Unfolding Story: Cirrus Parachute Again Saves the Day

Indeed. How about it? But look around, it isn't happening. There's numerous threads on this board showing that it isn't - and we're supposedly the more educated of pilots.
 
Last edited:
It's actually somewhat difficult to spin a Cirrus because of the wing design. The inboard wing stalls first while the outboard wing maintains lift and gives you aileron authority. This wing design was pioneered by NASA and implemented by Cirrus in order to avoid spins before they develop.

Since the Cirrus was designed with a BRS from the factory, the FAA determined that it provided an equivalent level of safety to spin recovery certification. This is the reason that pulling the chute is the official recommendation in an inadvertent spin. You're more than welcome to recover it the old fashioned way if you have enough altitude.

Most inadvertent spins occur close enough to the ground that neither spin recovery nor a chute will save you, anyway.
 
AustinPilot said:
It's actually somewhat difficult to spin a Cirrus because of the wing design. The inboard wing stalls first while the outboard wing maintains lift and gives you aileron authority.
.
Click to expand...

um, nothing new there. I believe the cherokees and 172s have similar characteristics wrt stalling at the root first.

now back to the urinary olympics...
 
Truth be told... The chute is only going to save you for a a few rare occasions.

Quick poll: How many people her have accidentally spun a plane? How about accidentally stalled a plane?

I bet the answer is close to zero. Those that do it on accident are usually low to the ground and a chute wont help. I can't think of why someone would accidentally spin / stall a plane in cruise.

The chute argument always leads to a spin debate when in actuality the time you are most likely to spin is the time the chute is least likely to save you.


I really think of it is for situations that can come up at higher altitudes which I think are more rare.
 
Bob Noel said:
um, nothing new there. I believe the cherokees and 172s have similar characteristics wrt stalling at the root first.
Click to expand...

Virtually ALL GA aircraft have wings designed to stall at the root first, using...

Differential planform
Washout
Stall strips

...or some combination thereof.

Plus some other methods I might have forgotten.

Anyway, the idea is to have the stall propagate outwards to keep the ailerons effective as long as possible.
 
EdFred said:
Indeed. How about it? But look around, it isn't happening. There's numerous threads on this board showing that it isn't - and we're supposedly the more educated of pilots.
Click to expand...

We can each only control what we ourselves choose to learn and practice. Or if you are an instructor, what you and your students learn and practice.

I choose to know everything I can about how to control my airplane and how I can get out of any emergencies that come up.

As for the other guy, I let him worry about that since I have exactly *zero* control over it. I'm certainly not going to make any assumptions about his abilities, knowledge, or skill set based on what airplane he flies or what equipment is in it.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Truth be told... The chute is only going to save you for a a few rare occasions.

Quick poll: How many people her have accidentally spun a plane? How about accidentally stalled a plane?

I bet the answer is close to zero. Those that do it on accident are usually low to the ground and a chute wont help. I can't think of why someone would accidentally spin / stall a plane in cruise.

The chute argument always leads to a spin debate when in actuality the time you are most likely to spin is the time the chute is least likely to save you.


I really think of it is for situations that can come up at higher altitudes which I think are more rare.
Click to expand...

But spins are just what folks focus on with the Cirrus because of the lack of spin certification. The Chute is also good for, among others:

* Midair collisions

* Structural Failure

* VFR into IMC / disorientation

* Engine failure over hostile terrain

* Use by passenger if pilot incapacitated

Granted, all of the above are rather rare. But fatal accidents are also rather rare. Taken together and added to unrecoverable spins, all of the above add up to a not-insignificant proportion of fatal accidents. And also all of the above very rarely have good outcomes without the chute.
 
EdFred said:
Indeed. How about it? But look around, it isn't happening. There's numerous threads on this board showing that it isn't - and we're supposedly the more educated of pilots.
Click to expand...
Yeah but I was a CFI in the 1980s, checking out people who were already pilots in club airplanes. I'll assure you that things were not great back then either. I'd hate to see what would have happened if they were also asked to use some technology...
 
