ATP Requirements vs Cirrus Vision

stratobee said:
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".
Click to expand...
And just shows how important a type rating can be. If nothing else it slows down these yahoos who just want to get in a jet and push start.
 
Kritchlow said:
And just shows how important a type rating can be. If nothing else it slows down these yahoos who just want to get in a jet and push start.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Though to be fair, a lot of pros resemble that remark. Airbus much? :D TC
 
Kritchlow said:
I hope you're not suggesting Airbus pilots aren't properly trained, because that would be grosly incorrect.
Click to expand...

No I'm not suggesting that at all. The Airbus joke was just a coincidence.Your sarcasm gauge needs to get MEL'd though. :D
 
hindsight2020 said:
Indeed. Though to be fair, a lot of pros resemble that remark. Airbus much? :D TC
Click to expand...

young-man-thinking-cloud-over-his-head-34383258.jpg
 
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...

Cessna had a horrible safety record in the 70s. ;-)
 
But he has a point - if you value your time, or your time comes at great expense, then choosing a turboprop (where the initial might be 5 days, recurrent 3) would make you "faster" than any jet for the average owner/operator user per year.

There's also a slight tendency to guild the lily in training, because, let's be honest, which training facility benefits from a short initial? My initial at SimCom for the Turbo Commander was 5 days. It could easily have been done in 3 days. Lots of coffee breaks, lots of pretty short days and just one sim session/day. It is dense stuff, so probably proven somewhere to be more efficient this way, to process it, but I can't help feeling we were only going at 70% of capacity.
 
denverpilot said:
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...

According to COPA, the pilot had multiple instructors for his PPL - none of them were CSIP's. He also didn't use Cirrus Transition training - which wasn't free yet at the time he took ownership of his plane.

So not quite fair to judge whether Cirrus's training is good, bad, or top-notch based on this pilot, since he didn't use it.
 
stratobee said:
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".
Click to expand...
Ain't this place a geographical oddity. Two weeks from everywhere.
 
stratobee said:
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".
Click to expand...
How long and how often would the recurrent be? Let's assume single-pilot type rating.
 
deonb said:
According to COPA, the pilot had multiple instructors for his PPL - none of them were CSIP's. He also didn't use Cirrus Transition training - which wasn't free yet at the time he took ownership of his plane.

So not quite fair to judge whether Cirrus's training is good, bad, or top-notch based on this pilot, since he didn't use it.
Click to expand...

So it's possible to fly a Cirrus without their training?!

Surely you jest! That can't be possible!

:)

I wasn't the one claiming he *had* said "top-notch" training. That idea came from someone else. I've simply said it's not always top-notch. Depends on who's teaching it.
 
denverpilot said:
I wasn't the one claiming he *had* said "top-notch" training. That idea came from someone else. I've simply said it's not always top-notch. Depends on who's teaching it.
Click to expand...
Except that you are literally the only person who has made even a suggestion in this thread that the recent CFIT pilot had Cirrus training, back in post #55 (when you were also the one who brought an SR22 CFIT incident into this thread about whether and why a type rating is required for the Vision jet):
denverpilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's fine that you continue to mischaracterize my point without regard to my explanation of it. I think everyone else figured out what I meant. But I don't understand why you would claim that anyone but yourself has tried to make a connection between the quality of Cirrus's training program and the recent CFIT incident.
 
iamtheari said:
Except that you are literally the only person who has made even a suggestion in this thread that the recent CFIT pilot had Cirrus training, back in post #55 (when you were also the one who brought an SR22 CFIT incident into this thread about whether and why a type rating is required for the Vision jet):

It's fine that you continue to mischaracterize my point without regard to my explanation of it. I think everyone else figured out what I meant. But I don't understand why you would claim that anyone but yourself has tried to make a connection between the quality of Cirrus's training program and the recent CFIT incident.
Click to expand...

It's fine to "mischaracterize it" because your point was proven useless in his case. He didn't have the training and lots don't. Your point was about Cirrus training overall, even though you were applying it only to the Jet.

For the jet, as long as the training is required, your point stands as an opinion that their training will be enough/"top-notch". We shall see.

In cases where it's not required, it isn't rendering anything better than the industry averages for accidents in other aircraft. Cirrus crash at the same rates as Bonanzas. That was always my point. Usually things called "top-notch" provide something with better outcomes than matching the averages.
 
denverpilot said:
It's fine to "mischaracterize it" because your point was proven useless in his case. He didn't have the training and lots don't. Your point was about Cirrus training overall, even though you were applying it only to the Jet.
Click to expand...
The problem is that you are still claiming that my point was among the things that, in post #67 above, I explicitly said it was not. (I also asked you a question in that post that you did not answer, which actually does relate to the point you have been making regarding Cirrus's training quality and safety record.) You seem to be having an off week. I know from the past that you're better than this. I hope you have a great weekend and forget this thread as I plan to do. Let's forget the B.S. and go flying. :cool:
 
iamtheari said:
The problem is that you are still claiming that my point was among the things that, in post #67 above, I explicitly said it was not. (I also asked you a question in that post that you did not answer, which actually does relate to the point you have been making regarding Cirrus's training quality and safety record.) You seem to be having an off week. I know from the past that you're better than this. I hope you have a great weekend and forget this thread as I plan to do. Let's forget the B.S. and go flying. :cool:
Click to expand...

Nah, the real problem is I'm tired of seeing nice folks ram airplanes into mountains for no damned good reason other than some ass-hat told them they're buying the "safest" airplanes out there with additional marketing wank like "top-notch training". Not your fault that you decided to defend their marketing BS really but I'm kinda sick of it from them. Not that they ultimately have any control over it, people do what they want to and train how they want to. I'm just not buying their silly marketing junk.

Ever been to one of their get-together things to try to sell airplanes? The videos are just chock full of garbage that leaves you thinking, "Well, it's nice they paid for snacks and drinks but these people are going to get somebody killed..." You leave feeling kinda dirty.

The one I went to was the mock up of the jet. I say in it and saw what they planned for the panel and thought, "They're going to sell these to people who have no business flying a jet..."

We shall see. The only good news is the price tag. It'll keep a LOT of people out of trouble in that thing. I hope so anyway.
 
jordane93 said:
The plane calls the pilots names. I don't know why anyone would want to fly it;)
Click to expand...


Because I make a s..t load more in the right seat than you will ever make in the left seat of you current ride........ :) and we all know when some major offers you a seat in it you will say where do I sign.......
 
unsafervguy said:
Because I make a s..t load more in the right seat than you will ever make in the left seat of you current ride........ :) and we all know when some major offers you a seat in it you will say where do I sign.......
Click to expand...

hit a nerve didn't we? :rolleyes:
 
jordane93 said:
My joke did not go over well. I should have put 10 winky faces.
Click to expand...

i saw your joke and I guess my smiley face didnt indicate my joke response.....

i guess i forget that people that are not in the industry don't know how much ribbing goes on between pilots of different fleets....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top