New Cirrus CEO

dell30rb

dell30rb

Final Approach
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
7,147
Location
Raleigh NC
Display Name
Display name:
Ren
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...1/new-cirrus-ceo-looks-to-modernize-airplanes

Just a few weeks into his new role, Nielsen (whose first name is pronounced like “Shawn”) began flight training the week before EAA Airventure. During a brief discussion with AOPA at the show in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, he noted that numerous things about modern airplanes still perplex him. “You have to move that fuel selector from one tank to another? Why doesn’t that just happen?” he wondered. And setting up the radios before a flight, making those calls. “Why is that not a text message?”

Discuss
 
Uhh.... he’s just taking flight training now? I’m not sure. Having the CEO not being a pilot. Kind of a red flag, but I guess....
 
Fuel selectors is pretty logical to me with pressurized fuel tanks. If it were to switch automatically, when would it do it? If it switched super frequently to make the tanks always even it would put undue wear and tear on the system, but if it waited longer I’m not sure when it would do it.
 
I'm a hardcore unabashed well-known Cirrus advocate on this site.. but I'm not going to lie, the change in leadership did give me pause.. and I do hope it's a good move for them and pans out well

As far as modernizing aviation further, I don't see any issue with that.. and I think that's a big part of the success that Cirrus has seen is that they are seen as modern machines that actually fit in the 21st century

I think the fuel tank switching was more an example and thought study than anything else. Obviously putting something on a 20 minutes or half an hour timer.. or "every 10 gallons" timer would be a very easy thing to do, it's more about the mindset he's trying to push

PS - Cirrus does not have pressurized fuel tanks
PPS - I have only ever seen "both" options on high wing airplanes
 
Welp there you go again, thought I knew more about a topic than I did. Tbf, never flown a low wing plane I just thought I had a better grasp than I did evidently. Lesson learned
 
Cirrus has to keep coming up with stuff like automatic tank switching, to continue to be seen as the leader in modern GA (they've already hung as many LEDs as possible on the outside of the airframe, so "the next cool thing" becomes ever more unnecessary).

Think of Cirrus as similar to Mercedes Benz through the 1970s - at that time Daimler made the most automated cars in the world...it was actually targeting buyers that didn't really like to drive and wanted the car to do everything for them. Down the road another German company, BMW, was producing "The Ultimate Driving Machine". ;)

Personally, I already have too much technology that thinks it is smarter than me, including my phone and my tablet. There are few things that irritate me more than a machine that's trying to be "too helpful", and ends up being a distraction or worse.
 
Wonder if someone already told him numerous jets can do that text message to ATC thing, but not in the terminal environment where, oh, you know, the controllers are trying to make sure people don’t hit each other who are flying seconds apart.

Maybe they can show him a texting and driving video and then turn off the autopilot on him for a whole flight. LOL.

This guy had better learn to ask questions and not say stuff until he has a bit more clue...
 
The computers and electronic valve control should only add another $25,000 to a Cirrus price....a bargain.
 
Easy way to solve the tank switching, just install a 3rd tank that the others drain into.
 
EdFred said:
Easy way to solve the tank switching, just install a 3rd tank that the others drain into.
Click to expand...
No brainier. I've wondered why this isn't on most low wing aircraft for years.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
No brainier. I've wondered why this isn't on most low wing aircraft for years.
Click to expand...

I guess because the FAA wouldn't like us sitting right on top of a fuel tank? I can't imagine it would need to be much more than a gallon though.
 
:rolleyes:It's one thing to think outside the box, another to be a jack-in-the-box.
 
Imagine a completely automated aircraft... where the owner or pilot closes the cockpit door (yes that could be automated too I suppose) hits one button and says "Siri (or Cirri ;)), take me to Albuquerque, depart now." The trusty Cirrus does as commanded, safely.