I would put a chute on the RV-10 if they made it. Chute as an option is amazing!
 
OkieAviator said:
I would put a chute on the RV-10 if they made it. Chute as an option is amazing!
Click to expand...

Experimental, you can do it it you want.

BRS generally will work with engineering a solution if one doesn't currently exist for your aircraft type. Just call them to get the ball rolling.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Truth be told... The chute is only going to save you for a a few rare occasions.
Click to expand...

Fact Check (stats as of 12/15): 58 deployments to date. 117 people lived. 1 person died. Of the 92, how many would have lived anyway? 10? 50? 80? The deployments go way beyond a "few rare occasions." There have been a wide variety of deployments...VFR into IMC, mid-air, loss of control, engine out over inhospitable terrain or water, on and on...you name it.
 
Last edited:
VWGhiaBob said:
Fact Check (stats as of 12/15): 58 deployments to date. 92 people lived. 1 person died. Of the 92, how many would have lived anyway? 10? 50? 80? The deployments go way beyond a "few rare occasions." There have been a wide variety of deployments...VFR into IMC, mid-air, loss of control, engine out over inhospitable terrain or water, on and on...you name it.
Click to expand...


My point was just that everyone brings up the spin issue.
I don't think the chute has saved anyone on a base to final spin.

Although the chute allowed them to bypass spin cert. in U.S. the chute is not really going to save you when you are most likely to spin.

It will save you in other situations.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
My point was just that everyone brings up the spin issue.
I don't think the chute has saved anyone on a base to final spin.

Although the chute allowed them to bypass spin cert. in U.S. the chute is not really going to save you when you are most likely to spin.

It will save you in other situations.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Agreed, though the 'chute can be used well below most pattern altitudes - 500 AGL.

You validate Cirrus' one last remaining stubborn safety issue: Pattern and runway loss of control. The factory is now implementing a special training curriculum around this issue. Perhaps because of Cirrus' fast speed (80 knots on short final for SR22) and slippery high-load wing, tight patterns have gotten many into trouble.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
Thanks. Agreed, though the 'chute can be used well below most pattern altitudes - 500 AGL.

You validate Cirrus' one last remaining stubborn safety issue: Pattern and runway loss of control. The factory is now implementing a special training curriculum around this issue. Perhaps because of Cirrus' fast speed (80 knots on short final for SR22) and slippery high-load wing, tight patterns have gotten many into trouble.
Click to expand...
The SR22 isn't anything special. I teach my students to slow the plane way down ahead of time. Do exactly like Cirrus recommends and fly 100kts on the downwind, 90 on base, 80-85 final and you'll have a good landing every time. The people that get into trouble are the ones who leave 75% power in on the downwind doing a 160kts and then have to make drastic power changes to slow the plane down. If taught correctly, the traffic pattern is a breeze
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
My point was just that everyone brings up the spin issue.
I don't think the chute has saved anyone on a base to final spin.
Click to expand...

That's probably true. I'd have to be instantly hitting the handle as soon as the wing dropped to fire off the chute and make that save...

...and with my luck it would have just been a little wind gust. :lol:
 
VWGhiaBob said:
Thanks. Agreed, though the 'chute can be used well below most pattern altitudes - 500 AGL.
Click to expand...

And probably well below that. The listed deployment envelope for the BRS in my CTSW is 400ft or higher.

In Morocco a CTSW had a successful deployment on a botched go-around at 60ft. :yikes:


If I need the chute I'm not going to worry about the altitude. At worst it's a braking/drag chute, which can't hurt.
 
bullwinkle said:
And probably well below that. The listed deployment envelope for the BRS in my CTSW is 400ft or higher.

In Morocco a CTSW had a successful deployment on a botched go-around at 60ft. :yikes:


If I need the chute I'm not going to worry about the altitude. At worst it's a braking/drag chute, which can't hurt.
Click to expand...


