Cirrus SR22

[lsimonds]

I had a flight in a Cirrus SR22 the other day. I didn't know what to expect from the airplane. It was a dream machine. Fast. Stable. Easy to handle. The avionics were all an instrument pilot could ask for. The autopilot flew an ILS right down to DH. I would have bought the airplane on the spot if I'd had money. Alas, back to my 1965 Cherokee club airplane (for which I'm grateful), but it sure was fun getting a taste of how the other side flies.

 

[KennyFlys]

My original post was:

The SR-22 is pretty cool for a powered glider!

As said later, I got a little quick at this. It finally came to me (in the shower, no less) what I had intended to say...

The SR-22 is pretty cool for a powered parachute!

Okay, no laughing at the novice pilots!

But, there are a large number of accidents with the Cirrus. The ASF database showed 28 fatal accidents since 1994. In later years, pilots have become complacent with the knowledge of the parachute installed behind them. It's also common to use the autopilot so much, once it becomes inoperative, they are in the dark on how to fly in IMC without it. Consequently, Cirrus Design has expanded considerably the CFI's across country to teach proficiency in their planes. Though largely a move to contain their liability, it's a good move for all of general aviation.

 

[Michael]

there are a large number of accidents with the Cirrus. The ASF database showed 28 fatal accidents since 1994.

And how many did cessna have? or piper? Not again guys. the cirrus is the best selling plane right now, more planes out there = more accidents. I do not buy that it is too complex, or that people rely on the chute. Its simple math.

 

[SkyHog]

The safest plane on the market is the one flown by a competant and attentive pilot. That said - if I were flying a Cirrus, it would be the safest plane in the sky that day.

Don't blame the plane, blame the pilot.

 

[lsimonds]

The pilot who owns this Cirrus (who is a Cirrus instructor) and I naturally had a conversation about the accident record and safety. The airplane was docile - I guess I expected squirrelly or at least touchy to handle. The avionics could pull a pilot's attention into the cockpit if s/he let them. It's fast, but the take-off, approach and landing were flown at speeds comparable to what I'm used to. All in all, an absolutely lovely machine whose only flaw may be that it appears simple when it is not; it's elegant but not simple. Wish I could fly one regularly.

 

[KennyFlys]

And how many did Cessna have? or piper? Not again guys. the cirrus is the best selling plane right now, more planes out there = more accidents. I do not buy that it is too complex, or that people rely on the chute. Its simple math.

My apologies. I got kind of quick in writing that. I guess you could say the Cirrus has become the more recent "doctor killer." Because of the parachute, it gets more attention.

No one publishes a report that puts any single manufacturer greater than others. I doubt they would ever publish one because no entity wants to tick off a single company with such a statistic. I suppose you could take the ASF or NTSB data and put one together but in the end, what's really the cause? Nick said it best.

The 2006 Nall Report states 74.9% of all accidents are pilot error. There's another 8.9% undetermined while 16.2% are mechanical. That means at least 75% of all accidents are preventable, probably more.

Among a few other stats, I found one interesting since there are the proposed rules for charitable flights. That subject came up during my CPL oral today. The proposed rule is to require 500 hours for charitable flights. The report states 34.9% of all accidents are by pilots under 500 hours. It steadily declines downward reaching 2.1% at 3501-4000 hours. Suddenly, it jumps to 21.6% at the greater than 4000 hours mark. So, by that logic the FAA shouldn't allow pilots with greater than 4000 hours to make charitable flights since they are second behind the low-timers. How about just making proficiency requirements more strict? Perhaps, for all pilots?

 

[jesse]

Among a few other stats, I found one interesting since there are the proposed rules for charitable flights. That subject came up during my CPL oral today. The proposed rule is to require 500 hours for charitable flights. The report states 34.9% of all accidents are by pilots under 500 hours. It steadily declines downward reaching 2.1% at 3501-4000 hours. Suddenly, it jumps to 21.6% at the greater than 4000 hours mark. So, by that logic the FAA shouldn't allow pilots with greater than 4000 hours to make charitable flights since they are second behind the low-timers. How about just making proficiency requirements more strict? Perhaps, for all pilots?

