Learn to Fly in a Cirrus SR22

Do You Think an SR22 Would Make a Good Initial Trainer?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 12.5%

  • No

    Votes: 42 87.5%
  • Total voters
    48
  • Poll closed .
Len Lanetti

Len Lanetti

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
1,199
Location
Malvern, PA
Display Name
Display name:
Lenny
From an AvWeb email

"Klapmeier said the whole training system needs to be revamped and new pilots should be trained to fly the aircraft they intend to fly in the real world. "I think the SR22 should be a training aircraft," he said. "I think we should stop talking about getting your license and start talking about learning how to operate the airplane safely. Why not have [new pilots] start in the aircraft that [they're] going to fly?" He said an ab initio student on a Cirrus might need 50 hours of dual before soloing but he said that makes more sense than training on another type of aircraft and then switching to the Cirrus or other higher performance, more complex aircraft that they really want. Klapmeier said insurance is the biggest obstacle -- premiums for inexperienced pilots on the Cirrus are triple those of high-time owners. "Insurance does become the de facto regulator," he said. But he noted that's often an artificial barrier because the new owners generally have the money to cover the extra $10,000 for first-year premiums and essentially waste a year learning to fly aircraft they'll probably never get in again."

Personally, I disagree. I do not think that initial training should be in such a high performance airplane. That the basics of flight can and should be learned in a lower performance aircraft for reasons of safety and cost. That pilots should be taught to fly by the numbers, made to learn systems and to learn to think ahead of the plane. Now a lower performance airplane can still be demanding to fly well (the Grumman 2 seat AA1B comes to mind) and they can still have modern nav/com boxes.

Something to consider...a 50 mile cross country only takes 15 minutes in a 200 knot per hour aircraft. Where is the time to learn anything on that trip.

Note that I think aircraft like the SR22 should be used for instrument ratings and that anyone buying an SR22 would be well advised to pursue an instrument rating.

Len
 
Len Lanetti said:
From an AvWeb email

"Klapmeier said the whole training system needs to be revamped and new pilots should be trained to fly the aircraft they intend to fly in the real world. "I think the SR22 should be a training aircraft," he said. "
Len
Click to expand...

Hmmn. Type ratings for C150, C172, MO20J, MO20M, F33, V35, uh huh.
 
Let's see.

The average pilot solos in what - 10-20 hours? Let's add 30 hours to his training program.

That's another 20 flights - and 30 * 75 = $2250 added to primary training.

Or, you could get your Private and then spend how long transitioning? 10 hours?
 
I'm inclined to agree - I remember how overwhelming the early stages of training were. The student has quite enough to learn up front that they don't need to have the added complexity of such a high-end aircraft brings.

Keep it simple at first, let them progress gradually.
 
SR22 for training? Not in my world. I know Angelina Jolie did it but I recall thinking 100kts in a Grumman AA-1c was blistering. Along the lines of the articles statement if they have the $ for the SR22 they have the $ for the extra insurance. Well if they have all that $$ first they can send some my way and second they can afford the extra 20-25 hrs training they need for the Cirrus. :blueplane:
 
My opinion is that there is a lot of merit to doing your initial training in a high performance technically-advanced-aircraft (TAA), if that is what you're going to fly. Yes, it will take longer than learning to fly in an 152, but you will develop habits in the 152 that are not necessarily the best to transfer to an SR22 (or other TAA). I don't see this difference as being much different from learning to fly in a taildragger vs. nose gear plane.

It's important to note that there is nothing stopping anyone from getting their initial training in a high performance TAA now. The president of Cirrus is only trying to promote what is already starting to happen.

I think we're not very far from the time when some additional logbook endorsements will be required. For example, if you learn to fly in a TAA, with all-electric/redundant systems (no vac system), how qualified are you to fly a steam-gauge equipped Skyhawk? Would you recognize a vacuum pump and/or gyro failure? Would you be safe to fly in IMC? Vise-versa applies too. I would imagine it would probably take me 10+ hours to get comfortable flying glass-panel airplane (I never have, except in MS-Flight Sim).

Jeff
 
MSmith said:
That's another 20 flights - and 30 * 75 = $2250 added to primary training.
Click to expand...

I think the folks buying a new $400K airplane don't feel that much pain with another 1/2 percent tacked onto the bill.

Jeff
 
I don't like this at all.

Klapmeier is wrong. Even the USAF and the airlines take folks trained on other aircraft.