Is the CTSW like the Cirrus where there is the 8-10 sec. delay?
That is the downside of the Cirrus chute. That delay will cause the chute to kill you if you are too low.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Yes and no

The emergency checklist DOES say in the event of a spin, activate CAPS. It is on the little TV screen in the console during preflight.

The Cirrus is fully capable of recovering from a spin.
However, in the U.S. it was not spin certified. In Europe, I believe it was and demonstrated spin recovery. If I understand correctly that was required over there but the chute was enough in the U.S. Someone can correct me.
Click to expand...

What the COPA article said was while they did it, EASA took the ELOS from the FAA rather than completing the spin certification all the way. The source is in #54
 
* VFR into IMC / disorientation

That seems to me, just based on intuition, to be the most likely "real" save scenario. I imagine some/many of the other pulls were in situations in which a forced landing would have worked out just as well.

I asked about the spin only to get an idea of the airplane's aerodynamics; roger-roger on the base-final spin; not many airplanes will save you there.

As an aside, I did spin (unintentionally) out of a vertical maneuver in a mock dog fight, but it was in a SF-260, and it recovered on relaxation of back pressure.

It might be a worthwhile investment in a home built, given the costs (lower, I assume!), but I'm not seeing the ROI in production aircraft - the money would be so much more effective in better avionics, autopilots, etc.

We just don't collide that often, or break-up in VMC, or dop dead with Aunt Sally in the right seat. . .
 
EdFred said:
I am not a fan of replacing training with technology. It makes one less of a pilot.
Click to expand...

I respect your right to have an opinion and express it.

I am still in training. Amongst the wide spectrum of past and current pilots, from the "least of a pilot" to the "most of a pilot", how can I and other aspiring future pilots make sure that we are not in the "less of a pilot category"?

I think if I went through my training (all in a 152 so far), got my certificate, and then got the additional Cirrus training and rented or bought an SR20, would that reduce my "pilotness level" from where it was after I got my cert?

From sand dunes to burning barrels to VORs to GPS -less of a pilot for all future generations? From Indy cars without seat belts to leather belts/ropes to seat belts to shoulder harnesses and crotch straps to crush zones/rollbars - less of a race car driver for all future generations? I don't think so.

If I had a chute, whether as a newly minted pilot or a seasoned pilot with a new plane - less of a pilot...less than what?
 
jordane93 said:
The SR22 isn't anything special. I teach my students to slow the plane way down ahead of time. Do exactly like Cirrus recommends and fly 100kts on the downwind, 90 on base, 80-85 final and you'll have a good landing every time. The people that get into trouble are the ones who leave 75% power in on the downwind doing a 160kts and then have to make drastic power changes to slow the plane down. If taught correctly, the traffic pattern is a breeze
Click to expand...

Have to disagree, with recent experience in Diamonds to Cessnas to Pipers (and recent 300 hours in my own SR22). SR22's are less forgiving and harder to control. Yes, speed is important, but unlike other planes, SR22's are super-sensitive to speed.

Cirrus is aware of this and doesn't deny it. Therefore, they are implementing new special training for all Cirrus pilots, centered around landings and pattern work. This is in addition to their previous well-established transition training. When Cirrus recognizes a problem, they respond. The landing / pattern loss of control stats aren't good. So, like earlier issues, they sprang into action. I commend them for this.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
I respect your right to have an opinion and express it.

I am still in training. Amongst the wide spectrum of past and current pilots, from the "least of a pilot" to the "most of a pilot", how can I and other aspiring future pilots make sure that we are not in the "less of a pilot category"?

I think if I went through my training (all in a 152 so far), got my certificate, and then got the additional Cirrus training and rented or bought an SR20, would that reduce my "pilotness level" from where it was after I got my cert?