It's not a proficiency problem with high time pilots. Obviously they are proficient that's how they got high time. It comes down to exposure. There isn't **** you can do about exposure. If you fly enough it's very likely that you could bend some metal and spill some blood.

Physics aren't forgiving. We all do what we can to eliminate risk but the risk will still be there and the more exposure you have the greater the risk.

The very fact that there is a curve of decreasing accidents with increasing exposure makes it quite clear that experience makes for a safer pilot. Eventually though that exposure will cause an accident.

I don't have a billion hours. There are many pilots out there that have by far more experience than me. Listening to their stories and reading their wisdom enables me to capture their experience without the risk of getting killed in the process. The more involved you are in aviation and the more you read about other peoples experiences the more experienced you become. Hopefully you can recognize a dangerous situation in the accident chain before it becomes too late.

More experience makes for a safer pilot. There are exceptions but in general it's just the truth. There isn't much I can do about that except for keep on flying on.

 

[Richard]

And how many did cessna have? or piper? Not again guys. the cirrus is the best selling plane right now, more planes out there = more accidents. I do not buy that it is too complex, or that people rely on the chute. Its simple math.

I spoke with Bruce Landsberg at length about the Cirrus accident rate. He did agree more planes = more accidents but he said a significant factor was pilot complacency brought on by over reliance on plane capabilities.

Said another way, the pilot was relying on the plane more than the pilot. (my words, not Bruce's.) Still, it falls under the domain of human error.

 

[tonycondon]

The SR-22 is pretty cool for a powered glider!

dude, how many times is it going to take? after you compare composite construction, the SR-2X's are nothing like gliders.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I had a flight in a Cirrus SR22 the other day. I didn't know what to expect from the airplane. It was a dream machine. Fast. Stable. Easy to handle. The avionics were all an instrument pilot could ask for. The autopilot flew an ILS right down to DH. I would have bought the airplane on the spot if I'd had money.

I'd have done the same, the first time I flew an SR22. I'm glad I didn't - While it was a fun go-fast bird, insurance rates suck and it's a terrible short-field performer. Besides, if you really want a go-fast bird, you might as well get a Columbia or a Mooney and go 40-45 knots faster for roughly the same money. That way, you'd be able to get a G1000 instead of the Avidyne.

OBTW, I wouldn't fly an ILS to DH with the autopilot in there either... When I cut it off, the airplane was WAY out of trim and made a nice sudden diving right turn. That would really suck at 200 feet.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The safest plane on the market is the one flown by a competant and attentive pilot. That said - if I were flying a Cirrus, it would be the safest plane in the sky that day.

Don't blame the plane, blame the pilot.

Yes, but would the pilot be as complacent if they didn't have the chute? In many cases, no. I'd love to blame Cirrus' marketing, but they're simply trying to bring more people into GA. Can't fault them for that!

We had a VERY interesting discussion along these lines with Cirrus CEO Alan Klapmeier on Pilotcast #51.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

dude, how many times is it going to take? after you compare composite construction, the SR-2X's are nothing like gliders.

What Tony said. Diamond's singles are somewhat gliderlike, but Diamond has their roots in gliders. An SR22 has about as much in common with a glider as a 172.

 

[cwyckham]

...
Among a few other stats, I found one interesting since there are the proposed rules for charitable flights. That subject came up during my CPL oral today. The proposed rule is to require 500 hours for charitable flights. The report states 34.9% of all accidents are by pilots under 500 hours. It steadily declines downward reaching 2.1% at 3501-4000 hours. Suddenly, it jumps to 21.6% at the greater than 4000 hours mark. So, by that logic the FAA shouldn't allow pilots with greater than 4000 hours to make charitable flights since they are second behind the low-timers. How about just making proficiency requirements more strict? Perhaps, for all pilots?

