post I had a link to an article about the blue wing level button. Here is a YouTube video and I even quoted another user's post that flies a fleet of them equipped with a blue wing leveler button.

I'm not sure exactly what you want, that is great, it sounds like some models do indeed have a wings leveler button! I never said it didn't exist, only that I hadn't seen one. We can keep rehashing this ad infinitum if you would like...?

 

[knot4u]

.

 

[Bear]

1. Activation Handle Cover...................................................REMOVE 2. Activation Handle (Both Hands)......PULL STRAIGHT DOWN Approximately 45 lbs of force is required to active CAPS. Pull the handle with both hands in a chin-up style pull until the handle is fully extended.

The real problem with CAPS is it normalizes a kind of complacency and some really questionable procedures for precisely the kinds of pilots worst suited for that complacency and those procedures.

'The Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) components were separated from the airframe and distributed in the debris field. The parachute was fully extended in a folded state with the slider at the base and entangled in tree branches. The CAPS rocket was located about 200 feet from the initial impact and was not expended.'
https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20170916X12649&key=1

 

[AM011309]

It hadn't been mentioned yet, but this cornfield vs mountain thing has me thinking that flying at say 13,000ft over the mountains you're essentially maybe 2,000 ft AGL?Depending on the mountain range of course. And it's totally dark, is the peak 1,000 ft below you or is there a valley 6,000 ft below you, nobody knoooowssss. Whereas over the cornfield, probably also totally dark, if you're at 13,000ft you have way more altitude to possibly deal with a problem. Or just more time to scream on the way down, I'm not a pilot or an engineer or anything, just seems like when dealing with mountain type turbulence/wind/issues you'd either want more altitude or daylight or performance or some combination of all. It's just funny that people are almost ridiculing people for having second thoughts about it. Trying to sandwich yourself between mountaintops and clouds in the dark doesn't sound very tasty. But maybe I'm being silly and if I was a pilot I'd understand the big picture better and just fearlessly go blast off into them lol

 

[MikeD]

Again, mountains and night VFR don't compound mechanical failures.

Piston engines run rougher at night over mountains

Will I fly my piston engine, single in the mountains at night? Absolutely maybe.

I did all the time in the early 90s flying 135 cargo in 207s and Lance birds. But, that was the job snd that was what I was getting paid to do. No one putting a gun to my head to do it. But man, some nights were so dark, that you feel like you're in a sim because theres nothing to see outside....no lights of any kind, and no relative motion; just the engine running and instruments moving with their different indications. Had to know the layout of the airports departing from and arriving to, in order to know where and which direction you can climb on departure, or descend on arrival. Fun times.

 

[MikeD]

There are lots of lousy pilots out there, and that's not Cirrus' fault. But with Cirrus, it's a bit of a catch 22. Without the assumption they can rely on the chute, a lot of Cirrus pilots wouldn't harbor the kind of complacency that encourages them rely on the chute.

The required CAPS system has been marketed brilliantly by Cirrus as a "we care sooooo much that we're doing this for your family" safety device. Whatever. Marketers are going to lie. It's what they do.

The real problem with CAPS is it normalizes a kind of complacency and some really questionable procedures for precisely the kinds of pilots worst suited for that complacency and those procedures. In CSIP training, they ask instructors, "You've just taken off and climbed to 500AGL when you lose your engine. What are you going to do?" The expected - and required - answer is, "Pull the Chute." OK, fine, if you have the presence of mind to do so timely. But what happens when you learn to fly in a Cirrus and then sit down at the controls of almost any other airplane? Huge negative transfer at the very least. A well trained pilot who has internalized proper basic and emergency flow patterns and procedures could likely swap back and forth between a Cirrus and another airplane with no more trouble than swapping between a jet and twin piston. But your typical Cirrus pilot/owner is not a professional aviator and probably hasn't even preflighted, 'cause, you know, "I'll get all that info on my XM". If they stay in the Cirrus, they might be ok. But even then, the other problem creeps in... the even greater, insidious complacency engendered by the mere presence of that chute. "I can go, 'cause if I get into trouble, I'll just pull my chute." Sure, if you pull below max Vpd of 140kts and everything works correctly. But many a Cirrus pilot is not going to even recognize the problem early enough to fix it. The classic is the Cirrus pilot who iced up over the Sierra, lost climb ability, stalled, entered a dive, and broke through 200kts before he even recognized the problem. When he pulled the chute, it predictably departed the aircraft. The chute was designed and implemented for stall/spin recovery. Developing a sense - or worse, an assumption - that one can rely on it for any other scenario is a fools errand.