I sense that he's trying the Bill Gates thing. Get 'em hooked and trained only on the SR20/22 and that's the kind of plane they'll buy. Then when I come out with the next model, it'll be so expensive for them to go to another brand they won't do it.

I really don't think this makes you a "pilot". Type ratings for everything???

The real question is whether a continuing spate of crashes will push the FAA to actually adopt the idea.
 
I think the number of low time pilots who have turned themselves and their families into smoking holes flying the Cirrus' is a graphic example of why pilots should gain experience in simpler, not quite so hot airplanes before moving up. Perhaps he feels that so many of his company's airplanes wouldn't have been crashed if pilots started out in them, but I disagree. I just think we'd see a spike in training accidents as well.
 
Citabria, no gyros. Best trainer out there.

Look out the window, learn to fly, learn to work the rudders, learn to stall a plane that requires your attention, learn to recover from spins, learn that you don't stop flying until the plane is tied down.

Work your way up from there.
 
larrysb said:
Citabria, no gyros. Best trainer out there.

Look out the window, learn to fly, learn to work the rudders, learn to stall a plane that requires your attention, learn to recover from spins, learn that you don't stop flying until the plane is tied down.

Work your way up from there.
Click to expand...
You know, thats another excellent point.

Flying something like a Cirrus from day 1 runs an increased risk, in my humble, 150 hour opinion, of making you far TOO dependant upon the panel vs. your own ability to handle the stick and rudder.
 
wsuffa said:
I don't like this at all.

Klapmeier is wrong. Even the USAF and the airlines take folks trained on other aircraft.
Click to expand...

True, but keeping things in proper perspective, the Air Force's idea of a "simple primary trainer is shown in the attached photo.

Ed Guthrie
 
Using the same analogy he does, we should teach new drivers on Indy 500 racers; since they all think they're that invincible and drive that way! Sorry, but if I had to train on an SR22 right out of the box, I could neither have afforded it, nor ever completed it. Maybe he is showing his snobbishness.
Basic straight and level was a problem for a while.
 
I can see where someone could want to begin in a plane they know they will be flying, but it seems it would be more the exception that the rule. For someone already flying rotary transitioning to FW that wants HP; I can see it. I don't think a lot of beginning pilots really know what they may wish to fly in the future; so, why start with the Cirrus? And if someone really wants to do that now, what prevents 'em?

Heck; why not just go right to a King Air or Citation and drop those suckers on the ground a few times with hard landings. That 'id really help those manufacturers. Dah, insurance wouldn't be higher for HP/complex trainers with newbees would it? What am I missin here?

Dave
 
Len Lanetti said:
From an AvWeb email

"Klapmeier said the whole training system needs to be revamped and new pilots should be trained to fly the aircraft they intend to fly in the real world. "I think the SR22 should be a training aircraft," he said. "I think we should stop talking about getting your license and start talking about learning how to operate the airplane safely. Why not have [new pilots] start in the aircraft that [they're] going to fly?" He said an ab initio student on a Cirrus might need 50 hours of dual before soloing but he said that makes more sense than training on another type of aircraft and then switching to the Cirrus or other higher performance, more complex aircraft that they really want. Klapmeier said insurance is the biggest obstacle -- premiums for inexperienced pilots on the Cirrus are triple those of high-time owners. "Insurance does become the de facto regulator," he said. But he noted that's often an artificial barrier because the new owners generally have the money to cover the extra $10,000 for first-year premiums and essentially waste a year learning to fly aircraft they'll probably never get in again."

Personally, I disagree. I do not think that initial training should be in such a high performance airplane. That the basics of flight can and should be learned in a lower performance aircraft for reasons of safety and cost. That pilots should be taught to fly by the numbers, made to learn systems and to learn to think ahead of the plane. Now a lower performance airplane can still be demanding to fly well (the Grumman 2 seat AA1B comes to mind) and they can still have modern nav/com boxes.

Something to consider...a 50 mile cross country only takes 15 minutes in a 200 knot per hour aircraft. Where is the time to learn anything on that trip.

Note that I think aircraft like the SR22 should be used for instrument ratings and that anyone buying an SR22 would be well advised to pursue an instrument rating.

Len
Click to expand...

If they have the extra money & time; no types of problems are involved (technical or transitional) that haven't been with pilots and aircraft since KittyHawk.
 
silver-eagle said:
Basic straight and level was a problem for a while.
Click to expand...

What!? You didn't have a two axis autopilot and three or four moving maps to help with that! I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Len
 
there is a small article in this months AOPA student pilot about Air Safety out of Glendale, AZ. They use the SR22 for students. The article featured one student who soloed after 19 hours of dual in the SR22.
I tend to think that practicing in the plane you will be flying makes perfectly good sense to me.
 
