Primary training in a SR22...

PGT

PGT

Well-Known Member
What are your opinions on students flying an SR22 from the discovery flight?

I found a school that does that, $170/hr. No I'm not going there but just seems odd that the first time a student will fly the 6 pack is for the complex / commercial training.
 
I'm totally against teaching initial Private students in Glass planes. Maybe they are using the SR-22 because it is a "cool and fancy" airplane and an easier way to get people to sign up for lessons. I think you should do your Discovery Flight in the airplane you would use for your flight training.
 
I've always thought the SR22 was a LOT of airplane for primary training. Is that what you're saying too or that you think it's odd they'd jump into one for the complex? small steps, no?
 
The 22 is too much airplane for a primary student. Good luck getting insurance to buy off on flying it solo with 15 hours.
 
They wont get the experience of the older style.

First airplane i flew didn't even have dual needles.

For primary training to much of an airplane.
 
Western Michigan does their primary training in SR20's. All their primary and instrument flying is done in planes with glass.

I sure do hope these cats never end up flying freight, or instructing anywhere other than Western, because if they do they're gonna be a smoking hole in the ground sooner rather than later. I've seen the transition from glass to steam and it IS NOT pretty.
 
I teach primary students in glass panel aircraft every day. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. To be blunt, from what I've seen, critics of such training usually don't know what they're talking about.

As for primary training in an SR-22, it can be done, but it will be significantly more expensive, time consuming, and I would reserve it for very unique circumstances. As has been said, it's a high performance aircraft that was never designed to be a primary trainer. My main concern would be teaching takeoffs and landings in them. They require a much finer touch than a Cessna or Cherokee.

As for doing a discovery flight in an SR-22, why not? Discovery flights aren't necessarily instruction, they're meant to get a prospective customer excited about flying and show them what the possibilities are for integrating aviation in to their lives. What better way to do that then show them a sweet plane they can fly after getting their license in something a bit less demanding?
 
jtrain609 said:
Indeed, but there won't be that many hours of hard actual in those things.
Click to expand...

As though the students will get a lot of hard actual in the other aircraft in the fleet?

Let's face it, very few pilots are prepared for flying hard IFR straight out of flight school regardless of what plane they trained in.

As for saying unless they continue instructing in glass panels they'll become a smoking hole...you've got to be kidding me. If they become a smoking hole, that's because they got in over their head with instructing in general, not because of the panel in front of them.
 
jrh said:
I teach primary students in glass panel aircraft every day. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. To be blunt, from what I've seen, critics of such training usually don't know what they're talking about.

As for primary training in an SR-22, it can be done, but it will be significantly more expensive, time consuming, and I would reserve it for very unique circumstances. As has been said, it's a high performance aircraft that was never designed to be a primary trainer. My main concern would be teaching takeoffs and landings in them. They require a much finer touch than a Cessna or Cherokee.

As for doing a discovery flight in an SR-22, why not? Discovery flights aren't necessarily instruction, they're meant to get a prospective customer excited about flying and show them what the possibilities are for integrating aviation in to their lives. What better way to do that then show them a sweet plane they can fly after getting their license in something a bit less demanding?
Click to expand...

The military went from teaching in an old steam gauge aircraft to teaching all glass when it went from the T-37 to the T-6. It's basically "primary" training all the way through commercial instrument, with aerobatics and formation thrown in.

As for teaching the basics of flying, I don't think it will really make that much difference. I have something like 500 hours instructing in T-37's and about 400 instructing in T-6's, and for basic aero and aircraft handling I don't really think the glass makes much difference. In fact, when it comes to high performance airplanes for initial training, I think there are some definite advantages (especially if the aircraft is aerobatic). For example, you can throw in some things like "unusual attitudes" ( or 'upset training' as the civillian world usually calls it).

As for the instrument training, I think the glass does make a big difference. I think the students who grow up instructing in the steam gauges usually learn the basic instrument procedures better unless the instructor is religious about a building block approach that doesn't let them use the GPS/ stickmap functions until they are really proficient at using basic HSI/RMI/CI (whatever happens to be installed or available). Steam gauges to glass transitions seem to go better than glass to steam for me, as well.

In practice it seems like most instructors (including me- but it's largely driven by our syllabus) are more interested in showing a guy the "tricks" that the new gizmos can do that will improve his "performance". "Performance" being defined as how well he flies the particular airplane he is currently flying, rather than how well he would be able to fly instruments using any possible legal configuration of instrument equipment out there.
 
jrh said:
As though the students will get a lot of hard actual in the other aircraft in the fleet?