Is there a solid link that can be made that presence of a chute breeds a level of complacency and dismissivenes of the basics? I'd be curious to know details-wise, but just from the outside looking in, I can't necessarily make that connection from the evidence I've seen to date. Not saying it's not true, I just haven't yet seen the puzzle pieces making that particular link.

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.

Like I said, I can't necessarily discount this theory of chute = complacency, however I don't have hard evidence to prove it as a "cultural standard" when it comes to aircraft designed with these systems. I would definitely be watching and gathering hard evidence, on a case-by-case basis through investigation and interview, to try and determine the validity (or not) of this theory, and to what degree it may exist.

 

[MikeD]

SR-20s have a service ceiling of 17,500' and do not have a TIO-550. Parts of that post apply to the 20 and parts of it apply to the 22. I feel like you didn't read or process the entire post and immediately went on the defense for the SR-20. Cirrus has offered the wing leveler button as early as 2008. http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/cirrus-perspective/

Since the late 80s/early 90s, we had in the F-117A what was known as PAARS, or Pilot Activated Automatic Recovery System. Wasn't an automated system, but was the technology prior to what's upcoming in the automation realm when it comes to these.

When the PAARS button was depressed on the stick, the autopilot and autothrottles engaged (if off), the aircraft recovered itself to the horizon via the closest means available, rolled wings level upright, and established a 5 degree nose-up at 250 knots. Only problem was that in finding the quickest way to the horizon, it didn't know the difference between positive and negative Gs.

The system was born of a couple of accidents we had in the jet that were attributed to spatial-D. The 117 was VERY easy to get spatial-D in, since the cockpit was sealed so well, there was no "wind rush" or other aural cues of airspeed.......60 knots sounded like 600 knots, so spatial D was a constant threat with night flying.

 

[trafficinsight]

Is there a solid link that can be made that presence of a chute breeds a level of complacency and dismissivenes of the basics? I'd be curious to know details-wise, but just from the outside looking in, I can't necessarily make that connection from the evidence I've seen to date. Not saying it's not true, I just haven't yet seen the puzzle pieces making that particular link.

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.

Like I said, I can't necessarily discount this theory of chute = complacency, however I don't have hard evidence to prove it as a "cultural standard" when it comes to aircraft designed with these systems. I would definitely be watching and gathering hard evidence, on a case-by-case basis through investigation and interview, to try and determine the validity (or not) of this theory, and to what degree it may exist.

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.

From their own website: "freedom to go where you want, when you want, without waiting or hassles – and to do it with advanced technological innovation, exhilarating performances and unprecedented style."

No asterisk that says "within reasonable limits using good judgement after years of training and experience."

That stuff doesn't sell.

I'd really like to fly one sometime, they look pretty cool and they were comfy to sit in.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 27505]

Since the late 80s/early 90s, we had in the F-117A what was known as PAARS, or Pilot Activated Automatic Recovery System. Wasn't an automated system, but was the technology prior to what's upcoming in the automation realm when it comes to these.

When the PAARS button was depressed on the stick, the autopilot and autothrottles engaged (if off), the aircraft recovered itself to the horizon via the closest means available, rolled wings level upright, and established a 5 degree nose-up at 250 knots. Only problem was that in finding the quickest way to the horizon, it didn't know the difference between positive and negative Gs.

The system was born of a couple of accidents we had in the jet that were attributed to spatial-D. The 117 was VERY easy to get spatial-D in, since the cockpit was sealed so well, there was no "wind rush" or other aural cues of airspeed.......60 knots sounded like 600 knots, so spatial D was a constant threat with night flying.