I assume that you are referring to the chart on page 16 of the Nall report. This graph is virtually useless. It doesn't take into account the hours flown. There are more pilots flying with 1-500 hours than 500-1000 hours because so many drop out after getting their license and getting bored or running out of cash. We all suspect that low time pilots are more dangerous, but I've never seen evidence that shows this. The graph you're quoting from is not evidence of this. The following quote immediately precedes the graph:

The first 500 hours of a pilot’s flying career
are the most critical, with 34.9 percent of the total and
30.7 percent of fatal accidents occurring within that
timeframe. It should be noted that pilots at this experience
level fly the vast majority of flying hours. As such,
these statistics may not reflect the true safety record of
less experienced pilots, but rather their increased
exposure. The Air Safety Foundation is working to
gather data that will allow analysis in this area.​

The absurd thing is that in the first sentence they make a conclusion, then in the next they say why they can't make a conclusion.

There's no mystery about the >4000 hr pilots, either. Notice that every other category is a 500 hour slice of the population, then the last category covers all pilots greater than 4000 hours. There are a lot more pilots with greater than 4000 hours than pilots with 3500-4000 hours. The total number of accidents is therefore higher, even if the accident rate isn't.

In other words, there's a spike in the first and last categories, and these are also the categories with the highest populations of pilots. There's no way of knowing if pilots in these categories really are more dangerous. For all we know, a 10,000 year pilot may be more dangerous than a 100 hour pilot based on this data. We all know that's highly unlikely, but the data here can't tell us if our intuition is correct.

Chris

 

[cwyckham]

The SR-22 is pretty cool for a powered glider!

I don't get it. Is that supposed to be a dig? Is it the advanced composite structural design or the aerodynamic efficiency that you don't like?

In all seriousness, what is it, precisely that makes an airplane a powered glider, in your opinion? Is it material of construction? aspect ratio? lack of a strut?

Chris

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In other words, there's a spike in the first and last categories, and these are also the categories with the highest populations of pilots. There's no way of knowing if pilots in these categories really are more dangerous. For all we know, a 10,000 year pilot may be more dangerous than a 100 hour pilot based on this data. We all know that's highly unlikely, but the data here can't tell us if our intuition is correct.

It would be nice to have the proper data to analyze this.

To draw a parallel, in the trucking industry, new drivers have lots and lots (and lots!) of minor accidents, mostly either backing into something or cutting corners too close. After 6 months or so, they become pretty safe. After three years, their experience level leads them to complacency and then they start having the bad accidents - Rear-ends, rollovers, etc.

It would be really interesting to see if the same applies to pilots...

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Lisa:

The Cirrus is a great plane if one wants a four seat sports car (of course it doesn't carry four with full fuel).

Let's see if I can make an analogy (all of which are imperfect). Let's say you were going from a family sedan to a Corvette as a young driver. Nothing wrong with a Corvette in that it's designed well and powerful, but it can get away from someone quicker and get one into trouble quicker if they're not way ahead of the car.

That's kind of how I look at it. Lots of allure; lots of power takes more skill to stay out of trouble. If a Corvette works and one is willing to take the time to stay proficient--great. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be happening in many cases. Like great racers, more proficient pilots can really make the Cirrus perform well. Unfortunately, a less experienced pilot may not see the deftness and skill of the more proficient pilot and think he/she can just do the same thing!

Best,

Dave

 

[Bill]

I spoke with Bruce Landsberg at length about the Cirrus accident rate. He did agree more planes = more accidents but he said a significant factor was pilot complacency brought on by over reliance on plane capabilities.

How much of it is Cirrus selling to type A personalities who expect to be able to meet (or exceed) scheduled airline service regardless of weather? That is the real difference between an SR-22 and a 172. Most 172's are used as burger getters, while a lot of SR-22 class planes are bought for conducting business quickly.

 

[Bill]

OBTW, I wouldn't fly an ILS to DH with the autopilot in there either... When I cut it off, the airplane was WAY out of trim and made a nice sudden diving right turn. That would really suck at 200 feet.