This has tremendous implications for the value of the ASEL certificate. And for training. How would the FAA react? As a minimum, we would have to prevent this Cirrus pilot from hopping into a legacy aircraft and trying to duplicate the itinerary - assuming the Cirrus pilot could even start the engine.

When is all this automation a detriment to safety? I'm having flashbacks to HAL in 2001, a Space Oddesey.

sun_earth_moon2.jpg


-Skip
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
I think putting someone in charge of an airplane company who knows nothing about airplanes is a really bad idea.
Click to expand...

When you get that high up, its more about business operations than the product. Doubt that many of the C_O's of the Fortune 500 companies actually know intimately about their product(s).

Pretty sure the C_O's of the drug companies are not chemists or the like. One of the posters on here, their spouse is (was?) a C_O for one of the big ones, and they don't have a degree in pharmaceuticals or whatever is needed to design drugs....it's a biz degree.
 
EdFred said:
When you get that high up, its more about business operations than the product. Doubt that many of the C_O's of the Fortune 500 companies actually know intimately about their product(s).
Click to expand...
You would know this how, exactly?
 
dell30rb said:
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...1/new-cirrus-ceo-looks-to-modernize-airplanes

Just a few weeks into his new role, Nielsen (whose first name is pronounced like “Shawn”) began flight training the week before EAA Airventure. During a brief discussion with AOPA at the show in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, he noted that numerous things about modern airplanes still perplex him. “You have to move that fuel selector from one tank to another? Why doesn’t that just happen?” he wondered. And setting up the radios before a flight, making those calls. “Why is that not a text message?”

Discuss
Click to expand...

In an airplane costing >$800k having to move the fuel selector is perplexing. A FAA approved portioning valve for each tank has been around a long time and company named Autovalve in Ohio produces them.
 
EdFred said:
Pretty sure the C_O's of the drug companies are not chemists or the like. One of the posters on here, their spouse is (was?) a C_O for one of the big ones, and they don't have a degree in pharmaceuticals or whatever is needed to design drugs....it's a biz degree.
Click to expand...
If you say so. All the ones I know are scientists. But whatever.
 
I'm with steingar. Business operations ought to be had with $200 worth of software, ala Quick Books. Get somebody at the top who knows the metal.
 
steingar said:
If you say so. All the ones I know are scientists. But whatever.
Click to expand...

If you want me to go through the Fortune 500 list, I'll be more than happy to show you that you don't need a PhD to actually know stuff.
 
Old97 said:
Honestly he is not asking totally illogical questions.
Click to expand...
The totally logical answer (which he ought to already know) is KISS (keep it simple, stupid). When simple things get automated training costs go up to learn the automation and failure procedures. Manufacturing and maintenance costs go up to maintain and update the automation. Isn't this just dirt simple to grasp? :confused:
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
No brainier. I've wondered why this isn't on most low wing aircraft for years.
Click to expand...

Added weight, more failure modes, and the tank almost certainly has to be somewhere in the fuselage, which is the last place one should want any quantity of fuel.

Even the header tanks in a Cub give me pause.
 
I'm guessing he's surprised at what he's found while learning to fly. He knows the Cirrus is perceived as the most technologically advanced aircraft in the market, yet you are still doing a lot of things manually, such as switching fuel tanks and adjusting fuel mixture. Coming from Tesla, the engine and fuel management requirements make no sense to him.
 
wayne said:
Rockwell Commanders have a both. At least the 112A model does.
Click to expand...
Cool... clearly they were well ahead of the curve and in command of fuel management.

I never really understood the desire to run off both, I kind of like switching between tanks... heaven forbid the engine dies I feel like it's one more tool that I can switch tanks.. or if you are really trying to extend range (not that anyone would, or should) but if you do run a tank dry you can always switch and get a little more life
 
dell30rb said:
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...1/new-cirrus-ceo-looks-to-modernize-airplanes

Just a few weeks into his new role, Nielsen (whose first name is pronounced like “Shawn”) began flight training the week before EAA Airventure. During a brief discussion with AOPA at the show in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, he noted that numerous things about modern airplanes still perplex him. “You have to move that fuel selector from one tank to another? Why doesn’t that just happen?” he wondered. And setting up the radios before a flight, making those calls. “Why is that not a text message?”

