Question about Cirrus Pilots

SixPapaCharlie said:
As a Grumman pilot, I just wanted to chime in and say, yeah, it's all true.

Those guys are dangerous.
Click to expand...

Never do make it to their destination. Always gotta have someone picking them up to take them to their ultimate destination, or getting on an airliner to finish a trip, or...
 
I'm not a Cirrus owner but I think they get beat up because there is a little bit of jealousy for the plane and the means that those owners have to even own one. I do think they tend to get into trouble more often because of the confidence the chute may provide them. So to me, it is somewhere in the middle. It is remarkable technology and I wish all legacy aircraft could be retrofitted with it reasonably. I know it is wishful thinking.
 
OSUAV8TER said:
I'm not a Cirrus owner but I think they get beat up because there is a little bit of jealousy for the plane and the means that those owners have to even own one. I do think they tend to get into trouble more often because of the confidence the chute may provide them. So to me, it is somewhere in the middle. It is remarkable technology and I wish all legacy aircraft could be retrofitted with it reasonably. I know it is wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

For me it's absolutely not jealousy as it doesn't check all the boxes of what I need a plane to do. For me it falls into the over-reliance on gadgetry that erodes the actual skills of a pilot, the initial lack of training early on (the pull early pull often mantra that Cirrus has since gone away from), and it doesn't help that a lot of them seem to have EXTREMELY thin skin which then just makes them a target. We can have high wing low wing tail-wheel nose-wheel and throw humorous jabs at each other. Give Mooney pilots crap about the tail being on backwards and come out smelling like a sardine, Grumman pilots crap about needing former SAC bases to operate from, needing Warren Buffett expense account if you own a Beech, and Piper and Cessna pilots grief for flying boring ass planes. But say one bad thing about a Cirrus or the pilot and holy hell it's like the entire Sahara got dumped into their vaginas. The owners group even put out an article on how to deal with people that give you crap. Really? That's not helping your cause at all.
 
It’s the same cultural phenomenon as anything new that challenges tradition or prior respected generational thinking.
 
EdFred said:
For me it's absolutely not jealousy as it doesn't check all the boxes of what I need a plane to do. For me it falls into the over-reliance on gadgetry that erodes the actual skills of a pilot, the initial lack of training early on (the pull early pull often mantra that Cirrus has since gone away from), and it doesn't help that a lot of them seem to have EXTREMELY thin skin which then just makes them a target. We can have high wing low wing tail-wheel nose-wheel and throw humorous jabs at each other. Give Mooney pilots crap about the tail being on backwards and come out smelling like a sardine, Grumman pilots crap about needing former SAC bases to operate from, needing Warren Buffett expense account if you own a Beech, and Piper and Cessna pilots grief for flying boring ass planes. But say one bad thing about a Cirrus or the pilot and holy hell it's like the entire Sahara got dumped into their vaginas. The owners group even put out an article on how to deal with people that give you crap. Really? That's not helping your cause at all.
Click to expand...

I DON'T HAVE A THIN SKIN!!!!!


lol
 
everyone thinks what they own is the best. I think it's as simple as that. Cirrus challenged what aviation was and brought something fresh.. and unlike most of the vaporware out there they actually got successful at it, it challenged the status quo. Why did the TTx fail? That plane was superior in just about every way..

EdFred said:
thin skin
Click to expand...
Mooney people are right up there too.. if I hear "roll cage" one more time or some brag about going 300 knots on 2 gallons an hour and "I've had 9 basketball players and two great danes in it and they were very comfortable" I'm going to vomit.

I think some of the difference is that while we call Cessna's boring and Mooney's have the tail on backwards the knocks against Cirrus are more often pointed at the pilot vs the plane.. and sometimes uncovers a deeper culture war of "rich = bad"

Having said that, people who privately own 172s are good sports for quietly dealing with all the "why would you pay so much money to fly a slow dumpy trainer" crap
 
I'm happy they produce aircraft and don't close like Mooney. That being said": Most transient Cirri in my area avoid the Class C and land at our field for fuel. They blow up the student pattern with the "10 mile straight in" ... if they join the pattern, they're practically running over the C-152s doing their max 90 knots on downwind. We also have a drop zone south of the airport that gets penetrated only by that make and model ...:(
 
Tantalum said:
everyone thinks what they own is the best. I think it's as simple as that. Cirrus challenged what aviation was and brought something fresh.. and unlike most of the vaporware out there they actually got successful at it, it challenged the status quo. Why did the TTx fail? That plane was superior in just about every way..


