Advice on first airplane

ActiveTrader7

ActiveTrader7

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
14
Location
moving to San Francisco
Display Name
Display name:
Jeremy
Hey everyone, I just joined the forums. I asked this question over on the AOPA forums, but I would like to get everyone's opinion over here.

I plan on taking flight lessons in the summer for my PPL after I move to San Francisco. Since I plan on purchasing a plane, I figured I might as well consider buying one before I start training. From what I have read and researched on the internet, I think the new Cirrus SR22 Turbo GTS would be perfect for me. I will mainly use it to explore the West Coast. And to fly back to Texas for the holidays and a couple American Le Mans races!

The one thing I am wondering about is the fact that the SR22 is a high performance aircraft with 310HP. I read somewhere on the internet that most students will do fine learning to fly in a high performance aircraft. What is everyone's opinion as far as that goes?

So I have a couple options:

1: Buy the SR22 before training
2: Buy it after I earn my ppl
3: Buy a non-turbo SR20 to go through training and fly it for about 6 months.

I think Cirrus has a trade in type program when upgrading planes.

Thanks in advance!
 
Last edited:
Dean said:
You're joking, right?
Click to expand...
Why would he be joking? My friend's son got his private in a Cirrus, although not the turbo. I don't know how careful you have to be with the turbo in a Cirrus but it might be one consideration since you don't want to be overboosting the engine. I know many people will not agree with me, but I say if you have the money, go for it. Just make sure you have an experienced Cirrus CFI. Good luck!
 
Well Jeremy,i wouldn't buy a plane till after you get the PPL.Why would you want to Pay the Ins. and take the chance of screwing it up? Lessons are HARD on a plane when your first starting, Plus unless your Rich you wont be able to afford Ins.on a HP plane.do your self a favor and Rent a Cessna or a Piper (my choice since you seem to want Low Wing )take lessons and then buy a plane that fits your mission and budget.
Good Luck and FLY SAFE.
dAVE g.:blueplane:
 
That seems like a lot of airplane for a low-time or no-time pilot. I'd think a better option for now would be a used 172 to get you through an instrument rating. Build up a couple hundred hours and get your IR on needles before moving to glass.

I saw a guy recently working on his PPL in a Mooney 20. That particular school's owner went with what the student wanted just because they had the money to pay for lessons. I didn't agree with the idea.

That's just my humble opinion.
 
Whassa problem? Some guys are dumb enough to buy a hi-performance fixed plane as a pre-solo student. *cough* :rolleyes:
 
ActiveTrader7 said:
I plan on taking flight lessons in the summer for my PPL after I move to San Francisco. Since I plan on purchasing a plane, I figured I might as well consider buying one before I start training. From what I have read and researched on the internet, I think the new Cirrus SR22 Turbo GTS would be perfect for me. I will mainly use it to explore the West Coast. And to fly back to Texas for the holidays and a couple American Le Mans races!

The one thing I am wondering about is the fact that the SR22 is a high performance aircraft with 310HP. I read somewhere on the internet that most students will do fine learning to fly in a high performance aircraft. What is everyone's opinion as far as that goes?
Click to expand...

IMHO, you have two good options here:

1) Purchase the SR22 Turbo that you want, and enroll in the Cirrus Access program. This is THE way to learn to fly in the SR22 Turbo. You will not be allowed to solo until 50 hours whether you're ready or not (so, no pressure to solo early), and theoretically in the first year you will get your Private, Instrument, and 250 hours. You'll also have an instructor/pilot/dispatcher at your beck and call, so you'll always be able to do things on your own schedule. You'll also be able to take the trips you want to take right off the bat, and benefit from the excellent learning experiences that long cross-country flights will provide.

Note that it will take you a lot of flying time to get your ratings in a plane as fast as the SR22 Turbo. Things happen much faster, and you'll have precious little time to deal with any mistakes. The Cirrus Access program is, IMHO, the only way to go for initial flight training in such a slick bird.

