ATP Requirements vs Cirrus Vision

Tarheelpilot said:
Just posting this for anyone that wants to read up on the standards.

https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test_standards/media/atp_pts.pdf[/QUOTE
Tarheelpilot said:
Type rating checkrides are performed to atp standards.

Passenger hauling for hire in a jet requires atp for the PIC.

The type ratings are listed with the applicable category and class on the back of your certificate.
View attachment 56459

I will add that like most things in life there are exceptions. I have flown one airplane that was over 12.5k gross and didn't require a type rating because it was waivered by faa. Air tractor 802 but it's a single seat restricted use certification aircraft.
Click to expand...
While I have no doubt what you say is correct, I have seen "VFR only" type ratings. Curious how they handle that??
Click to expand...
 
No clue how I bungled the above post. :rolleyes:
 
Tarheelpilot said:
@Kritchlow i didnt notice that you did
Click to expand...
I bungled the technical part. Somehow I have quotes within quotes..?? lol!!
Anyway, my question is buried at the end.
If type rides are done to ATP standards, how are the "VFR only" type rides done?
 
James_Dean said:
Probably not. I've done three day sim school twice for the Conquest and the type rating for a 525 is 3-5 days. I'm comfortable that I could get a type and fly the ride to ATP standards. Having said that, I think each step of my progression has been important and I don't think I would've been as successful had I not done the steps.

If you're going to fly the flight levels and mix it up with the big boys you should have a good game. Things bite harder and faster.
Click to expand...
That's kind of what I had figured. You're in the same market as Cirrus Vision buyers but with a different enough mission to choose the Conquest, so if the type rating question doesn't really matter to you then I'm sure it's equally moot to Vision buyers.
 
James_Dean said:
Probably not. I've done three day sim school twice for the Conquest and the type rating for a 525 is 3-5 days. I'm comfortable that I could get a type and fly the ride to ATP standards. Having said that, I think each step of my progression has been important and I don't think I would've been as successful had I not done the steps.

If you're going to fly the flight levels and mix it up with the big boys you should have a good game. Things bite harder and faster.
Click to expand...
I have many Citation types. I have never seen a three day type. I did a five day type as a transition, but Flight Safety didn't even recommend that.

I would not trust an outfit that gives a jet type in 3 days. That's two days of training and a checkride to ATP standards in the jet.
 
Kritchlow said:
I have many Citation types. I have never seen a three day type. I did a five day type as a transition, but Flight Safety didn't even recommend that.

I would not trust an outfit that gives a jet type in 3 days. That's two days of training and a checkride to ATP standards in the jet.
Click to expand...
My 3-day type rating is why I wouldn't fly a Falcon 20 without an experienced copilot.:eek:
 
Kritchlow said:
C525 type 3-5 days??????????

Yikes.
Click to expand...

Simcom quotes 14 days for an initial with several other schools at anywhere from 3-10. TruFlight which is the Textron in house center also quotes 14 days which is probably the representative case of what to realistically expect. I might have been too quick with the 3-5 days comment upon further investigation.
 
Kritchlow said:
I have many Citation types. I have never seen a three day type. I did a five day type as a transition, but Flight Safety didn't even recommend that.

I would not trust an outfit that gives a jet type in 3 days. That's two days of training and a checkride to ATP standards in the jet.
Click to expand...
Agree. I probably shouldn't answer posts in meetings. :oops:
 
Kritchlow said:
I bungled the technical part. Somehow I have quotes within quotes..?? lol!!
Anyway, my question is buried at the end.
If type rides are done to ATP standards, how are the "VFR only" type rides done?
Click to expand...
I've never done a vfr only ride. Not sure how they work. I guess @MauleSkinner took the initiative and gave us the page numbers to look them up.

-Break-

I wouldn't expect a three day type to be adequate to safely operate a new airframe.
 
James_Dean said:
Simcom quotes 14 days for an initial with several other schools at anywhere from 3-10. TruFlight which is the Textron in house center also quotes 14 days which is probably the representative case of what to realistically expect. I might have been too quick with the 3-5 days comment upon further investigation.
Click to expand...

Dammit. Now all I'm thinking about is finding 14 days in my schedule next year to go get typed. So much for a productive work day. :)
 
James_Dean said:
Dammit. Now all I'm thinking about is finding 14 days in my schedule next year to go get typed. So much for a productive work day. :)
Click to expand...
14 days for a 525 is about right. Other citations are 21 days, and I believe the Gulfstreams are 30.

The Airbus is hard to say, as they incorporate the airline procedures / policies into training. All together it was about 6 weeks for that.
 