Send in the clowns... oh wait, never mind. I thought the title said "Learn to fly in a Circus..."
 
Ed Guthrie said:
True, but keeping things in proper perspective, the Air Force's idea of a "simple primary trainer is shown in the attached photo.

Ed Guthrie
Click to expand...


Right, but the Air Force has in addition to that:

1. Extremely well qualified students, far above the average population in physical and mental talents suitable for pilot training.

2. Extremely motivated students.

3. Intensive, focused training on a full-time duty basis.

4. Rigorous methods and curriculum.

5. A need to rapidly transition pilots into very high-performance aircraft.

6. Ongoing training, currency, and other requirements.

7. Unlimited funds available. (well, compared to the real world).

8. A MUCH greater tolerance for risk than the civilian world has.

Take your average guy with a $0.5 million to budget towards his hobby airplane.

1. Probably not the ideal pilot candidate by military standards, physically or mentally.

2. Probably not as motivated as the military candidate to become a pilot of the highest order.

3. Distracted by his profession which afforded him the budget to get into a half-million dollar aircraft to begin with.

4. Not doing this full time.

5. Not in a rigorous and highly structured full-time training program.

6. In reality, just wants to go fast in a "cool" airplane, with no particular NEED for performance.

It can be done, but really, training and building some time is what is called for in something more forgiving first is definitely the safer way to go. Especially for us overweight, over/under-tall, under-eyesighted, busy with work, part-timers.
 
I think you can make an argument for training in what you ultimately are going to be flying. There's nothing really that different about Cirri (Cirruses?) except for the speed, and slipperyness (better fly it to the numbers!). The speed just means that it will probably take longer for the student to learn to stay ahead of the airplane, that's all. FWIW...
 
RotaryWingBob said:
The speed just means that it will probably take longer for the student to learn to stay ahead of the airplane, that's all.
Click to expand...

And the SR22 does have a throttle that can be used to slow down the plane too...

From the other side, it could be argued that flying a C150 at max gross on a hot day isn't necessarily the safest aircraft to train in either. Having not flown a Cirrus, I can't speak to the general handling qualities relative to the typical Cessna/Piper trainer - I'd be interested to hear opinions on that.

I guess it also depends on how you read the poll question: Is the SR22 a good aircraft for primary training? - Depends on the pilot, and on the quality of the instruction - same as with any training. It probably doesn't make sense for most pilots - but a logical exception would be for those planning to buy an SR22 within a year or so anyway.

Here's another point for discussion: Would you argue against using a Cessna 182 (fixed gear) for primary instruction? How much complexity/performance do you think is too much? Where do you feel you'd draw the line? :confused:

Jeff
 
A few years ago, I purchased a discovery flight for my daughter-in-law, in a C172. The CFI let her fly, and she did very well...turns, straight and level, climbs, descents, and followed through on the landing. She loved it and said she had not felt that way since she was a young child.

Then, shortly thereafter, she came along on a trip in an SR22 -- and we had a veteran CFI who was about ready to go to the airlines. We were flying massive hours (like 8 per day) for two or three days, and I asked her if she wanted to 'take a leg...take a lesson'. We could fly VFR one leg, and the CFI could give her a lesson along the way.

It was way-so-too-much-airplane for her that I was actually scared. We were stalled one minute, floating the next; I got thrown around in the back seat worse than any turbulence. At one point we were in a vertical dive! All he asked her to do was to 'see that lake over there, head straight for it and notice that if you do...that dial there shouldn't change much.'

That was her last lesson. I have not been able to get her to take a lesson since. I told her I would pay for her to go all the way to private-instrument-multi...all she has to do is study and show up...but no interest...

Sigh...

That's my 2 cents on Cirri as trainers...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RobertGerace said:
That was her last lesson. I have not been able to get her to take a lesson since.Sigh...That's my 2 cents on Cirri as trainers...
Click to expand...
All any CFI has to do is look at the hours it takes to master a complex/Hiperf ab initio to realize that something SLICK is a BARRIER. Don't mind 200 hrs to PVT ASEL? Well, OK then....
 
Joe Williams said:
I think the number of low time pilots who have turned themselves and their families into smoking holes flying the Cirrus' is a graphic example of why pilots should gain experience in simpler, not quite so hot airplanes before moving up. Perhaps he feels that so many of his company's airplanes wouldn't have been crashed if pilots started out in them, but I disagree. I just think we'd see a spike in training accidents as well.
Click to expand...