2) Start out with an easier plane. I highly recommend the Diamond Star. It's very docile, yet fun to fly and extremely well-designed. The XL or XLS model should give you the same or maybe even slightly better speed than the SR20 and also be (again IMHO) a bit easier to fly, which means you'll progress faster. Once you have a few hundred hours under your belt including lots of real-world cross country flying, then you can consider moving to the SR22 Turbo, or potentially the Diamond DA50 Super Star which should be out by then.

I'd hesitate to tell you to buy anything without at least learning the basics in a 172 or whatever at your local FBO and then trying several types before you buy any of them. You may find that your mind is changed when you fly other types of airplanes, you might like something else better. There's a lot more to it than the specs on a web site.

Whatever you do, enjoy yourself, good luck, and stick around here at the "blue board" and let us know how you're doing! :yes:
 
Hard to explore at over 200 kts. You want to explore you need an exploration plane, like a Maule or 180. Something that will get you into those great runways, usually less than 2,000'. I read all the other posts and if you think because you fly 250 hrs with a CFI you will learn more, you won't. You will learn more on your own in a 150 or 172. I flew a long CC with a young pilot with his instrument rating (I needed him because I did not have one). He did very well overall but once out of his comfort zone 200 miles or so, he did not do quite as well. I'm not saying you can't do it, but you did ask for advice. If you like newer planes learn in a new 172 they have a diesel now. Could probably be one of the best exploration planes yet. Learning to fly the airplane is but a small part of the equation and that goes for any plane. Most pilots can master this in 40 hrs. It is the staying alive part that takes more time. When you have to make that split decision do you want to be going 100 kts or 300 kts? All the ratings in the world does not make you a better pilot, making the better decision does. You gain this over time. Sometimes you make a bad decision and because of the plane you are in it is not a factor. Sometimes you make a little mistake and because the plane you are in you do not get any more chances.

If Cory Lidle were alive he would be the first to tell you, "I wish I would have been in a 172".

Dan
 
I always recommend against buying a plane before you get your PPL unless you have enough money that you don't care of you have to eat the cost of turning around and selling it right away if you find you don't take to flying. The cost of buying and then selling a plane could run $5000 for an older used low-end plane (like Cessna 172), or up to $50,000 if you buy a high end new one (like a SR22) and sell it a few months later as used. For that reason, I suggest finding a high quality flight school with modern aircraft and going at least through solo, preferably through PPL, before buying anything.

The other downside of buying now (especially a new high-end plane) is that the higher powered and more complex the plane, the more difficult it will be to get your license in it. Yes, you can get your PPL in a turbo SR22, but it will take longer to solo and longer to get your license if you do, driven by insurance requirements if nothing else. Therefore, if you decide to buy now, I would suggest getting the lowest end plane that fits your future, learning in it, and then trading up later. I'm sure Cirrus can work a deal to get you a used SR20 that was traded in on a SR22, and then trade up to a SR22 GTS G3 later, after you have your Private and Instrument.
 
Well, I'm a 31.9 hour student who hasn't touched something like an SR22 yet. I have flown a Piper Aztec (a completely different bird, but still a lot more going on than a 172), and gotten some right seat time in a Mooney M20F and a Piper Navjao. My instructor says that I'm learning and picking this stuff up really fast from what he's seen as an instructor, and he's taught many students.

Personally, I just don't like the 172 I train in. I don't like the high wing, it's slow, it's ugly... but it makes a great trainer. The thing is about as forgiving as it gets. You just about can't hurt the thing. These are all some really good merits when you're going to be bouncing the aircraft hard enough to put it back up in the air another 10 feet (which your first few landings will probably be).

I'd agree that buying a plane to learn in makes sense, and this certainly wouldn't be the craziest thing I've heard of happening (a good sum of my friends bought their planes to learn in). A friend of mine knew someone who walked into a flight school one day, having no experience whatsoever, and said "I want to be the best Cessna 421 pilot in the world." Bought a 421, went through a whole ton of training, and apparently he really is very good at it. I think if you just go out and buy the SR22, Kent's idea is best. You don't want to rush your learning in any plane (which seems to be the tendency of most humans), and having a program that will force you to spend more time learning will probably benefit you significantly.