Let's face it, very few pilots are prepared for flying hard IFR straight out of flight school regardless of what plane they trained in.

As for saying unless they continue instructing in glass panels they'll become a smoking hole...you've got to be kidding me. If they become a smoking hole, that's because they got in over their head with instructing in general, not because of the panel in front of them.
Click to expand...

I've had to train people from glass to steam gauges, and they would have become smoking holes without me sitting there next to them. We're talking about IFR flying, BTW.
 
jtrain609 said:
I've had to train people from glass to steam gauges, and they would have become smoking holes without me sitting there next to them. We're talking about IFR flying, BTW.
Click to expand...

Ok, since I haven't seen exactly what you're referring to, I can't comment.

My point is only that I think glass panels get unnecessarily blamed by old school pilots for a trainee's poor performance. It might have been the glass panel, or it might have been poor instruction, or a lack of recent experience, or somebody who was never very talented to begin with, or any number of things.

Did these pilots you're referring to actually wash out of training, or did they figure out the conventional panel and make it? If they made it, obviously they couldn't have been *that* bad.

If they did wash out, what was the washout rate compared to pilots who had come from backgrounds with conventional panels? Did the pilots from conventional backgrounds never wash out?
 
jrh said:
Ok, since I haven't seen exactly what you're referring to, I can't comment.

My point is only that I think glass panels get unnecessarily blamed by old school pilots for a trainee's poor performance. It might have been the glass panel, or it might have been poor instruction, or a lack of recent experience, or somebody who was never very talented to begin with, or any number of things.

Did these pilots you're referring to actually wash out of training, or did they figure out the conventional panel and make it? If they made it, obviously they couldn't have been *that* bad.

If they did wash out, what was the washout rate compared to pilots who had come from backgrounds with conventional panels? Did the pilots from conventional backgrounds never wash out?
Click to expand...

If you're interested in numbers and analysis shoot me a PM and I'll fill you in.
 
I always would try to start teaching in glass of the bat when I was instructing. Sure it was $10 more than the steam but the way I see it was that Cessna doesn't make steam airplanes anymore so we should get an early jump on learning the glass.

One student I had soloed in the 172 G1000, then bought a 182 with the G1000, and after his x/c's he told me he would never fly an airplane without a G1000 in it. Later he sold his 182 and bought a Mooney Acclaim... with the G1000 of course.
 
Ya know, now that I fly glass birds, I don't think that it's really all that different from the steam guages I flew at ACE. Frankly, it all does the same thing, you just have to think a little bit differently (i.e. what happens when those pretty dials and guages go tango uniform) and plan accordingly. But this is probably just good planning in general. Questions like, "alright, where's the nearest good wx," or "alright, if I loose everything IFR and I'm here to break out I'm going to have to turn heading blank blank, and climb to blank." If you're in radar contact you can say, well, if I lose everything I need to request vectors to VFR.
 
ppragman said:
Ya know, now that I fly glass birds, I don't think that it's really all that different from the steam guages I flew at ACE. Frankly, it all does the same thing, you just have to think a little bit differently (i.e. what happens when those pretty dials and guages go tango uniform) and plan accordingly. But this is probably just good planning in general. Questions like, "alright, where's the nearest good wx," or "alright, if I loose everything IFR and I'm here to break out I'm going to have to turn heading blank blank, and climb to blank." If you're in radar contact you can say, well, if I lose everything I need to request vectors to VFR.
Click to expand...

you guys have glass C210's ?
 
Is glass easier...yes. Would you I teach someone to fly a SR22 as a primary trainer you bet. It would be much easier doing that then transitioning them after their private. It probably would be closer to the 100hr mark maybe more to get your private but it should not be a big deal anyway due to insurance. I would say 90% of cirrus pilots that became a statistic did so due to poor ADM and technique then the airplane being to much for them.
 
jhugz said:
Would you I teach someone to fly a SR22 as a primary trainer you bet. It would be much easier doing that then transitioning them after their private. It probably would be closer to the 100hr mark maybe more to get your private...
Click to expand...

You think it would be easier to spend 100 hours in a Cirrus working on their private certificate rather than 50 hours in a 172, then another 50 hours transitioning?

I don't know...I can see it being a toss up. I'd still recommend training in something simpler first, primarily because it reduces the instructor's workload and I think would create a slower paced, more relaxed environment to learn in. But as I said earlier, if somebody were completely set on learning from day 1 in an SR-22, I wouldn't rule it out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top