Interesting, I practice flying coupled ILS to DH in both planes, one has S-Tec 55x, the other King KAP-140. Both are in good shape when I take the plane at DH.

Maybe the one you use needs some work?

 

[tonycondon]

How much of it is Cirrus selling to type A personalities who expect to be able to meet (or exceed) scheduled airline service regardless of weather? That is the real difference between an SR-22 and a 172. Most 172's are used as burger getters, while a lot of SR-22 class planes are bought for conducting business quickly.

I think that is most of it Bill. We talked about this on CFIcast #2 I believe.

 

[KennyFlys]

I don't get it. Is that supposed to be a dig? Is it the advanced composite structural design or the aerodynamic efficiency that you don't like?

In all seriousness, what is it, precisely that makes an airplane a powered glider, in your opinion? Is it material of construction? aspect ratio? lack of a strut?

Chris

I corrected myself above... oops!

 

[KennyFlys]

In other words, there's a spike in the first and last categories, and these are also the categories with the highest populations of pilots. There's no way of knowing if pilots in these categories really are more dangerous. For all we know, a 10,000 year pilot may be more dangerous than a 100 hour pilot based on this data. We all know that's highly unlikely, but the data here can't tell us if our intuition is correct.

True, these two comprise the largest number of pilots. But, I think my point is being missed completely. A few had addressed the issue. While the stats are certainly correct, you can't make decisions based on those alone. This why I believe the proposed charitable flight rule is absurd based on this data alone.

Airline pilots are by a long shot the safest out there. Why? Because they have checklist after checklist after checklist. They follow procedures established upon standards and practices that prove to be the safest means during any given activity. Sure, there are a few who violate these standards such as sterile cockpit rule, etc but that is not the norm.

The only way the accident rate is going to reduce, regardless of hours of experience, is following the standards and practices which have been established. That means right down to keeping a quiet cockpit during taxi and departure, leaving the pattern appropriately and returning to enter the pattern appropriately.

That leads me to something much more significant than accident rates by number of hours. What about accident rate by type of activity? Take a look at the rates for maneuvering flight. I see and hear a lot of boasting on maneuvers such as low approach and more. The same will claim they are safe when they exercise these maneuvers. I'm sure the same claim was made by a great many of those in that accident category.

It's interesting. Some claim they can do these maneuvers because they are safe. In contrast, the professional stunt pilots I've encountered are asking themselves what they can do to maintain safety.

I've been criticized because I won't do some commercial maneuvers in high winds. This particularly applies to Eight's on a Pylon. If you have to ask why it would be unsafe then I'd ask you also not question my judgment not to go forward with an activity where ground speed is going to vary by 50-60 knots in such winds.

 

[cwyckham]

I corrected myself above... oops!

Powered parachute.... That's funny!

 

[KennyFlys]

Powered parachute.... That's funny!

I saw Tony's comment then I saw yours... I was wondering what was so difficult to catch humor in what I'd said. I know I'm no Robin Williams (I'm better looking) but gosh!

I feel better now!

 

[cwyckham]

I've been criticized because I won't do some commercial maneuvers in high winds. This particularly applies to Eight's on a Pylon. If you have to ask why it would be unsafe then I'd ask you also not question my judgment not to go forward with an activity where ground speed is going to vary by 50-60 knots in such winds.

I agree fully with your comments about procedures, complacency and the need to understand the higher risk phases of flight.

I have to ask why it would be unsafe to practice eights on a pylon (a maneuver I've never done) in high winds. I assume you mean steady high winds? Or are you low enough that you have issues with gusts? Are you concerned about large bank angles/load factors required due to high ground speed when flying downwind?

Chris

 

[Michael]

Lisa:

The Cirrus is a great plane if one wants a four seat sports car (of course it doesn't carry four with full fuel).

Let's see if I can make an analogy (all of which are imperfect). Let's say you were going from a family sedan to a Corvette as a young driver. Nothing wrong with a Corvette in that it's designed well and powerful, but it can get away from someone quicker and get one into trouble quicker if they're not way ahead of the car.