I think it would be very useful to evaluate the training history of those pilots who did auger-in their Cirri, and I would hope FAA, NTSB, Cirrus, and the insurance companies are doing/have done this. Without the data to support a conclusion, we're probably grasping at straws.

Perhaps another analogy is valid: People also successfully learn to drive in many different environments and in many different vehicles. Ok, a car is generally more forgiving than an airplane, but other drivers aren't always more forgiving. Compare someone learning to drive in a Ford Escort vs. a 300hp Mustang, and learning in Ottumwa, Iowa vs. Boston?

Jeff
 
RobertGerace said:
A few years ago, I purchased a discovery flight for my daughter-in-law, in a C172. The CFI let her fly, and she did very well...turns, straight and level, climbs, descents, and followed through on the landing. She loved it and said she had not felt that way since she was a young child.

Then, shortly thereafter, she came along on a trip in an SR22 -- and we had a veteran CFI who was about ready to go to the airlines. We were flying massive hours (like 8 per day) for two or three days, and I asked her if she wanted to 'take a leg...take a lesson'. We could fly VFR one leg, and the CFI could give her a lesson along the way.

It was way-so-too-much-airplane for her that I was actually scared. We were stalled one minute, floating the next; I got thrown around in the back seat worse than any turbulence. At one point we were in a vertical dive! All he asked her to do was to 'see that lake over there, head straight for it and notice that if you do...that dial there shouldn't change much.'

That was her last lesson. I have not been able to get her to take a lesson since. I told her I would pay for her to go all the way to private-instrument-multi...all she has to do is study and show up...but no interest...

Sigh...

That's my 2 cents on Cirri as trainers...
Click to expand...

If that's all it takes for a student to washout, they most probably would have washed out for any of a number of other reasons. Although in her defense, even by my standards, which are often viewed as quite radical, a vertical dive on the second lesson by the CFI ? !! ??
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
If that's all it takes for a student to washout, they most probably would have washed out for any of a number of other reasons. Although in her defense, even by my standards, which are often viewed as quite radical, a vertical dive on the second lesson by the CFI ? !! ??
Click to expand...
I disagree. If a first lesson is in a mild mannered, got to work to throw it into a spin or stall kinda airplane, a sense of confidence develops. Next lesson in a slippery, high performance plane with all the neat gadgets (info overload time), throttle and stick in an odd place, etc., and it can't tolerate the sloppy flying that every primary student goes through. It would scare me, too.

Monday morning quarterbacking: the CFI never should have let the situation GET that far to begin with. Not being there, though, several things may have happened a little too fast.
 
I think Mr. Klapmeier may be right and I think I know where he's going with this. He's got all of the data from every one of the Cirrus wrecks that's occurred since the airplane has come on the scene and with the help of some very smart human factors people and the insurance folks he's been able to isolate the causes of the accidents in fine detail. My take on this is that feels he can design a program the will mitigate the skill issues that have caused crashes as well as the decision type errors by extending the training process and providing very specific aircraft training in a variety of scenarios. He may never eliminate the accidents caused by folks flatly breaking the rules but he thinks he can go along way to fixing the things he can affect. He's going to sell airplanes to people who can afford them sure, and they've got a definite vested interest in learning how to pilot this airplane rather than just operate it. I think he understands that he's going to have to take the lead on it. No I don't own a Cirrus but I think I'd like to learn to fly it correctly if the opportunity comes up.
 
JR, that may be the case. But I think the root of the problem is HUMAN factors. Most of the accidents I've read (and that's most of them) are p_ss p_or pilot judgement, or in a few instances, total lack of pilot judgement. An exception would be the aileron binding accident early on in the experience.

I have not figured out how to deal with the CFI who calls me up, sending the PVT pre-solo student over saying "Can you figure out a way to flunk this guy- I don't think he should fly"....when he has endorsed the ticket, meaning the guy can do the task

Unlike the automobile, pilot certification needs to NOT be universal.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20010619X01205&ntsbno=DEN01FA113&akey=1 When this 670 hour pilot died (taking his gorgeous spouse with him) he had turned down local training, begged off of Flight Safety training (nobody would insure him in the MU2), and my signature was in the logbook from his still unsold PA601P. I didn't sign him off.
 