Kritchlow said:
I think they just have to draw the line somewhere. It's my belief that they figure over 12.5 or jet, the systems start getting more complex and warrant extra training.
Click to expand...

Isn't it also about above a certain size, that much aircraft hitting something on the ground will do a
specific amount of damage? I think I read that in the certification specs for the aircraft certificate somewhere. Maybe imagining it.

iamtheari said:
Cirrus figured out a few years back that top-notch training in their planes is the key to a good safety record.
Click to expand...

I guess they figured wrong then. Their safety record has been shown to be about equal to the Bonanza. Paging Ron W and his real data...

A brandy-new (as of March 2017) Private pilot SR22 driver splattered himself, his wife, his kids, and the family dog all over a mountain near Glenwood Springs last Friday night. I suspect he had all the "training"... well, except for mountain training and a CFI who instilled a deep respect for the Rockies in him.

He did it at 10PM at night. Aircraft made a reported "large debris field" on the side of the mountain directly north of KGWS on a direct GPS line from his departure point of KFNL to KCNY. Altitude of the mountain top is 11,288. Victor 8, slightly north of his course by a mile has an MEA of 13,200. Cloud heights at KRIL ranged from 7500 AGL to 10,000 AGL all night that night meaning bases were around 13,500 to 15,000. No
Instrument rating.

The chute doesn't do much for CFIT after scud running in the mountains at night. And apparently their "top-notch training" doesn't cover that.
 
denverpilot said:
Isn't it also about above a certain size, that much aircraft hitting something on the ground will do a
specific amount of damage? I think I read that in the certification specs for the aircraft certificate somewhere. Maybe imagining it.
Click to expand...
That could be. I really don't know.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what the Vision weighs?
 
Kritchlow said:
That could be. I really don't know.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what the Vision weighs?
Click to expand...

Max ramp is 6040lbs. 2000 lbs fuel cap. For comparison, my Conquest is 8675lbs and 2450lbs.
 
Kritchlow said:
That could be. I really don't know.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what the Vision weighs?
Click to expand...
Cirrus does. Their website lists BEW at 3572, max ramp weight at 6040, MTOW at 6000, and max zero fuel weight at 4900. The crash impact doesn't seem to be a major factor for this type, although it would have been for early jets. Anyone know when type ratings started to be required for jets? The "first business jet" according to some quick Googling is the Lockheed JetStar, MTOW 44,500 lbs, from the 1960s.

Maybe the Vision would be an appropriate waiver candidate just like the Air Tractor mentioned above is. But, if we're talking about a multi-million-dollar plane with seats for passengers, there won't be many names on the list of actual owners who would want to just jump in and fly it without enough training to get a type rating and without insurance, which would require the same training as a condition of coverage.
 
James_Dean said:
Max ramp is 6040lbs. 2000 lbs fuel cap. For comparison, my Conquest is 8675lbs and 2450lbs.
Click to expand...
iamtheari said:
Cirrus does. Their website lists BEW at 3572, max ramp weight at 6040, MTOW at 6000, and max zero fuel weight at 4900. The crash impact doesn't seem to be a major factor for this type, although it would have been for early jets. Anyone know when type ratings started to be required for jets? The "first business jet" according to some quick Googling is the Lockheed JetStar, MTOW 44,500 lbs, from the 1960s.

Maybe the Vision would be an appropriate waiver candidate just like the Air Tractor mentioned above is. But, if we're talking about a multi-million-dollar plane with seats for passengers, there won't be many names on the list of actual owners who would want to just jump in and fly it without enough training to get a type rating and without insurance, which would require the same training as a condition of coverage.
Click to expand...
That's pretty light.

That said, it's still a jet and systems do indeed start getting more complex.

I do have very minimal time in a Conquest, but can't remember much about the airplane. Don't remember the complexity of systems vs a basic citation.
 
denverpilot said:
Isn't it also about above a certain size, that much aircraft hitting something on the ground will do a
specific amount of damage? I think I read that in the certification specs for the aircraft certificate somewhere. Maybe imagining it.



I guess they figured wrong then. Their safety record has been shown to be about equal to the Bonanza. Paging Ron W and his real data...

A brandy-new (as of March 2017) Private pilot SR22 driver splattered himself, his wife, his kids, and the family dog all over a mountain near Glenwood Springs last Friday night. I suspect he had all the "training"... well, except for mountain training and a CFI who instilled a deep respect for the Rockies in him.