Here's my question: Why are you specifically interested in the Cirrus planes, and especially the SR22 turbo? Is it just a desire to go fast, the looking cool factor?
 
Another thought on owning your own plane for training will be increased frustration and temptation.

I know of a student who bought his plane, pre-PPL. After his first solo X-C he repeated the trip a couple of times to visit his girl friend without the CFI review and endorsement for the trip. That CFI fired the student.
 
ActiveTrader7 said:
Hey everyone, I just joined the forums. I asked this question over on the AOPA forums, but I would like to get everyone's opinion over here.

I plan on taking flight lessons in the summer for my PPL after I move to San Francisco. Since I plan on purchasing a plane, I figured I might as well consider buying one before I start training. From what I have read and researched on the internet, I think the new Cirrus SR22 Turbo GTS would be perfect for me. I will mainly use it to explore the West Coast. And to fly back to Texas for the holidays and a couple American Le Mans races!

The one thing I am wondering about is the fact that the SR22 is a high performance aircraft with 310HP. I read somewhere on the internet that most students will do fine learning to fly in a high performance aircraft. What is everyone's opinion as far as that goes?

So I have a couple options:

1: Buy the SR22 before training
2: Buy it after I earn my ppl
3: Buy a non-turbo SR20 to go through training and fly it for about 6 months.

I think Cirrus has a trade in type program when upgrading planes.

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

If you know the 22 is the plane you want for the long haul, you may as well start off in it. I don't know Cirruses upgrade deals, but I doubt you'll come out $$$ ahead. Your first year insurance will be high, but that'll be offset by the amount of dual you'll get in year one between the PPL and Instrument rating, I suggest you do both in the minimum time frame you can. Since you're talking about the a new Cirrus, I'll assume money isn't a problem, but for many people where money isn't an issue, time is, so you're going to have to make the time. Both ratings can be accomplished in 10-20 days each, the PPL is a bit more dependant on weather though and you'll have a bit of cross country flying to do between the ratings. A VFR trip to TX should get you there so that by the time you finish your IFR training, you'll have the 50hrs of cross country.
 
RMCN172RG said:
Another thought on owning your own plane for training will be increased frustration and temptation.

I know of a student who bought his plane, pre-PPL. After his first solo X-C he repeated the trip a couple of times to visit his girl friend without the CFI review and endorsement for the trip. That CFI fired the student.
Click to expand...

True, but I think a lot of situations can be like that. In the case of my flying club, I could easily just go to the hangar and take off in either of the airplanes there, and really I coul easily do it and probably not have people find out I went flying without my CFI's permission.

If temptation isn't something you're able to overcome, you may want to change that characteristic in your personality before you start flying. I know that I tend to be eager and patience is not necessarily one of my better virtues. That said, I would NEVER go flying at this point (pre-PPL) without my CFI's authorization. I don't even go flying solo in the pattern without having talked to him to approve it.

Your CFI is on the line for any mistake you make before your PPL. Even if you did something completely without his or her authorization and completely without his or her knowledge, there will be an investigation that involves your CFI. So, one thing to remember is that if you have your own plane, that is not your ticket to go flying wherever you want.
 
mikea said:
Whassa problem? Some guys are dumb enough to buy a hi-performance fixed plane as a pre-solo student. *cough* :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Why is it dumb? If it's the plane that fits the mission, and the one that he wants, what is dumb about buying it and training in it right off the bat? Sheri Marlin bought a High Performance Fixed Single before she had lesson one, now she has her private, low insurance rates and a plane she is comfortable flying around in.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
IMHO, you have two good options here:

1) Purchase the SR22 Turbo that you want, and enroll in the Cirrus Access program. This is THE way to learn to fly in the SR22 Turbo. You will not be allowed to solo until 50 hours whether you're ready or not (so, no pressure to solo early), and theoretically in the first year you will get your Private, Instrument, and 250 hours. You'll also have an instructor/pilot/dispatcher at your beck and call, so you'll always be able to do things on your own schedule. You'll also be able to take the trips you want to take right off the bat, and benefit from the excellent learning experiences that long cross-country flights will provide.