That's kind of how I look at it. Lots of allure; lots of power takes more skill to stay out of trouble. If a Corvette works and one is willing to take the time to stay proficient--great. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be happening in many cases. Like great racers, more proficient pilots can really make the Cirrus perform well. Unfortunately, a less experienced pilot may not see the deftness and skill of the more proficient pilot and think he/she can just do the same thing!

Best,

Dave

How can you compare any pilot to a teenage driver? If drivers were required to spend the cash and time we spent on obtaining our tickets, there would be very few teenage drivers, although they sure would be safer.
I know the point your all trying to make, i just don't buy it. Its not that much of a different plane. It still has wings and an engine. Why arnt Columbia 300s not falling out of the sky? or newer 172s with glass panels?

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I never said teenage driver

C-172s don't have IO-550 engines.

The Columbia isn't selling nearly as many planes. I don't know what the percentage of the fleet is when it comes to accidents. Do you have any figures on that?

The same kind of thing happened years ago with the V-tail Bonanza. Big engine in a slicker, faster plane. Guys without a lot of time purchased them and the plane got away from them (rudder elevator issues aside).

Lots of guys step up from a mild mannered sedan to a powerful sports car and get in trouble on the street--yours truly included (actually, I went to a motorcycle--Yamaha R-1--believe me, it wasn't meant to go slow).

You don't have to buy it! I think they can be rented

Another point is fractional ownership. A lot of these planes are being placed through fractional ownership programs. That puts a lot of planes in the hands of a person which might not be able to purchase one.

Best,

Dave

 

[KennyFlys]

I agree fully with your comments about procedures, complacency and the need to understand the higher risk phases of flight.

I have to ask why it would be unsafe to practice eights on a pylon (a maneuver I've never done) in high winds. I assume you mean steady high winds? Or are you low enough that you have issues with gusts? Are you concerned about large bank angles/load factors required due to high ground speed when flying downwind?

Chris

In Eight's on Pylons (Page 6-12), your pivotal altitude changes as you circle the ground reference point on your wing tip (or, in my case I use the light wick). Unlike Turns About a Point or Eight Across a Road, your bank angle changes more drastically along with altitude. You'll descend to keep your point from going ahead of the wing tip and climb to keep it from going behind. Consequently, you can have a wide range of altitude.

The formula for determining what your altitudes will be is: "Ground speed squared/11.3."

If I have a 30 knot wind as we had yesterday, I'll start with Va approximate to my aircraft weight (105 kt IAS for myself and CFI in a R182). Then my ground speed will vary from 75 to 135.

At the fastest: (135*135)/11.3 = 1613 feet AGL
At the slowest: (75*75)/11.3 = 497 feet AGL

If done in a slower aircraft, you can see how much lower the pivotal altitude can take me. That might be fine over the wheat fields of Kansas but around here you're gonna hit something. A chicken barn, silo or something. My preference is not to go under 800 feet AGL unless I'm doing a simulated emergency landing and the cutoff there is usually 500 feet.

Add to this, the wide variation in altitude along with steep bank at the peak can set you up for disorientation and/or possibly a sick DPE. While it can be done, why go to that limit? What am I proving? I'm gonna gain a heck of a lot more respect from that DE by rejecting the wind than proving I can accomplish it in these conditions.

I hope I explained this well enough (CFI's chime in! ) One of the objectives of this and other commercial maneuvers is "division of attention" while flying the airplane and maintaining control. This is something which could be (and probably should be) added to PP as well as IR training. I'm betting division of attention issues is a large contributing factor in accidents during maneuvering flight.

 

[cwyckham]

...
I hope I explained this well enough (CFI's chime in! ) ...

Thanks, Kenny. That was an excellent explanation. I didn't realize that you were changing altitude as well, especially by that much. If you also add in the wind gradient and increased turbulence and gusts at low altitude, it sounds like you're a wise man for saying no at high winds.

As you say, it can be done, but it certainly increases your risk profile by a significant margin to be manuevering so significantly at such low altitude. It's a training flight, not a medevac mission. Why take such risks when you can just come back tomorrow?