A couple of years ago I got to fly one of these. For a pilot who grew up on very simple and very underpowered airplanes I found myself avoiding all the glass and autopilot for I just wanted to feel the plane and where it's "Dark Corners" were. I found myself in the very beginning of the flight looking at the PFD and MFD on a wonderful VFR Day. It took about 2 minutes to realize that my eyes needed to be outside looking for traffic and landmarks. I hand flew the plane and yes it is fast and wonderful to fly but as a trainer a big no.

John J
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
If that's all it takes for a student to washout, they most probably would have washed out for any of a number of other reasons. Although in her defense, even by my standards, which are often viewed as quite radical, a vertical dive on the second lesson by the CFI ? !! ??
Click to expand...

Or....if she had more time to learn to love flight...slowly...without fear...and without total frustration...she would have stored whatever inner strengths she would need to carry her through the rough spots when times got tough.

No question, the CFI had become burned out on primary students. He was just what I needed to learn how to fly an SR22 in extremely tough conditions...and that much he enjoyed and did well. He should have never been put with a primary student...and I blame myself for putting her in that airplane with that instructor.

It's not over. I'll get her back in aviation...but I must now move very slowly and carefully whereas before it was easy.
 
larrysb said:
Citabria, no gyros. Best trainer out there.

Work your way up from there.
Click to expand...

Or not! A Citabria looks like a fun way to go to me.
 
Len Lanetti said:
From an AvWeb email

"Klapmeier said the whole training system needs to be revamped and new pilots should be trained to fly the aircraft they intend to fly in the real world. "I think the SR22 should be a training aircraft," he said.
Click to expand...

I can see where there would be something to that. I know a guy that bought a S 35 Bonanza and did all his training from hour one in it. Worked out fine for him. I don't really see the difference in the "flying" of the planes. Landing speeds between a HP plane and your common PA-28 trainers is within 15 kts or so, not enough to make it any hardship over the LP aircraft. SR-22 is fixed gear and IIRC is single handle power control. The only real added complexity I see is in the avionics, and that can be learned in a simple sim. It may actually be a better trainer. I could see a cirriculum where for the first couple of hours you ignore the panel altogether, don't even turn it on. Learn basic flight by visual ref and the backup instruments. Then introduce the basic coms. At about 10 hrs, get out of the plane and into the simulator mode to learn the avionics. This will probably take about 20 hrs, but it can be done in a cheap (relatively) sim. Now we get back in the plane for another 5 hrs and meld together the sim avionics learning and the physical flying. Now the student solos and onward...
Plus the plane has the advantage of having a stick, albiet you have to fly goofy handed unless you fly from the right seat.
 
SR22? Absolutely not -- with two aboard for training, the power/weight ratio is WAY too high. We're having problems in our program with 150HP C-150's in that regard -- the extra power encourages doing things that would kill you in a light plane with a more typical power/weight ratio. The student learns he can "power out" of situations which a plane with lower power/weight would be unable to handle. Also, the interconnected flight controls not only fail to encourage proper inputs for coordination, but when combined with the spring-centering system, actually require OPPOSITE inputs from those required in "normal" aircraft (y'all remember my post on the subject last fall?). Learn in a Cirrus, and you could get killed in a non-interconnected plane without a lot of retraining. Of course, if all you will ever fly is a Cirrus, go ahead and buy one and learn in it.

All in all, my "ideal" trainer remains the cuffed-wing AA-1x series -- simple construction and systems, straightforward control response and handling, excellent visibility out, and providing appropriately negative responses to improper student performance without being unsafely overreactive. And if you're operating at higher elevations, maybe a Grumman Traveler/Cheetah whose extra power allows adequate performance without overdoing it.
 
Ron Levy said:
All in all, my "ideal" trainer remains the cuffed-wing AA-1x series -- simple construction and systems, straightforward control response and handling, excellent visibility out, and providing appropriately negative responses to improper student performance without being unsafely overreactive. And if you're operating at higher elevations, maybe a Grumman Traveler/Cheetah whose extra power allows adequate performance without overdoing it.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with Ron ... I did my training in a Piper Colt that had VFR minimum gauges and Coffee Grinder Nav/Com. It was confusing enough at the time for me to figure out how to haul this thing through the sky, work the "complex" radio, communicate, and then land a plane that had no flaps. It took me exactly 40 hours for my Private but airspace and communications were much simpler at the time.

So today, toss in a powerful, complex airplane with a nifty "whiz-bang" panel (that the student must learn), along with communications that border on IFR procedures, airspace that changes frequently and you can get either a drop-out or a pilot that can only meet minimum requirements after 80 hours of flight training.

I think the training aircraft should be as simple as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top