Note that it will take you a lot of flying time to get your ratings in a plane as fast as the SR22 Turbo. Things happen much faster, and you'll have precious little time to deal with any mistakes. The Cirrus Access program is, IMHO, the only way to go for initial flight training in such a slick bird.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a heck of a good program.
 
Ah, Cirrus.........the torch has finally been passed, the V-tail Bonanza has finally been replaced in killing inexperienced pilots with money.
 
PT13Pilot said:
Ah, Cirrus.........the torch has finally been passed, the V-tail Bonanza has finally been replaced in killing inexperienced pilots with money.
Click to expand...

So how do you get high performance experience? Might as well train there from the start.
 
Henning said:
So how do you get high performance experience? Might as well train there from the start.
Click to expand...

I agree. If the insurance company didn't preclude it, I would have rather done my training in the T206H, over the 172R. :) I'm sure my CFO would disagree. LOL.
 
True on the high performance aspect and it can be done. After spending an afternoon with my FAA buddy that is an accident investigator and looking at the numbers, I'm not a Cirrus fan for a multitude of reasons. Compare performance and type of airplane, the Cirrus vs. Columbia (now Cessna). Cirrus has been averaging at least one fatal crash a month since it's introduction, and no one seems to care. And my friend has investigated many of them. The numbers speak for themselves. Here are some of them, cut and pasted, because I'm too lazy to type.

As of late December 2006, there have been 65 reported mishaps involving Cirrus SR20 and SR22 airplanes, beginning with a fatal accident during pre-certification tests and ending with a fatal crash under currently unknown circumstances in the mountains of Arizona. Eighteen of the accidents involved SR20s; the remaining 47 were in the more-numerous SR22. A basic analysis is shown in the tables on the next page.

The high number of Cirrus accidents involving airplanes of recent registration is not so surprising when you consider a) low time-in-type is a well-known factor in airplane accidents and, b) all Cirrus airplanes being "new" in general aviation terms, it is logical that a high percentage of mishaps will involve recently registered airplanes. These factors--probably more than anything else--contribute to the frequency of Cirrus mishaps overall. Categorizing the Cirrus mishaps, we learn that:

* 24 percent involve loss of control in flight (excluding stalls and spins);

* 22 percent occurred during landing: hard landings, landing short, runway overruns and loss of directional control;

* 14 percent resulted from controlled flight into terrain (CFIT);

* 11 percent follow engine failure in flight;

* Nine percent involve stalls and spins;

* Three percent came during takeoff: insufficient obstacle clearance, delayed abort and loss of directional control; and,

* Five percent have (to date) "unknown" causes; 12 percent result from miscellaneous other causes.

The result, in addition to sales, is that a new breed of pilot is flying Cirrus airplanes: a pilot often with little to no prior flying experience who sees the airplane as a reliable business or personal transportation tool--a sort of Lexus with wings. In a nutshell we have a combination of:

* A complex and highly capable airplane,

* An expectation that the airplane is an all-weather transportation machine,

* The perceived panacea of the ballistic parachute, and

* A pilot with little practical experience to manage the risks presented by that airplane's capabilities in a demanding operating environment.

When Cirrus accidents have occurred, they have historically been 2.7 times as likely to crash in IMC, and 2.3 times as likely to be involved in CFIT or in-flight loss of control than similar-mission aircraft. Cirrus accidents are almost twice as likely to be fatal; they almost universally result in substantial aircraft damage or total aircraft destruction, while such is the case in less than half of all SMA mishaps.
 