Mooney people are right up there too.. if I hear "roll cage" one more time or some brag about going 300 knots on 2 gallons an hour and "I've had 9 basketball players and two great danes in it and they were very comfortable" I'm going to vomit.

I think some of the difference is that while we call Cessna's boring and Mooney's have the tail on backwards the knocks against Cirrus are more often pointed at the pilot vs the plane.. and sometimes uncovers a deeper culture war of "rich = bad"

Having said that, people who privately own 172s are good sports for quietly dealing with all the "why would you pay so much money to fly a slow dumpy trainer" crap
Click to expand...
I've never had a Mooney pilot try to turn around in my driveway, drive into my ditch and then insist on destroying the wheel pant trying to get it out before anybody else noticed rather than taking the time to get it out without more damage. But I have had a cirrus pilot do it. Had to have cost him $5k. That thing was destroyed. But a Mooney probably wouldn't have been damaged at all, and would have used less fuel to power out of it too, because the gear is tougher than anything else out there and it burns nothing. ;). I mean, the cirrus even turns about as tight as anything out there, if you're competent. Sheesh.
 
danhagan said:
I'm happy they produce aircraft and don't close like Mooney. That being said": Most transient Cirri in my area avoid the Class C and land at our field for fuel. They blow up the student pattern with the "10 mile straight in" ... if they join the pattern, they're practically running over the C-152s doing their max 90 knots on downwind. We also have a drop zone south of the airport that gets penetrated only by that make and model ...:(
Click to expand...

Yup, I'll do a 10 mile final, but if hear students I'll circle around, not too tight a turn mind you, and do a normal entry. Downwind is 100 knots, if I'm behind a 152 I'll do a "Cirrus pattern", sometimes there is a method to the madness.

I heard a jump pilot complaining to approach about a moron who kept getting in his way and I thought here it comes, but turned out it was a Piper pilot, maybe his Cirrus was in the shop?
 
PaulS said:
it was a Piper pilot, maybe his Cirrus was in the shop
Click to expand...
hahahaha

Salty said:
if you're competent
Click to expand...
sadly many simple aren't

danhagan said:
I'm happy they produce aircraft and don't close like Mooney. That being said": Most transient Cirri in my area avoid the Class C and land at our field for fuel. They blow up the student pattern with the "10 mile straight in" ... if they join the pattern, they're practically running over the C-152s doing their max 90 knots on downwind. We also have a drop zone south of the airport that gets penetrated only by that make and model
Click to expand...
I wonder how many folks do the CSIP course.. I'd wager the folks doing stupid pilot tricks haven't done the course unfortunately. The capability can be tempting for many. Get your license on a 172 and get thrown in an SR22? People like speed. But doesn't give them a right to be ****oles
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
It’s the same cultural phenomenon as anything new that challenges tradition or prior respected generational thinking.
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree. I've flown with several and we have a growing number on our field. It feels much closer to the "forked tail doctor killer" days of Bonanzas: the plane seems to attract intelligent, rich, high-achiever individuals who don't necessarily have the time to become/stay proficient. And they tend to have a lot of self-confidence. All generalizations/stereotypes but I do think there's truth to it, to a meaningful degree.

There are probably jackasses among pilots of just about every type of flying machine but they do seem over-represented in the Cirrus group. Around here, if the pattern is boogered up it sure seems a Cirrus is involved out of proportion to the number of them around. And, frankly, some seem like they want to be jerks just to be jerks: I was #2 behind one in my gyro and when he landed, instead of waiting in the runup area at the far end for me to do my thing he turned around and came back SLOOOOOWLY, with no radio call when he finally exited. I had actually beaten him to the pattern and gave way to him and that was the "teamwork" response (as seems typical and noted above, he was on an extended Final while I was on Downwind). Fortunately it was an excuse to slow-fly and fortunately nobody was behind me. But that seems typical: most everyone around here lets people go ahead to taxi to runup, etc. out of courtesy. Not sure I've seen a Cirrus pilot do that. In fact, if I wait in the runup area to let them come taxi down (in my fixed wing) they're more likely to come down, turn around, and take off ahead of me rather than wait their turn. So, to me, there sure seems to be a strong sense of entitlement among many of them, proficient pilots or not.
 