Chris

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Interesting, I practice flying coupled ILS to DH in both planes, one has S-Tec 55x, the other King KAP-140. Both are in good shape when I take the plane at DH.

Maybe the one you use needs some work?

Bill,

Which planes are you talking about? The Cirrus has an S-Tec. The one I flew was a demo, and when it yanked away from me when I cut off the A/P, the demo CFI said that was normal. I think it's a Cirrus thing, I've heard others talk about it too.

It wasn't unrecoverable and it wasn't so bad I had to trim the heck out of it to get it back, but it sure would be a surprise at 200 feet in the clag!

The 182 with the S-Tec 50, however, always releases so nicely that I probably wouldn't even notice for a minute or two if I accidentally turned it off. But, that's probably 'cuz it's still manual trim.

 

[tonycondon]

In Eight's on Pylons (Page 6-12), your pivotal altitude changes as you circle the ground reference point on your wing tip (or, in my case I use the light wick). Unlike Turns About a Point or Eight Across a Road, your bank angle changes more drastically along with altitude. You'll descend to keep your point from going ahead of the wing tip and climb to keep it from going behind. Consequently, you can have a wide range of altitude.

The formula for determining what your altitudes will be is: "Ground speed squared/11.3."

If I have a 30 knot wind as we had yesterday, I'll start with Va approximate to my aircraft weight (105 kt IAS for myself and CFI in a R182). Then my ground speed will vary from 75 to 135.

At the fastest: (135*135)/11.3 = 1613 feet AGL
At the slowest: (75*75)/11.3 = 497 feet AGL

If done in a slower aircraft, you can see how much lower the pivotal altitude can take me. That might be fine over the wheat fields of Kansas but around here you're gonna hit something. A chicken barn, silo or something. My preference is not to go under 800 feet AGL unless I'm doing a simulated emergency landing and the cutoff there is usually 500 feet.

Add to this, the wide variation in altitude along with steep bank at the peak can set you up for disorientation and/or possibly a sick DPE. While it can be done, why go to that limit? What am I proving? I'm gonna gain a heck of a lot more respect from that DE by rejecting the wind than proving I can accomplish it in these conditions.

I hope I explained this well enough (CFI's chime in! ) One of the objectives of this and other commercial maneuvers is "division of attention" while flying the airplane and maintaining control. This is something which could be (and probably should be) added to PP as well as IR training. I'm betting division of attention issues is a large contributing factor in accidents during maneuvering flight.

that altitude range seems pretty wide. I seem to remember the GS/11.3 is simply a rule of thumb to choose a starting altitude. I dont recall have that wide of altitude ranges when actually doing the manuever in strong winds in the 182RG.

Chicken Barns and silos are not 800 feet high.

As an aside - and this is my personal opinion - If you have never taken a simulated engine failure below 500 AGL then you are doing yourself a great disservice. I know the FAA has decided that we shouldnt, lest we break the 500 from any person vessel vehicle or object rule and I can understand that. So find an area where you can go down low and not be more than 500 feet from any person vessle vehicle or object. Make sure its safe and landable. Then learn what a field actually looks like. from 500 feet you will not see problems. You dont have to drag the wheels through the top of the corn, adjust your minimum altitude based on obstacles. People learn by doing, and breaking off a simulated engine out at 500 feet is nothing like actually doing an off field landing. 100 feet is a lot closer to the real thing. Actually landing out was how I was taught in gliders. I had two off field landings before I tried to go cross country on my own and it was a good thing. The experience I gained there was invaluable for the 5 off field landings I had last summer. It also gave me a big confidence boost for the possibility of a forced or precautionary off field landing in power planes.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

So find an area where you can go down low and not be more than 500 feet from any person vessle vehicle or object. Make sure its safe and landable. Then learn what a field actually looks like. from 500 feet you will not see problems. You dont have to drag the wheels through the top of the corn, adjust your minimum altitude based on obstacles. People learn by doing, and breaking off a simulated engine out at 500 feet is nothing like actually doing an off field landing. 100 feet is a lot closer to the real thing.