PT13Pilot said:
True on the high performance aspect and it can be done. After spending an afternoon with my FAA buddy that is an accident investigator and looking at the numbers, I'm not a Cirrus fan for a multitude of reasons. Compare performance and type of airplane, the Cirrus vs. Columbia (now Cessna). Cirrus has been averaging at least one fatal crash a month since it's introduction, and no one seems to care. And my friend has investigated many of them. The numbers speak for themselves. Here are some of them, cut and pasted, because I'm too lazy to type.

As of late December 2006, there have been 65 reported mishaps involving Cirrus SR20 and SR22 airplanes, beginning with a fatal accident during pre-certification tests and ending with a fatal crash under currently unknown circumstances in the mountains of Arizona. Eighteen of the accidents involved SR20s; the remaining 47 were in the more-numerous SR22. A basic analysis is shown in the tables on the next page.

The high number of Cirrus accidents involving airplanes of recent registration is not so surprising when you consider a) low time-in-type is a well-known factor in airplane accidents and, b) all Cirrus airplanes being "new" in general aviation terms, it is logical that a high percentage of mishaps will involve recently registered airplanes. These factors--probably more than anything else--contribute to the frequency of Cirrus mishaps overall. Categorizing the Cirrus mishaps, we learn that:

* 24 percent involve loss of control in flight (excluding stalls and spins);

* 22 percent occurred during landing: hard landings, landing short, runway overruns and loss of directional control;

* 14 percent resulted from controlled flight into terrain (CFIT);

* 11 percent follow engine failure in flight;

* Nine percent involve stalls and spins;

* Three percent came during takeoff: insufficient obstacle clearance, delayed abort and loss of directional control; and,

* Five percent have (to date) "unknown" causes; 12 percent result from miscellaneous other causes.

The result, in addition to sales, is that a new breed of pilot is flying Cirrus airplanes: a pilot often with little to no prior flying experience who sees the airplane as a reliable business or personal transportation tool--a sort of Lexus with wings. In a nutshell we have a combination of:

* A complex and highly capable airplane,

* An expectation that the airplane is an all-weather transportation machine,

* The perceived panacea of the ballistic parachute, and

* A pilot with little practical experience to manage the risks presented by that airplane's capabilities in a demanding operating environment.

When Cirrus accidents have occurred, they have historically been 2.7 times as likely to crash in IMC, and 2.3 times as likely to be involved in CFIT or in-flight loss of control than similar-mission aircraft. Cirrus accidents are almost twice as likely to be fatal; they almost universally result in substantial aircraft damage or total aircraft destruction, while such is the case in less than half of all SMA mishaps.
Click to expand...

Interesting, now how about a truely relevant statistic to this thread, percentage of accidents in the Cirrus with pilots who were trained in "heritage" airplanes like the 172, PA-28.... vs people who trained ab initio in the Cirrus. That would be interesting to know....
 
That would be interesting to know. Every choice in aviation needs to be weighed. I have a friend that has one, and he had a couple hundred hours in a Tiger, got his instrument, then bought the Cirrus, and he flies it a lot. I have no doubt it can be done, just make sure you have the training and skill before you decide to put your family in there and take them somewhere in bad weather. It's no different in any airplane really, use good judgement and know your limitations.
I didn't learn to drive in an Indy car. I could have, but I would have needed a lot more training and the realization the performance and skills required.
I hope if he goes that route he's happy, gets the trainging required to be SAFE, and has an enjoyable experience. Unfortunately the statisitcs aren't in his favor. I rather see someone go over an above to be at the top of his game no matter what he/she flies. If someone does that, they will be successfull.
 
Henning said:
Interesting, now how about a truely relevant statistic to this thread, percentage of accidents in the Cirrus with pilots who were trained in "heritage" airplanes like the 172, PA-28.... vs people who trained ab initio in the Cirrus. That would be interesting to know....
Click to expand...


That maybe hard to do, there are probably only a few that have started in such an airplane. Hell, if he has the bucks and wants to start in a truly high Performance airplane, there is a nice P51 Mustang for sale on Aerotrader.:D
 
Henning said:
Why is it dumb? If it's the plane that fits the mission, and the one that he wants, what is dumb about buying it and training in it right off the bat? Sheri Marlin bought a High Performance Fixed Single before she had lesson one, now she has her private, low insurance rates and a plane she is comfortable flying around in.
Click to expand...