Of course they do 10 mile straight ins, the autopilot won't fly a pattern! :D
 
EdFred said:
For me it's absolutely not jealousy as it doesn't check all the boxes of what I need a plane to do. For me it falls into the over-reliance on gadgetry that erodes the actual skills of a pilot, the initial lack of training early on (the pull early pull often mantra that Cirrus has since gone away from), and it doesn't help that a lot of them seem to have EXTREMELY thin skin which then just makes them a target. We can have high wing low wing tail-wheel nose-wheel and throw humorous jabs at each other. Give Mooney pilots crap about the tail being on backwards and come out smelling like a sardine, Grumman pilots crap about needing former SAC bases to operate from, needing Warren Buffett expense account if you own a Beech, and Piper and Cessna pilots grief for flying boring ass planes. But say one bad thing about a Cirrus or the pilot and holy hell it's like the entire Sahara got dumped into their vaginas. The owners group even put out an article on how to deal with people that give you crap. Really? That's not helping your cause at all.
Click to expand...

Calling someone an incompetent entitled a**hole pilot is on a different level than pointing out that Beech replacement parts are expensive or that a 182 is a little boring. That might account for some of the differing reactions.
 
I am training myself to be a cirrus pilot - so i do 10 miles straight in
i am also a jackass - so based on the inputs on this thread... i will fit right in :p
 
Llewtrah381 said:
Not sure I agree. I've flown with several and we have a growing number on our field. It feels much closer to the "forked tail doctor killer" days of Bonanzas: the plane seems to attract intelligent, rich, high-achiever individuals who don't necessarily have the time to become/stay proficient. And they tend to have a lot of self-confidence. All generalizations/stereotypes but I do think there's truth to it, to a meaningful degree.

There are probably jackasses among pilots of just about every type of flying machine but they do seem over-represented in the Cirrus group. Around here, if the pattern is boogered up it sure seems a Cirrus is involved out of proportion to the number of them around. And, frankly, some seem like they want to be jerks just to be jerks: I was #2 behind one in my gyro and when he landed, instead of waiting in the runup area at the far end for me to do my thing he turned around and came back SLOOOOOWLY, with no radio call when he finally exited. I had actually beaten him to the pattern and gave way to him and that was the "teamwork" response (as seems typical and noted above, he was on an extended Final while I was on Downwind). Fortunately it was an excuse to slow-fly and fortunately nobody was behind me. But that seems typical: most everyone around here lets people go ahead to taxi to runup, etc. out of courtesy. Not sure I've seen a Cirrus pilot do that. In fact, if I wait in the runup area to let them come taxi down (in my fixed wing) they're more likely to come down, turn around, and take off ahead of me rather than wait their turn. So, to me, there sure seems to be a strong sense of entitlement among many of them, proficient pilots or not.
Click to expand...

Oh man, Cirrus pilots and fuel. Was doing a Lifeline flight and rather that fly an hour north to meet the 1st leg pilot and then back to the SW to get the patient to the final destination, I suggested we just meet at my field for the drop off since it was only 5 miles different for him to fly to my home drome. Holy hell, I have never seen someone get so upset that they had to put their own fuel in the plane. "Airnav said this was assisted serve, why isn't there anyone to fill up my plane?!?!" "Yeah, if the manager(s) are here they might help you, but they aren't here right now." He was soooooo put off by having to fuel his plane it was comical. Entitled much?
 
Cervieres said:
Calling someone an incompetent entitled a**hole pilot is on a different level than pointing out that Beech replacement parts are expensive or that a 182 is a little boring. That might account for some of the differing reactions.
Click to expand...

Stop being an entitled incompetent a-hole pilot then. :D

I have yet so hear/see a brand C(metal)/B/G/M/P get ****ed off about having to fuel their own plane, declaring an emergency in VFR when the magenta line disappeared, or being so stuck up that they won't fly without air conditioning. But I have seen it from the Cirridiots. :D

WannFly said:
I am training myself to be a cirrus pilot - so i do 10 miles straight in
i am also a jackass - so based on the inputs on this thread... i will fit right in :p
Click to expand...