From sand dunes to burning barrels to VORs to GPS -less of a pilot for all future generations? From Indy cars without seat belts to leather belts/ropes to seat belts to shoulder harnesses and crotch straps to crush zones/rollbars - less of a race car driver for all future generations? I don't think so.

If I had a chute, whether as a newly minted pilot or a seasoned pilot with a new plane - less of a pilot...less than what?
Click to expand...

It's actually a stupid thing for him to say and comes apart quickly. Training is directly related to the technology we are using. That's what training is, training for the technology you're going to be flying with. I'm not sure where this macho attitude come from that I'm a better pilot if I can fly with just a map and a stopwatch. The reason they flew that way is because they didn't have the technology we do today. There's nothing sacred or manly or being a better pilot about knowing how to use inferior technology. The stopwatch can break just like a GPS could break today.

That attitude is a real head-scratcher for sure, and not based in any kind of reasonable logic. It's pure emotion about the subject trying to masquerade as 'wisdom'.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
Have to disagree...
Click to expand...

And I'll disagree with your disagreement!

To me, my SR22 was just another plane, not hugely different from the Tiger I was moving up from, at least in any fundamental way.

But I'll stipulate your experience and perception is just as valid as mine.

Oh, and I also found 455 Bravo Uniform's post quite insightful.
 
Last edited:
455 Bravo Uniform said:
I respect your right to have an opinion and express it.

I am still in training. Amongst the wide spectrum of past and current pilots, from the "least of a pilot" to the "most of a pilot", how can I and other aspiring future pilots make sure that we are not in the "less of a pilot category"?

I think if I went through my training (all in a 152 so far), got my certificate, and then got the additional Cirrus training and rented or bought an SR20, would that reduce my "pilotness level" from where it was after I got my cert?

From sand dunes to burning barrels to VORs to GPS -less of a pilot for all future generations? From Indy cars without seat belts to leather belts/ropes to seat belts to shoulder harnesses and crotch straps to crush zones/rollbars - less of a race car driver for all future generations? I don't think so.

If I had a chute, whether as a newly minted pilot or a seasoned pilot with a new plane - less of a pilot...less than what?
Click to expand...

Well put! Actually, that's a great training plan. Start simple easy - go macho (not sure why simple easy is macho, but hey). Work your way up to a Cirrus. Today I took my SR22 to Big Bear. I used the moving map, old fashioned pilotage, sectional (on ForeFlight with back-up paper in the side pockets). I used traffic alerts in the plane, my eyes, and flight following.

Add all this up...am I macho? Not sure. But my non-pilot passenger felt completely comfortable, as well he should. We had very available safety feature, old fashioned manly skills (if I do say so myself), and a parachute if all else failed.

Your path is a great one. Stay on it!
 
Last edited:
Toss a pilot sectionals, a winds aloft forecast, an E6B or a calculator and have them try and have them plan a flight without ForeFlight. Odds are 85% of them here couldn't do it accurately.

Pilots that (and yes I've seen it said) say "I don't need to worry about getting my IR, if I end up IMC I can just pull the chute."

Pilots that try and do things as cheap as possible by only training to the PTS and not pushing themselves.

Those things make them less of a pilot.

I look at it like automatic transmission, traction control, anti-lock brakes, and airbags in cars. Has it reduced the accident rate? No. Drivers have gotten worse, and worse. "I can drive like **** because I have AwesomeTrac, ABS, and airbags."


Same goes for pilots. "I have moving map GPS, autopilot, and a chute, I can half ass it because I can just hit the autopilot or pull the chute."

Technology breeds complacency and reliance, and it's getting worse. Just browse through the threads here and you'll see it.

And yes, that makes one less of a pilot when you can't do what a student pilot should be capable of. Any idiot can hit -D-> and engage the autopilot.

Now I'm not saying shun technology completely, but when you have to scrub a flight because a non-essential piece of technology is on the fritz, you suck as a pilot. And those that say "well - have a chute" they suck as a pilot as well.