Amen to that Tony.

On my Private checkride, the DPE made me take the simulated engine out from 5500 feet all the way down to 50 AGL. I managed to screw it up somewhat and had to change fields in mid-glide (I chose to fly waaay around the field to make left traffic, rather than make right traffic which would have worked). Going down to 50 feet and seeing those nice, soft, freshly-plowed rows of dirt really drove the point home!

I also think that every person should be required to land on grass to get their Private. It's a lot different than I thought it was going to be. In most instances, it's gonna be better to land in a large grassy area than try to squeeze onto a small paved road with ditches on both sides and probably some nearly-invisible-until-it's-too-late power lines on one side too. Oh, and did I mention signs? Finally, even a large Interstate highway is only about 36 feet wide. When was the last time you planted an airplane on a 36-foot-wide runway? (Not you, Kate. ) It's somewhat of a challenge. Roads are going to be that narrow or narrower. I think that always landing on pavement predisposes someone to try to land on pavement no matter what, and it's often not the best choice.

 

[tonycondon]

I also think that every person should be required to land on grass to get their Private. It's a lot different than I thought it was going to be. In most instances, it's gonna be better to land in a large grassy area than try to squeeze onto a small paved road with ditches on both sides and probably some nearly-invisible-until-it's-too-late power lines on one side too. Oh, and did I mention signs? Finally, even a large Interstate highway is only about 36 feet wide. When was the last time you planted an airplane on a 36-foot-wide runway? (Not you, Kate. ) It's somewhat of a challenge. Roads are going to be that narrow or narrower. I think that always landing on pavement predisposes someone to try to land on pavement no matter what, and it's often not the best choice.

roger that. Roads are very very very rarely the best choice. Maybe in mountainous terrain or other areas that are totally unlandable. In glider flying it is preached that you do not land on roads, no way no how never ever. I do know of some that have made successful road landing. Many were while flying XC in southwest texas, where landing in a "field" means ground looping between the cactus and yuccas. One was after the enterprissing crew had knocked over a bunch of mile markers to make it safe for long (and low) wings.

 

[jesse]

Chicken Barns and silos are not 800 feet high.

Well said. If one has a problem with cranking and banking at 800 ft they sure the hell are going to have a problem when something goes wrong. I understand the "be safe" policy but there comes a point to where you aren't being safe anymore you are simply cheating yourself of lifesaving skills.

The best way to learn how to control an airplane is low. How low you are willing to go is up to you. 800 ft just isn't going to do the trick.

I've flown with some real competent low level multi thousand twenty some year crop dusted and have learned a lot more about flying at 50 feet versus 1,000 ft. You see things happening low and you learn to fly visually because the altimeter isn't going to be very helpful at those heights.

As an aside - and this is my personal opinion - If you have never taken a simulated engine failure below 500 AGL then you are doing yourself a great disservice. I know the FAA has decided that we shouldnt, lest we break the 500 from any person vessel vehicle or object rule and I can understand that. So find an area where you can go down low and not be more than 500 feet from any person vessle vehicle or object. Make sure its safe and landable. Then learn what a field actually looks like. from 500 feet you will not see problems. You dont have to drag the wheels through the top of the corn, adjust your minimum altitude based on obstacles. People learn by doing, and breaking off a simulated engine out at 500 feet is nothing like actually doing an off field landing. 100 feet is a lot closer to the real thing. Actually landing out was how I was taught in gliders. I had two off field landings before I tried to go cross country on my own and it was a good thing. The experience I gained there was invaluable for the 5 off field landings I had last summer. It also gave me a big confidence boost for the possibility of a forced or precautionary off field landing in power planes.

That is why I would fly in the backseat, completely asleep, without a concern in the world with you as the pilot.

There is a damn good reason as to why I wouldn't do that with someone who will never go beyond the minimum requirements of the PTS. Gravity and the ground don't give a **** about the PTS. You either do it right or you die.