He did it at 10PM at night. Aircraft made a reported "large debris field" on the side of the mountain directly north of KGWS on a direct GPS line from his departure point of KFNL to KCNY. Altitude of the mountain top is 11,288. Victor 8, slightly north of his course by a mile has an MEA of 13,200. Cloud heights at KRIL ranged from 7500 AGL to 10,000 AGL all night that night meaning bases were around 13,500 to 15,000. No
Instrument rating.

The chute doesn't do much for CFIT after scud running in the mountains at night. And apparently their "top-notch training" doesn't cover that.
Click to expand...
I think the cause of the accident you are referring to is more likely the pilot didn't listen to the training.
 
iamtheari said:
Cirrus does. Their website lists BEW at 3572, max ramp weight at 6040, MTOW at 6000, and max zero fuel weight at 4900. The crash impact doesn't seem to be a major factor for this type, although it would have been for early jets. Anyone know when type ratings started to be required for jets? The "first business jet" according to some quick Googling is the Lockheed JetStar, MTOW 44,500 lbs, from the 1960s.

Maybe the Vision would be an appropriate waiver candidate just like the Air Tractor mentioned above is. But, if we're talking about a multi-million-dollar plane with seats for passengers, there won't be many names on the list of actual owners who would want to just jump in and fly it without enough training to get a type rating and without insurance, which would require the same training as a condition of coverage.
Click to expand...
The presence of more than one seat pretty much guarantees no chance of a waiver ever. The one for the 802 dang near didn't get renewed this year.
No matter how much tech is installed on that aircraft it should require a type
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I think the cause of the accident you are referring to is more likely the pilot didn't listen to the training.
Click to expand...

Then the training wasn't "top-notch". Great (not just good) training and trainers, get themselves heard and understood.
 
denverpilot said:
Then the training wasn't "top-notch". Great (not just good) training and trainers, get themselves heard and understood.
Click to expand...
Lol

If you work for me and don't listen you lose your job. If you own a plane and can pass a checkride what can anyone do. Sorry. You're off base here. We live in a free society and this guy made his own choices. His choices don't reflect on the people that trained him unless something new comes out to support your position. His decisions don't necessarily indicate the quality the training
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Lol

If you work for me and don't listen you lose your job. If you own a plane and can pass a checkride what can anyone do. Sorry. You're off base here. We live in a free society and this guy made his own choices. His choices don't reflect on the people that trained him unless something new comes out to support your position. His decisions don't necessarily indicate the quality the training
Click to expand...

It was someone else who claimed Cirrus "top-notch training" had lowered the accident rate. I didn't.

It hasn't. And the training isn't all that "top-notch" if they couldn't convince a brand new Private pilot that a night flight in bad weather in the Rockies in a single, isn't a good idea.

In fact, something about the training and the aircraft convinced him that it was a fine idea. Convinced the guy who did it in what, the Carolinas earlier this year, too.

The marketing of the Cirrus as a travel machine is a factor in these accidents. Seven month Private pilot has no business being up in the rocks with a 2000' AGL overcast or lower over the peaks, at night, below MEA, without an instrument rating, scud running -- but I bet that panel full of toys made him feel a lot more comfortable about it than he should have been. And I bet the factory talked those toys up quite a bit to him.

No doubt it's on the pilot. But there's a subtle and very real trail of bull**** that helps them make terrible risk decisions coming from Cirrus marketing wank.
 
denverpilot said:
It was someone else who claimed Cirrus "top-notch training" had lowered the accident rate. I didn't.

It hasn't. And the training isn't all that "top-notch" if they couldn't convince a brand new Private pilot that a night flight in bad weather in the Rockies in a single, isn't a good idea.

In fact, something about the training and the aircraft convinced him that it was a fine idea. Convinced the guy who did it in what, the Carolinas earlier this year, too.

The marketing of the Cirrus as a travel machine is a factor in these accidents. Seven month Private pilot has no business being up in the rocks with a 2000' AGL overcast or lower over the peaks, at night, below MEA, without an instrument rating, scud running -- but I bet that panel full of toys made him feel a lot more comfortable about it than he should have been. And I bet the factory talked those toys up quite a bit to him.

No doubt it's on the pilot. But there's a subtle and very real trail of bull**** that helps them make terrible risk decisions coming from Cirrus marketing wank.
Click to expand...
Marketing and training are different. Every aircraft manufacturer has marketing department that are full of ****. The guys I know involved with cirrus training and the materials they work from don't follow the marketing crap
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Marketing and training are different. Every aircraft manufacturer has marketing department that are full of ****. The guys I know involved with cirrus training and the materials they work from don't follow the marketing crap
Click to expand...

Fair enough but new pilots buy because of the marketing crap, and the training has to work harder to beat it out of them than it should have to. Primacy and all. "The sales guy said..."