If you can't/won't make a flight in a plane with no electronics or handheld/laptop electronics, you are less of a pilot. Any idiot can follow a magenta line and print out a navlog.

And if you're offended by that, well, it wouldn't surprise me - since it's obvious you fall into that group.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Toss a pilot sectionals, a winds aloft forecast, an E6B or a calculator and have them try and have them plan a flight without ForeFlight. Odds are 85% of them here couldn't do it accurately.

Pilots that (and yes I've seen it said) say "I don't need to worry about getting my IR, if I end up IMC I can just pull the chute."

Pilots that try and do things as cheap as possible by only training to the PTS and not pushing themselves.

Those things make them less of a pilot.

I look at it like automatic transmission, traction control, anti-lock brakes, and airbags in cars. Has it reduced the accident rate? No. Drivers have gotten worse, and worse. "I can drive like **** because I have AwesomeTrac, ABS, and airbags."


Same goes for pilots. "I have moving map GPS, autopilot, and a chute, I can half ass it because I can just hit the autopilot or pull the chute."

Technology breeds complacency and reliance, and it's getting worse. Just browse through the threads here and you'll see it.

And yes, that makes one less of a pilot when you can't do what a student pilot should be capable of. Any idiot can hit -D-> and engage the autopilot.

Now I'm not saying shun technology completely, but when you have to scrub a flight because a non-essential piece of technology is on the fritz, you suck as a pilot. And those that say "well - have a chute" they suck as a pilot as well.
Click to expand...

Ed, I disagree with so much of what you say because it's so one-sided. Sectionals good / GPS bad. It's not that simple.

Let's give you credit where you deserve it, though. There IS a danger of complacency that goes with too much automation. I completely agree with you. Look at the Asiana SFO accident where pilots over-relied and couldn't make a simple VFR approach on a perfect day.

Over-reliance on automation can and is extremely detrimental. Same goes for taking chances where you shouldn't with a parachute.

What you don't seem to get is that BOTH are valuable. It's not having great technology OR being a great pilot. It's having great technology AND being a great pilot.

To your credit, Ed, you are right in believing technology including a parachute can lead to poor piloting skills. What you miss is that most of us who fly advanced aircraft know this and regularly practice "old school macho" skills...trimming, navigation with sectionals, VOR's, unusual attitudes, on and on.

For me, whether it's me as a pilot or flying with someone else, I want them to have it all - including the 'chute - that one final option if all else fails. But I also want to know they have the basics down cold.

If you really understood what's going on out there...if you knew about Cirrus training and saw the exchanges on the Cirrus Forum, you'd realize that even though you make valid points, they don't apply to the majority of Cirrus or other advanced aircraft pilots.
 
Last edited:
VWGhiaBob said:
Have to disagree, with recent experience in Diamonds to Cessnas to Pipers (and recent 300 hours in my own SR22). SR22's are less forgiving and harder to control. Yes, speed is important, but unlike other planes, SR22's are super-sensitive to speed.

Cirrus is aware of this and doesn't deny it. Therefore, they are implementing new special training for all Cirrus pilots, centered around landings and pattern work. This is in addition to their previous well-established transition training. When Cirrus recognizes a problem, they respond. The landing / pattern loss of control stats aren't good. So, like earlier issues, they sprang into action. I commend them for this.
Click to expand...
I guess our experiences are different. What happens when you are fast in a 172? You float down the runway? What happens when you are fast in a 22? You float down the runway. The 20/22 is actually one of the easiest planes to land IMO provided you nail your approach speed. The controls are extremely responsive and do exactly what you tell it to. They are only hard to control if, like I said in my previous post, is when you are trying to slow the plane down while having 75% in on the downwind. If you plan ahead and stay ahead of the plane there are no surprises.
 
EdFred said:
I look at it like automatic transmission, traction control, anti-lock brakes, and airbags in cars. Has it reduced the accident rate? No. Drivers have gotten worse, and worse. "I can drive like **** because I have AwesomeTrac, ABS, and airbags."
Click to expand...