Yesterday I did a 94 mile straight in. But I was the only one dumb enough to get bounced around in the heat, so I didn't cut anyone off. :)
 
Tantalum said:
everyone thinks what they own is the best. I think it's as simple as that. Cirrus challenged what aviation was and brought something fresh.. and unlike most of the vaporware out there they actually got successful at it, it challenged the status quo. Why did the TTx fail? That plane was superior in just about every way..
Click to expand...

Finally the voice of reason!!!!

Columbia failed because they were based in the same FSDO as Boeing, and were held to impossibly high standards that raised the certification costs beyond reason. Then they got destroyed by an untimely hail storm with new planes being stored outside waiting for the final G1000 certification that they never recovered from. The TTx failed because Cessna's idea of moving the manufacturing to Mexico in an effort to skirt environmental regulations and labor costs failed miserably and they decided that having two high performance singles (after buying Beechcraft) was one too many even though the TTx was way better.

Cirrus got a bad rap at the beginning with ads in non-aviation magazines that promised carrier-like dispatch capabilities and parachute safety while neglecting the fact that people still needed to get their pilot's license. Lot's of people believed them (some of whom died). Also, their first few generations were criticized for their handling. They have gotten better over time, and their training regimen more robust. The reputation still remains, and their claim that every parachute pull is a 'save' opens them up to justifiable criticism.
 
EdFred said:
Of course they do 10 mile straight ins, the autopilot won't fly a pattern! :D
Click to expand...

I think it might be able to, either load the pattern from FF directly, or punch some waypoints into FF and load them. I can't imagine why someone would want to go through the trouble though.
 
Well, it looks like one of my issues with Cirrus pilots has gone away...so I’ll revive it. ;)

Early on, the Cirri had a TKS system that wasn’t FIKI certified, and the discussion boards spent a lot of time wrapped around whether flying a non-FIKI Cirrus into known icing was a good idea. Even resulted in a regional (I believe) FAA letter that defined “known icing” as including “high humidity”. He instructor whose request resulted in that letter also argued vehemently (on another board, now defunct) that his clients bought the airplane to get where they needed to be when they needed to be there, so they should be able to do what the airplane isn’t certified to do.

So basically his argument was that Cirrus pilots were not subject to higher authority.
 
In all seriousness though, I've been seeing a lot of people lately working on their PPL looking to buy a 22 when they pass the check ride. I hope we don't see a spike in accidents.
 
EdFred said:
Because many times a chute wasn't needed to make a "save." It's like saying a seat-belt saved your life when you hit a parking curb at 3mph. No, it actually didn't.
Click to expand...

There is no fricken way you can know that, none.
 
PaulS said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Paul Berterelli’s article about planes with chutes commented on a couple cases where the chute failed to deploy when asked to and the pilot still managed to land safely. So if it had deployed would that have been a save? I think not
 
PaulS said:
There is no fricken way you can know that, none.
Click to expand...

Having hit a curb at 3mph without wearing a seatbelt, I know for a fact the seatbelt did not save my life. :)

Early on there were more than a few reported chute pulls where the Cirrus was in gliding distance of an airport, all the pilot had to do was pilot.
 
EdFred said:
Stop being an entitled incompetent a-hole pilot then. :D

I have yet so hear/see a brand C(metal)/B/G/M/P get ****ed off about having to fuel their own plane, declaring an emergency in VFR when the magenta line disappeared, or being so stuck up that they won't fly without air conditioning. But I have seen it from the Cirridiots. :D



Yesterday I did a 94 mile straight in. But I was the only one dumb enough to get bounced around in the heat, so I didn't cut anyone off. :)
Click to expand...

You better live a clean life dude. When you get to the Pearly Gates, if they send you 'down', your Purgatory is going to be in a Cirrus making a straight in that lasts for Eternity.
 
luvflyin said:
You better live a clean life dude. When you get to the Pearly Gates, if they send you 'down', your Purgatory is going to be in a Cirrus making a straight in that lasts for Eternity.
Click to expand...

I've already been banned from there. They know what will happen when I take over.
 
Tantalum said:
everyone thinks what they own is the best. I think it's as simple as that. Cirrus challenged what aviation was and brought something fresh.. and unlike most of the vaporware out there they actually got successful at it, it challenged the status quo. Why did the TTx fail? That plane was superior in just about every way..