Cirrus tries. I won't fault them for that. They're even giving away training hours to people buying used. That's good. As long as the Chinese money / loss of easily collectible profits, keeps flowing to pay for it.

I just think "top-notch" is a little bit of marketing wank to go with the other more dangerous marketing wank. I've met good Cirrus instructors and mediocre or bad ones. Doesn't seem to be any particular lock on having all great ones anywhere. Maybe at the factory, never been there. But one would usually expect that, even of other manufacturers. Out away from the factory? Not so much. At least they have the standardization program. Again, they at least try.

They didn't reach/get through to the dead guy, though. Doesn't take a Cirrus or their training program to have that happen to a CFI. It's just that I wouldn't tout that as "top notch".

Don't know who the guy trained with, but I'm sure they're sitting somewhere wondering how the hell their student missed that combining all of those circumstances was usually fatal and wondering if there was some way they could have made that more clear to him.

Certainly that scenario plays out repetitively in the Rockies and not just in Cirri. It's just that the warm glow of a panel full of electronics and the marketing wank of how "safe" it all is, playing in the back of the new pilot's head, had to have an effect on that go/no-go decision.

I doubt the first line written in the approved training manuals is, "This airplane will kill you just as fast as any other." Which is the hard truth of the matter.
 
denverpilot said:
It was someone else who claimed Cirrus "top-notch training" had lowered the accident rate. I didn't.
Click to expand...
Nor did I. I only said that Cirrus "figured out" that top-notch training in their planes is the key to a "good" safety record.

Things I did not say:
1. Cirrus training is universally top-notch
2. Cirrus's safety record is better than competing types
3. CAPS improves safety in the event of CFIT
4. A safety record with one or even thousands of CFIT accidents is or is not a "good" safety record for the type
5. Marketing hype is limited by truth
6. Much of anything else

The single data point of someone whose training we have to speculate about and who would have had the same crash in any other type does not actually prove that Cirrus's training isn't top-notch or that their safety record isn't good, but that wasn't my point. My point is that Cirrus wants to be the source of type-rating training in the Vision because their belief is that great training in type leads to a good safety record. And frankly, that belief is a reasonable one. But the accuracy of that belief is not what I was talking about. Just the fact of it and its connection with the fact that the only way to be certified to fly the Vision is to get a type rating through the Cirrus training program.

Your point does go further, though, in saying that Cirrus's push for type-specific training has not resulted in a good safety record. Is this week's CFIT incident an outlier or is there a pattern of Cirrus-trained pilots crashing into mountains at night in IMC? Nobody is perfect but if there really is a pattern of a training program's graduates making really bad decisions then it is fair to conclude the training program sucks. (And it could be that Cirrus trains pilots to rely too much on synthetic vision to avoid CFIT, but I think it's more likely that they just don't talk as much about CFIT because they are focused on things unique to the Cirrus product rather than hazards that are equally hazardous to all types.)
 
Ahh life was so much easier when it was just Cessna and Piper discussions.
 
What other piston single manufacturer's training program is there to compare Cirrus' to? Wouldn't the fact that they even have one make it top notch?
 
iamtheari said:
but if there really is a pattern of a training program's graduates making really bad decisions then it is fair to conclude the training program sucks.
Click to expand...
First, I would never blamed Cirrus for such accidents. Unfortunately there is a limit what training program can do, certainly it is very difficult to change someone's decision making - perhaps it is part of someone's DNA. We just had a similar accident, similar fatality of the whole family - and it was Piper Turbo Dakota, not Cirrus. Let's recall the famous Cirrus accident in Minnesota - the owner went through the complete training and 2 weeks later, in his brand new SR22 decided to fly to his son's hockey game - early morning in December, in mist-fog with no IFR rating (Cirrus was sued for millions to no avail). So you can see all kinds of stupidity and no training can reduce it to zero. By the way, last I read Cirrus was able to significantly improve their deadly statistics - to make it below the industry average.
 
@denverpilot : I'm not trying to spar with ya as you've been immensely helpful as I train :) However isn't pegging this so heavily on Cirrus a bit over the top?

First off, couldn't there still be a chance (albeit quite small) that there was a actual aircraft problem (eg. CO leak). Or maybe it wasn't a Cirrus specific problem at all, could the altimeter have been off (but that would be quite a bit). For this accident its actually hard to imagine anything other than pilot error..but there's a chance.