I don't know about drivers having gotten worse and worse, but I understand where you're coming from...my daughter will tell you that her dad (me) is a pain because he wants her to learn to drive with a stick shift! And I want her to learn how to do donuts in the snow, because it will make her a better driver with skid avoidance or control (not unlike spin training).

I get what you're saying. I would rather have a chute than not. But I am doing my training as if there's no chute (just a ratted out old 152).

I've often joked that if the law removed all seat belts, air bags, turn signals, brake lights, etc. and replaced all that with a 12" spike on the steering wheel just an inch from your chest, that we would have a lot more careful (better) drivers and maybe less accidents. Less of a driver, more of a driver? Maybe. But a driver with a license (hopefully, and with insurance) nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
Update from the Pilot

Update from over at Beechtalk by Nate Tinkle:

Jim just posted his account of what happened. Basically, engine began surging and wouldn't hold altitude. He was troubleshooting too long and because it was dark, had no idea he had gotten too low until "the little guy in the TAWS box said 500 feet." So his pull was less than 500'. As a result, he was still nose low and hit a bit harder than if he had pulled above 500'.

And this was a guy with 10k+ posts on COPA. Pull early.

He didn't let go of yoke or flat foot himself in preparation, so he broke a bone in his heel and left hand. He's home, but about 8 weeks for bones to mend he was told.

But very happy.
 
jordane93 said:
I guess our experiences are different. What happens when you are fast in a 172? You float down the runway? What happens when you are fast in a 22? You float down the runway. The 20/22 is actually one of the easiest planes to land IMO provided you nail your approach speed. The controls are extremely responsive and do exactly what you tell it to. They are only hard to control if, like I said in my previous post, is when you are trying to slow the plane down while having 75% in on the downwind. If you plan ahead and stay ahead of the plane there are no surprises.
Click to expand...

I'm sure we could debate this for days. But look at the accident statistics. They don't lie. Pilots - even ones with lots of experience - have trouble with SR22's and the factory knows it. Ask them.

I could go on and on about the specifics of why, but let's not do that. We can disagree. My position with hundreds of hours in all the major brands, is that Cirrus, and particularly the SR22 FEELS easy to fly, but can and does get away from pilots quickly, without notice. Treat it with respect, and she's one fine and safe bird!
 
I never said sectionals good/gps bad, but if you've gotten to the point that you can't flight plan without ForeFlight, can't/won't navigate without the GPS, if the INOP autopilot keeps you from making a VFR flight, you need to seriously look at how good of a pilot you are. (Note this is the genereic you, not a personal you).

He'll, I have an in panel EFB and IFR GPS, but I keep sectionals around the house and flight plane the old way on occasion just to keep sharp. I shut off the GPS and make a 300 mile flight using only pilotage just to keep sharp.

But there are so many that are horrified about flying without an AP, a GPS, and now chutes, that it's pathetic. It's not about macho, it's about the foundation, and for many they no longer have one. They get a 1hr BFR and punch buttons, and that's it. And then praise technology for saving their incompetent ass.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
I'm sure we could debate this for days. But look at the accident statistics. They don't lie. Pilots - even ones with lots of experience - have trouble with SR22's and the factory knows it. Ask them.

I could go on and on about the specifics of why, but let's not do that. We can disagree. My position with hundreds of hours in all the major brands, is that Cirrus, and particularly the SR22 FEELS easy to fly, but can and does get away from pilots quickly, without notice. Treat it with respect, and she's one fine and safe bird!
Click to expand...
And just like your previous post said, Cirrus has taken notice of these accidents and has developed an amazing training course, syllabus, and training system that works. The biggest issue I see with pilots when I give transition training is the avionics usage and single pilot management. Guys who previously flew Cessnas and Warriors think they have all the time in the world to pick up the ATIS, slow the plane down, brief the approach, configure, are always behind the plane.
 