So did Mike (although his was a PA28-235). Hence, the *cough*. ;)
 
Henning said:
Sounds like a heck of a good program.
Click to expand...

Yeah. One thing I forgot to mention: As a zero-time student, you'll have problems getting insurance at any price. The Cirrus Access program not only includes the full-time instructor, it also includes the insurance. :yes:

It may well be the only way to buy a Turbo SR22 and learn to fly in it with insurance!
 
When all is said and done, you can spout accident statistics all day long, and one thing will still be true:

There is not a damn thing wrong with the airplane.

You hinted at what I believe the biggest problem is: The perception that the chute will save you from being stupid. Nope, sorry, doesn't work that way. The one thing that would probably save a LOT of Cirrus accidents is if the pilot were to honestly answer one question before each flight: "If the parachute weren't there, would I still make this flight?" If the answer is no, you don't go. Period.

Most of the Cirrus accidents I can think of have been of the "stupid" variety, with the subtitle "How can I possibly crash with all these gadgets doing the work for me?" Just off the top of my head, there was one who took off in marginal weather somewhere in the southwest, no IR, and ended up as yet another example of the classic VFR-into-IMC CFIT accident. Then there was the guy who'd just had his PFD replaced and took off into a 300-foot overcast on the first flight. Then there was the guy who took off into known icing conditions in the mountains - By the time he realized he was no longer in control and pulled the chute, he was way outside of the chute-pulling envelope, and the parachute ripped right off the airplane.

I'd highly suggest a listen to Pilotcast #51 with Alan Klapmeier, CEO of Cirrus. He told a rather interesting ground-pounding (but still relevant) story about throwing away safety margins. We also talked about Cirrus Access a bit I believe, but that was mostly covered in the video interview with him from OSH 2006.
 
Plane ownership is a big step. I'd never suggest one purchase a plane that had been used for initial training (especially my own <g>). Good training aircraft have qualities that make them a bit better suited for the hard landings, and other mistakes one makes until they gain proficiency. There is a lot to learn besides flying a plane, and getting some experience in other aircraft can help round one's skill out. I'd suggest at least soloing before you consider the purchase of a plane; really suggest getting rated first as others have said. You'll own and be paying for a plane you can't even fly by yourself, or with anyone else aboard until then. There's a fella here at my home field that purchased a P-Baron; didn't have an instrument rating and insurance prevented him from flying it alone until he did. He kept it about a year; then, got too busy to fly. Tried to sell it for too much and it was finally repossessed. Guess the lesson was he just didn't know what he was getting into from the beginning.

All that said, if you're bound and determined, I like Kent's recommendation.

Best,

Dave
 
I guess if you have the money to blow, there's nothing wrong with killing yourself faster with a 300HP airplane and lack of experience. It would be a story to go with the Colorado private pilot who killed himself flying his twin into IMC without an instrument rating.

Oh well, to hell with common sense. It's overrated, anyway.
 
You hinted at what I believe the biggest problem is: The perception that the chute will save you from being stupid. Nope, sorry, doesn't work that way.

That's right, you can't fix stupid, but you can keep stupid from starting when you look at the big picture, get proper training, and know your own limitations. Like anything new, there will be problems, and they have had more than their share. And bad judgement, lack of training is the pilots fault. Know you're going to start in something high performance and train accordingly. Too many people don't do this, and the statics show the punishment.....death! True of any airplane, but more so as performance increases.