And lets say Cirrus had never started but Cessna had scratched that same itch offering a HP composite thingy with a fancy panel. Wouldn't we be having all these same discussions and blaming Cessna when its really on the pilot in cases like these. It just seems the industry is now offering planes which have the performance, capability and automation which easily exceeds a new pilot. The ugly part is they want/need business bad enough to let their marketing sell the thing as easy or entry level or whatever only to have a decent number of inexperienced & wealthy pilots buy in and go do things with it they shouldn't. You would think Cirrus would offer some type of specific training course on mountain flying as there is a good chance they will be used in that environment. They really seem to be building a "family" of owners, this has really got to hurt. And just think if the Vision sells in decent numbers to this same crowd...that's a lot more kinetic energy and speed to deal with for someone who just got his private and whatever else the minimal training will be.
 
From FAA public database:

JOHN JOSEPH TRAVOLTA

Certificate: PRIVATE PILOT
Date of Issue: 6/5/2011

Ratings:
PRIVATE PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE

Type Ratings:
P/B-707 P/B-720 P/CE-500 P/CL-600 P/EA-500S
P/G-1159 P/HS-125 P/LR-JET


Limits:
ENGLISH PROFICIENT.
AUTHORIZED EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT: SO-G2.
B-707 SIC PRIVILEGES ONLY.
CE-500 (VFR ONLY).
 
iamtheari said:
Nor did I. I only said that Cirrus "figured out" that top-notch training in their planes is the key to a "good" safety record.
Click to expand...

So has every other manufacturer. And everyone else in aviation.

So in essence, you're saying you weren't insinuating that Cirrus has it, nor that it's easy to find. Got it.
 
Sinistar said:
So, from this someone purchasing a Cirrus Vision will be held to ATP standards during their checkride?

And, if someone were to use the Vision for business to haul people around for hire then they would need to be a ATP?
Click to expand...

To answer your first question. That is correct. Type rating standards are basically the same as ATP standards, which is why you will see most people who have a type have an ATP since both checkrides can be done at the same time. So you'd walk out with a freshly minted ATP with the type rating. However that being said you must posses the requirements listed in 61.159 or 61.160 to be eligible for the ATP also its very possible to get a type rating before you meet those requirements. In that instance you would just get the type rating added to your certificate. So for instance when I did my first type rating, the CL-65 (CRJ) type rating I received my ATP at the same time.

To answer your second question, no. You'd need a commercial then it's a whole grey area of how you can advertise for it and fly for hire etc, but an atp is not required to fly for business or for hire. It's only required if the company you want to fly for says so or you are working for a 121 air carrier
 
denverpilot said:
So has every other manufacturer. And everyone else in aviation.

So in essence, you're saying you weren't insinuating that Cirrus has it, nor that it's easy to find. Got it.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that any other manufacturer of single-engine airplanes has tried nearly so hard as Cirrus to ensure that pilots buying their products, new and used, get type-specific training. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Can you answer my question about the recent CFIT accident being part of a pattern among Cirrus-trained pilots?
 
Not saying Cessna is on the Cirrus training level, but in the past they had Cessna Training Centers and used a Cessna syllabus and study materials. In actuality it was just an FBO that may have also been a Cessna dealer.
 
mscard88 said:
Not saying Cessna is on the Cirrus training level, but in the past they had Cessna Training Centers and used a Cessna syllabus and study materials. In actuality it was just an FBO that may have also been a Cessna dealer.
Click to expand...
Good point. What I see with Cirrus is that their planes had a bad safety record, they started a training push, and now they have a safety record on par with similar types. I don't think Cessna ever suffered the bad safety record that Cirrus did, but perhaps early on with their Landomatic Gear and other marketing they did go through the same growing pains. In any event, it's perfectly predictable on POA that, if you point out the Cirrus story in any context, someone will call you out for it. I should have known better. :)
 
iamtheari said:
Good point. What I see with Cirrus is that their planes had a bad safety record, they started a training push, and now they have a safety record on par with similar types. I don't think Cessna ever suffered the bad safety record that Cirrus did, but perhaps early on with their Landomatic Gear and other marketing they did go through the same growing pains. In any event, it's perfectly predictable on POA that, if you point out the Cirrus story in any context, someone will call you out for it. I should have known better. :)
Click to expand...

I think the Cessna Centers (Piper had them too I think) was not only to train folks in Cessnas, but hopefully they'd purchase one too. So really a marketing thing. I think what Cirrus is doing, regardless of the prior safety record, is commendable. I know Mulligan was really impressed with the training, but then he's an Auburn fan so he's easily impressed.
 
As a rich guy driving a PC-12 said on another forum: "Looked into getting Phenom 300, but the type rating course was 14 days long. That makes it the slowest plane I've owned".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top