Re: Update from the Pilot

BrianNC said:
Update from over at Beechtalk by Nate Tinkle:

Jim just posted his account of what happened. Basically, engine began surging and wouldn't hold altitude. He was troubleshooting too long and because it was dark, had no idea he had gotten too low until "the little guy in the TAWS box said 500 feet." So his pull was less than 500'. As a result, he was still nose low and hit a bit harder than if he had pulled above 500'.

And this was a guy with 10k+ posts on COPA. Pull early.

He didn't let go of yoke or flat foot himself in preparation, so he broke a bone in his heel and left hand. He's home, but about 8 weeks for bones to mend he was told.

But very happy.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this update. So let's add this to the list of times even a macho pilot could use a 'chute: When it's dark and you can't see WTH is below you. I'd sure rather float down than approach the unknown black hole at 92mph (the final approach speed, full flaps, for a Cirrus).
 
jordane93 said:
And just like your previous post said, Cirrus has taken notice of these accidents and has developed an amazing training course, syllabus, and training system that works. The biggest issue I see with pilots when I give transition training is the avionics usage and single pilot management. Guys who previously flew Cessnas and Warriors think they have all the time in the world to pick up the ATIS, slow the plane down, brief the approach, configure, are always behind the plane.
Click to expand...

That's because those guys always trained in miles, not in minutes. I train my students to do minutes from the airport, not miles from it. 15 minutes is the same amount of time in 22 as it is a Cub.
 
EdFred said:
I never said sectionals good/gps bad, but if you've gotten to the point that you can't flight plan without ForeFlight, can't/won't navigate without the GPS, if the INOP autopilot keeps you from making a VFR flight, you need to seriously look at how good of a pilot you are. (Note this is the genereic you, not a personal you).

He'll, I have an in panel EFB and IFR GPS, but I keep sectionals around the house and flight plane the old way on occasion just to keep sharp. I shut off the GPS and make a 300 mile flight using only pilotage just to keep sharp.

But there are so many that are horrified about flying without an AP, a GPS, and now chutes, that it's pathetic. It's not about macho, it's about the foundation, and for many they no longer have one. They get a 1hr BFR and punch buttons, and that's it. And then praise technology for saving their incompetent ass.
Click to expand...
I agree. TOMATO FLAMES is all you need! When I do BFRs, I tell my students that I know they don't plan out flights anymore with paper sectionals, and E6B, etc but I do ask them how they would plan a flight from point A to B. I also expect my students to fly to PTS standards. I had a commercial licensed pilot who lost 400 feet during slow flight and would have lost more if I didn't say anything. I don't expect perfection for the BFR but I do expect you to fly to PTS standards. GA would be a lot better if some more recurrent training was required other than a BFR.
 
jordane93 said:
And just like your previous post said, Cirrus has taken notice of these accidents and has developed an amazing training course, syllabus, and training system that works. The biggest issue I see with pilots when I give transition training is the avionics usage and single pilot management. Guys who previously flew Cessnas and Warriors think they have all the time in the world to pick up the ATIS, slow the plane down, brief the approach, configure, are always behind the plane.
Click to expand...

Well said. I solved that by hooking an SR22 up to an external power source and practiced all the menus until they became automatic.

My eyes in the pattern shift from outside (attitude, bank), to inside (NAIL the airspeed...100, 90, 80), to outside, to inside. I learned early that it's all in the airspeed...and I think it's more important in Cirrus than other platforms. Once I learned to nail 80 on final (which isn't easy), the rest flowed. Again, a bit more challenging.
 
So... Should we ignore the "pull up terrain" ground prox warning because we have reviewed our sectional prior to flight?
 
Re: Update from the Pilot

BrianNC said:
And this was a guy with 10k+ posts on COPA.
Click to expand...

OK. I don't care which side of this argument you're on. Can we all agree that this is a pretty funny bona fide?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top