 

[cwyckham]

That is why I would fly in the backseat, completely asleep, without a concern in the world with you.

Aww.... That's such a sweet, cute mental picture of you and Tony asleep in the back seat together. Wouldn't your comfort in you guys sleeping in the back seat depend somewhat on who's flying the plane, though?


Chris

 

[jesse]

Aww.... That's such a sweet, cute mental picture of you and Tony asleep in the back seat together. Wouldn't your comfort in you guys sleeping in the back seat depend somewhat on who's flying the plane, though?


Chris

er updated.

 

[cwyckham]

er updated.

Oh, gosh darn it, I misunderstood you. Sorry about that.

 

[skyflyer8]

When was the last time you planted an airplane on a 36-foot-wide runway? (Not you, Kate. )

Yes me. Yesterday, my usual 20 feet. I have seen a Cirrus parked there, not sure if it was an SR20 or SR22. The main gear is about 11 feet apart on both models, so that would leave 4.5 feet of pavement on the outside of each wheel if you're on the centerline. One disadvantage to a wide stance.

 

[tonycondon]

that was one thing i enjoyed about teaching at Green Castle. 24 foot wide pavement thats a bout 2400 feet long. trees in 3 quadrants. it makes you respect centerline and fly the right speeds to get the right performance out of the plane.

 

[SCCutler]

Funny thing:

Give me a narrow runway, i land in the middle.

Give me huge, jetport runway, and I am more often than not a little left of center (though less than I used to be).

Go figger.

 

[KennyFlys]

That altitude range seems pretty wide. I seem to remember the GS/11.3 is simply a rule of thumb to choose a starting altitude. I don't recall have that wide of altitude ranges when actually doing the maneuver in strong winds in the 182RG.

Chicken Barns and silos are not 800 feet high.

As an aside - and this is my personal opinion - If you have never taken a simulated engine failure below 500 AGL then you are doing yourself a great disservice. I know the FAA has decided that we shouldn't, lest we break the 500 from any person vessel vehicle or object rule and I can understand that. So find an area where you can go down low and not be more than 500 feet from any person vessel vehicle or object. Make sure its safe and landable. Then learn what a field actually looks like. from 500 feet you will not see problems. You don't have to drag the wheels through the top of the corn, adjust your minimum altitude based on obstacles. People learn by doing, and breaking off a simulated engine out at 500 feet is nothing like actually doing an off field landing. 100 feet is a lot closer to the real thing. Actually landing out was how I was taught in gliders. I had two off field landings before I tried to go cross country on my own and it was a good thing. The experience I gained there was invaluable for the 5 off field landings I had last summer. It also gave me a big confidence boost for the possibility of a forced or precautionary off field landing in power planes.

Yes, the range is wide. It's not likely I'd vary that far but it is a general rule and that's what the DE is looking at for me to base my judgment on. The DE used an IAS of 90 knots. That gave a resulting altitude of 318 feet. Whoever wants to go up against a DE during a checkride, let them knock themselves out. But, I wouldn't plan on walking away from that event with a new ticket.

Silos and chicken barns rest on top of higher hills as do homes, towers, etc. Our practice area to the north and partly east is quite varied. Just about any direction stretching out from the lake will start to rise and all the higher terrain is taken advantage of. A bit further north, we have mountains or molehills as I call them. But, they still stick up in the way. To the east is under feeder routes down to as low as 5,000. Ya go south very far and there is that Class B issue as well as longer feeds into PDK.

Regarding simulated emergency landings, I wrote "usually." I've gone down to 200 a few times. The FSDO examiner let me descend to only 500 on my 709 ride. More recent practice attempts have been to 300 or 400. I'm depending on these guys to write a temporary ticket so I'm going to play by their rules. Given the fact they established these rules with good intent, I'm in no position to tell them they are wrong.

No doubt, actual off-field landings helps gain experience and proficiency. I've never done one and I hope to change that this year. Meanwhile, I have to "appease" those capable of putting me closer to that goal among many others.