And on a side note, Cirrus got to forgo a lot of the flight testing, BECAUSE of the chute, so yes they were relying on it. Hence the Columbia reference, same type airplane, comperable performance, marketed to similar people. And the Columbias aren't having anywhere close to the problems with loss of control accidents that the Cirrus has had. All the more reason to learn all you can about the Cirrus if you're flying/buying one. My friend came back from recurrent Cirrus training 2 years ago and was told to leave the airplane on the ground, climb steeply to 400', then level off and continue the climb normally. Why? They said the chute won't work below 400' and to get to that altitude as quickly as possible. What happened to flying the airplane if the engine quits? This year he said they aren't teaching that anymore, so even they are backing away from the chute, because people are having a false sense of security with it, and not using it properly. Used properly, it IS a life saving tool.
My accident investigator won't agree with your statement that "there's nothing wrong with the airplane". He also was in on the Malibu shedding wings at high altitude problem investigations, that ended up being an autopilot problem. He's compiled a lot of first hand data on the Cirrus (and many others), is an engineer and his opinions aren't here say, like our information is.
 
I'm speechless.........
Heck, learn in an F22......at least it has a Martin Baker seat.

The problem is, the more complex the aircraft, the more tasks you have to learn at once. The harder it is to master them.

What we're not talking about here is acquiring judgement. Cirrus Access cannot teach you that. It's kinda like buying a Cheoy Lee 96 for learning how to sail. It can be done, but.....there's a reason why it's not.

Errors of judgement have more severe conequences the further up the chain you start. Heck, a PA-11 can only barely kill you.
 
Last edited:
gkainz said:
Stats show he's been back since posting ... perhaps the responses were not so, uh, welcoming?
Click to expand...
I think the OP asked a legitimate and serious question. It's some of the responses I had an issue with. Maybe another way to put my earlier post...

"Just because you can doesn't mean you should."
 
I don't think $$ is the issue here for the poster. If he's thinking of the SR22 Turbo GTS $$ is clearly not the issue. So the question is is the SR22 Trubo to much plane to learn to fly in. Kent had some great suggetions. Here is another :

1) Since your moving to San Francisco look up Kareem Fahmi. He is a CFII and Chief flight instructor over at Hayward Airport near S.F. He can also be found over on the Red ( AOPA) board. Take an intro flight with him or one of his CFIs in a " standard Trainer" say a Warrior or a Cessna 172. Then Find a Cirrus program and take an intro flight in a Cirrus. Some FBOs do rent and give training in a Cirrus. Mine does. See how you feel the work load is in both types of planes and then take it from there.

EDIT: Jeremy some of the posts may be filled with a little disbelief because the SR22 GTS Turbo is a heck of a lot of airplane. Most times folks train on much more docile airplanes. And for those of us that posted we have to remember that most of us can understand the differences between the Cirrus and a Piper Warrior. Someone who has NEVER flown before may not undersand the complexities of the plane so perhaps some of us can be a bit gentler with our advice.

Best of luck.

And by the way welcome to the board. Hope you stick around.
 
Last edited:
kevin47881 said:
Anyone else find it interesting that the OP has not signed back onto his own thread?:dunno:
Click to expand...


sorry, I have a life outside the internet. Thanks to those of you who provided great responses and weren't complete jerks.

Like I said in the original post, I read in a couple different places around the internet that most students will do fine learning to fly in a high performance aircraft. So to those of you who were jerks in your responses, how am I suppose to know any better, especially since I've only been up once (Piper Warrior)? That is why I attempted to find out here by asking people who do know better. I didn't realize I would offend anyone! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I think I will wait on a new airplane till the end of the year. Someone over on the AOPA forums said it perfectly.

"The quality of instruction has more to do with you being a good pilot that what you fly in training."
 
Jeremy that may be a good idea. In the mean time get started on the PPL and see how learning in a traditional trainer suits you. Its a inexpensive ( in aviation terms anyway) way to avoid a costly mistake
 
flyingcheesehead said:
When all is said and done, you can spout accident statistics all day long, and one thing will still be true:

There is not a damn thing wrong with the airplane.
Click to expand...

That's what I said and I stand behind it. It is not the plane but the pilot. Pilots need more than just to learn to fly a plane, That is the easy part. You want to learn the other stuff, in a plane that won't kill you. Learn it in a plane that is a little more forgiving. Take all those reports and take out all the pilot error and you will have a short list.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top