Things that make you go, "hmmm?" PAARS sounds a lot like "military intelligence". I mean, how "automated" can it be if the pilot has to manually push a button? Don't know about you, but I've never had the mad skills to push anything while g-locked. Maybe it's like spin recovery in a Pitts. So my boy got all wrung out and wrapped up in a SB2. Kept flailing about trying to recover the plane from the spin. Finally decided he couldn't do it. Took his hands off the stick to unclasp the harness in preparation for bail out. By the time he looked up from unbuckling, the plane had righted itself...

Is there a solid link that can be made that presence of a chute breeds a level of complacency and dismissivenes of the basics? I'd be curious to know details-wise, but just from the outside looking in, I can't necessarily make that connection from the evidence I've seen to date. Not saying it's not true, I just haven't yet seen the puzzle pieces making that particular link.

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.

Like I said, I can't necessarily discount this theory of chute = complacency, however I don't have hard evidence to prove it as a "cultural standard" when it comes to aircraft designed with these systems. I would definitely be watching and gathering hard evidence, on a case-by-case basis through investigation and interview, to try and determine the validity (or not) of this theory, and to what degree it may exist.

As for the Cirrus, my opinion is just that. I have no "hard" evidence. In fact, I don't even know what that would be. I base my opinion strictly on my time instructing in the craft. It's not a bad airplane, though I do believe it's over-hyped. As some have pointed out, the marketing of the airplane is directed to a demographic that would, in general, likely not make great pilots regardless of what airplane they were flying.
Comparing the chute to an ejection seat occurred to me as I wrote that post. From a functional/technology standpoint, I don't think it's an unreasonable comparison. The key delta is in the make-up and training of the pilots flying the two different kinds of airplanes; little in common on that dimension unless things in military aviation have changed dramatically in the last couple decades. The main functional delta is that almost regardless of the level of FUBAR, the ejection seat is likely to save your ass right up to seconds before impact. That's just not even close to the case with a Cirrus CAPS.

 

[AM011309]

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.

I'd really like to think there's a big experience/training/mentality difference between the pilot of that aircraft vs a Cirrus

 

[MikeD]

Things that make you go, "hmmm?" PAARS sounds a lot like "military intelligence". I mean, how "automated" can it be if the pilot has to manually push a button? Don't know about you, but I've never had the mad skills to push anything while g-locked. Maybe it's like spin recovery in a Pitts. So my boy got all wrung out and wrapped up in a SB2. Kept flailing about trying to recover the plane from the spin. Finally decided he couldn't do it. Took his hands off the stick to unclasp the harness in preparation for bail out. By the time he looked up from unbuckling, the plane had righted itself...

Automatic in terms of it does the work once activated. Not that it activates itself. Remember two things: 1. It was fairly first generation in regards to things like this. And 2. It's purely for spatial D, not for G-LOC, as it's nearly impossibly to get G-LOC in a 117 anyway. Spatial D is easy to get and the the loss of SA that comes right along with it. Lots of things would have to go wrong with the jet for it to allow you to get to enough G's to fully black out.

As for the Cirrus, my opinion is just that. I have no "hard" evidence. In fact, I don't even know what that would be. I base my opinion strictly on my time instructing in the craft. It's not a bad airplane, though I do believe it's over-hyped. As some have pointed out, the marketing of the airplane is directed to a demographic that would, in general, likely not make great pilots regardless of what airplane they were flying.
Comparing the chute to an ejection seat occurred to me as I wrote that post. From a functional/technology standpoint, I don't think it's an unreasonable comparison. The key delta is in the make-up and training of the pilots flying the two different kinds of airplanes; little in common on that dimension unless things in military aviation have changed dramatically in the last couple decades. The main functional delta is that almost regardless of the level of FUBAR, the ejection seat is likely to save your ass right up to seconds before impact. That's just not even close to the case with a Cirrus CAPS.

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.

 

[MikeD]

I'd really like to think there's a big experience/training/mentality difference between the pilot of that aircraft vs a Cirrus

As I mentioned before, training in both is key. Understanding your emergency systems is paramount. It would be nice to see some mandated training/eval in the knowledge of these systems for pilots who wish to be equipped with them.