Discuss
Click to expand...

I'd be happy if someone came up with fuel quantity indicators for my Piper that are as accurate as the ones in my pickup trucks. :D
 
Cluemeister said:
adjusting fuel mixture
Click to expand...
You'd be surprised how many new-pilots-new-to-aviation people I take up in the Cirrus are surprised that *even* something like a Cirrus still has a redknob. Most people also assume that the propeller is controlled by some fancy electronic "smart" tech, when really the blue knob is just hidden inside the throttle quadrant with the cam setup integrated inside the throttle
 
steingar said:
I think putting someone in charge of an airplane company who knows nothing about airplanes is a really bad idea.
Click to expand...
Weeelllll.....when Mark Van Tine took over Jepp, he came from a software company (his, I think - Jepp bought it), and didn't learn to fly until after he got there. Basic Med earlier this year. Private back in 2010.
 
GRG55 said:
I'd be happy if someone came up with fuel quantity indicators for my Piper that are as accurate as the ones in my pickup trucks. :D
Click to expand...

They do. Just not made by Piper The MVP-50 by EI is pretty accurate...moreso than in my truck (because my truck still has a needle)
 
^in my experience the ones in the Cirrus are crazy accurate especially the digital ones thay readout on the g1000

*There is an older 172N in our club that totallythe owner totally upgraded the avionics and electronics in and it also has very accurate digital fuel gauges
 
Tantalum said:
^in my experience the ones in the Cirrus are crazy accurate especially the digital ones thay readout on the g1000

*There is an older 172N in our club that totallythe owner totally upgraded the avionics and electronics in and it also has very accurate digital fuel gauges
Click to expand...

If you go with capacitance probes vs resistance (float) probes, they are stupid accurate.
 
EdFred said:
When you get that high up, its more about business operations than the product. Doubt that many of the C_O's of the Fortune 500 companies actually know intimately about their product(s).

Pretty sure the C_O's of the drug companies are not chemists or the like. One of the posters on here, their spouse is (was?) a C_O for one of the big ones, and they don't have a degree in pharmaceuticals or whatever is needed to design drugs....it's a biz degree.
Click to expand...

Agreed. When the company gets big enough, the CEOs often need to be focused on strategy/operations versus rote knowledge of the intimate details of their product lines. That isn't to say that engineers and product design-types don't make good CEOs, there are numerous examples of that. However, it certainly isn't a requirement as evidenced by the background of many Fortune 500 CEOs.

steingar said:
If you say so. All the ones I know are scientists. But whatever.
Click to expand...

That's not exactly a solid premise. The CEOs I know aren't scientists at all, but I wouldn't say it represents anything about the market.

dtuuri said:
I'm with steingar. Business operations ought to be had with $200 worth of software, ala Quick Books. Get somebody at the top who knows the metal.
Click to expand...

That's not how manufacturing and business operational metrics work. QuickBooks is fine for running a cash-basis small business if that's all you need. When you need to stratify data in different ways and calculate net working capital with weighted inventory turns, etc. QB isn't going to cut it. It's precisely why the ERP business is so large for companies like Oracle, Sage, and SAP.

Tantalum said:
Cool... clearly they were well ahead of the curve and in command of fuel management.

I never really understood the desire to run off both, I kind of like switching between tanks... heaven forbid the engine dies I feel like it's one more tool that I can switch tanks.. or if you are really trying to extend range (not that anyone would, or should) but if you do run a tank dry you can always switch and get a little more life
Click to expand...

Well, it's not like "BOTH" is the only option. You can still choose which tank you want to run off of, but just like in a generic 172, running off of both is fine and leaves switching to a particular tank for when you just want to balance out the fuel to keep the wings level (without aileron trim/input).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top