Having said that, people who privately own 172s are good sports for quietly dealing with all the "why would you pay so much money to fly a slow dumpy trainer" crap
Click to expand...

Yeah, the TTx failure is odd. It should have done much better. Apparently people really do like a chute. ;) A lot of it was a difference in marketing though. Timothy covered some other issues it faced as well.

I love the 172 pilots that say, "Your plane is only 17 minutes faster per 100 nm. That's not enough." Dude, how often do you only fly 100 nm? o_O Our last trip was 1,000+ nm each way. Not only is that ~3 hours faster in cruise, plus I get to cruise altitude faster, and I only had to make one stop. That flight would have taken so long in a 172 we would never have done that and flown commercial instead. Now, it was also the longest flight other than a couple I've done on my own, but 500-700 nm is common for us. If your goal is to putter around on the weekends, or sightseeing, then yeah, a 172 wins hands down. No contest. But don't even start to compare the speeds, because then you're talking about travelling and again there's no contest, but the results are flipped.

My wife would like to go to Hawaii, and when we do I want to fly while there. I'm not renting a SR22 for that. Nope, I'm renting a high wing as I want a better view of the sights from the air. :cool: And I don't plan on blowing by the waterfall/volcano/whatever at 170+ knots, so a slower speed works perfectly for that flight.
 
EdFred said:
Having hit a curb at 3mph without wearing a seatbelt, I know for a fact the seatbelt did not save my life. :)

Early on there were more than a few reported chute pulls where the Cirrus was in gliding distance of an airport, all the pilot had to do was pilot.
Click to expand...
And how many times have pilots crashed the plane when the field was "made" and it was fatal?
Much higher failure rate than the chute.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk
 
EdFred said:
Having hit a curb at 3mph without wearing a seatbelt, I know for a fact the seatbelt did not save my life. :)

Early on there were more than a few reported chute pulls where the Cirrus was in gliding distance of an airport, all the pilot had to do was pilot.
Click to expand...

Do you remember the pulls? I hadn't heard that. But to your point, about piloting, if for some reason a pilot loses his **** and stops piloting, and I think that happens more times than we can know, it's an option.
 
PaulS said:
Do you remember the pulls? I hadn't heard that. But to your point, about piloting, if for some reason a pilot loses his **** and stops piloting, and I think that happens more times than we can know, it's an option.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying every chute save would have been otherwise a save, just a lot of them didn't need the chute. Or it's self induced. I think it happens more times when a pilot becomes over-reliant on automation. "I have a chute and AP, I can go fly IMC..." Yes, it happened, in FL, then the AP went TU and the pilot - Cirrus pilot of course - pulled the chute because well...Cirrus pilot. Without the chute and AP, he *probably* doesn't launch into IMC on purpose.

squares rectangles, rectangles squares.
 
EdFred said:
Oh man, Cirrus pilots and fuel. Was doing a Lifeline flight and rather that fly an hour north to meet the 1st leg pilot and then back to the SW to get the patient to the final destination, I suggested we just meet at my field for the drop off since it was only 5 miles different for him to fly to my home drome. Holy hell, I have never seen someone get so upset that they had to put their own fuel in the plane. "Airnav said this was assisted serve, why isn't there anyone to fill up my plane?!?!" "Yeah, if the manager(s) are here they might help you, but they aren't here right now." He was soooooo put off by having to fuel his plane it was comical. Entitled much?
Click to expand...

Self fueling? o_O Ewww, that's for the "little people". :p

Was he from NJ, where they can't even self-fuel their cars?

I self-fuel a little less now, but that's because the group I co-own the SR22 want to run it with a wet rate. Yuck. I was stopping and getting cheap fuel, but found I was the only one doing it. I still do, I just do it less often. I wish I could get them to switch to a dry rate. I'd drive my flying costs down by selecting my refueling locations better, and yes that would mean self-fueling a lot more often. Meh. I did it regularly in another SR22 group that had the hourly rate as dry. Same for the Baron 58, Seneca, and Arrow; all dry rates. I could really drop the cost by picking up 100+ gallons in the Baron at another airport with 100LL a $2+/gal cheaper vs a fuel truck back at the home drome. Heck yeah I'm self-fueling there! :D Of course, I grew up doing all the work on my cars that didn't require specialized equipment, and even renting equipment once to compress the springs on the front.

I'm just an oddball. That's pretty normal for me though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top