Cirrus approach transition training

[Salty]

So, the flight school at my airport just got two brand new SR-20s with perspective. I’m toying with the idea of getting checked out, but good lord it’s expensive. It’s with a cirrus certified instructor. I’m trying to justify the cost when I already own a capable plane.

Pros
1. I’d like the option of renting when mine is down for maintenance
2. It’s probably as close a rentable airplane as you can get to the plane I’m building, an RV-10
3. I’d like to fly one (this is minor, I could just fly with the instructor a few times for the experience and save a bundle)

cons
1. $
2. $$
3. Time
4. $$$

If you can’t tell I’m experiencing sticker shock.
Anyway, is the cirrus training a pro that I’m missing on my list, or is it just going through the motions and spending a bunch of dough for a person that flies a lot, and has done a fair number of transitions already. Will it give me a 50% discount on my Mooney insurance? J/K

 

[jkgoblue]

Well, how much are we talking about?

 

[Salty]

Well, how much are we talking about?

More than 3k by the time it’s over.

 

[GRG55]

IIRC Cirrus brought in this structured training because of the pre-2010 fatal accident rate their airplanes were experiencing. Part of the issue was training regarding the decision making process for the use of the CAPS. Had a huge influence in driving the fatal accident numbers down even as the Cirrus fleet was expanding.

Probably worth the money and effort if you plan to fly a Cirrus more than casually. Many insurers require it.

 

[Salty]

IIRC Cirrus brought in this structured training because of the pre-2010 fatal accident rate their airplanes were experiencing. Part of the issue was training regarding the decision making process for the use of the CAPS. Had a huge influence in driving the fatal accident numbers down even as the Cirrus fleet was expanding.

Probably worth the money and effort if you plan to fly a Cirrus more than casually. Many insurers require it.

That’s just it, I don’t plan on flying it more than casually, but you can’t rent them without the training.

 

[FancyG]

More than 3k by the time it’s over.

What's it worth to have a backup option until your RV-10 flies?

 

[Ryan F.]

Hard to say. They're impressive airplanes. The latest generation has a lot of refinements and capabilities... and almost all of them have air conditioning nowadays.

It's still a sub 160 knot single engine airplane at the end of the day. A very popular one due to how comfortable and enjoyable it is to take on trips.

If one isn't already proficient operating in a highly automated single pilot IFR flight deck environment one might benefit from this experience and gain new insights/techniques which might be applied to "legacy" aircraft.

More than likely you'd just have to decide the enjoyment will be worth it. It's hard to justify flying airplanes. It's hard to justify owning airplanes. It's hard to justify renting airplanes when one owns airplanes. But a lot of us are okay with it anyway...

 

[RussR]

That’s just it, I don’t plan on flying it more than casually, but you can’t rent them without the training.

Well I think that's the only answer then - if you plan to fly it, then you need the training. Just depends on how badly you want to fly it casually.

I just completed a PA-46 course (meaning I just finished today). I find type-specific training extremely valuable. Yes, the insurance companies have gotten crazy about it, but there is no doubt that I will be a much safer PA-46 pilot now than I would be if I had hopped in with any old CFI and figured it out.

 

[Hang 4]

@Salty IIRC you just got or are in the process of getting your IFR? Doing the transition training might be helpful for that. Maybe you could log some approaches as well? Getting to be the not fun time of year for IFR in FL.

 

[PaulS]

Yup, it's expensive. Go up, try it out, and then decide. The airplane is relatively easy to fly, but the avionics have a definite learning curve and it takes time.

The new 20s fly nice, the extra 15 or so HP of the lycoming makes a difference. But it is basically a 2 person airplane if you want to go any distance.

 

[Salty]

@Salty IIRC you just got or are in the process of getting your IFR? Doing the transition training might be helpful for that. Maybe you could log some approaches as well? Getting to be the not fun time of year for IFR in FL.

I got my IR back in October

 

[Salty]

More importantly, can I still make fun of Cirrus pilots pulling the chute if I get the training?

 

[Tantalum]

I’m trying to justify the cost when I already own a capable plane.

I mean, coming from somebody who's fairly die hard Cirrus fan I don't think it makes sense.. if you already have a capable airplane the SR20 really isn't giving you that much beyond what an Archer gives you at least as far as objective items. It looks pretty and is more comfortable and flies a little faster but if you only plan to occasionally fly it you're not going to stay that proficient anyway so I would say it's not worth the money

is the cirrus training a pro that I’m missing on my list, or is it just going through the motions and spending a bunch of dough for a person that flies a lot, and has done a fair number of transitions already.

For anyone who plans to genuinely fly them I highly highly recommend it. I took both courses one for the SR20 one for the SR22 and both were extremely valuable. I walked away with about 10 hours of time in each case and felt extremely comfortable and proficient in flying both.. when you compare it to a typical "checkout" you would get on an airplane the difference is night and day

But if you only plan to fly it on the occasion here and there then I don't think it's worth it and in fact you're doing yourself a disfavor. It's different enough that you could potentially get yourself in trouble..

Take this feedback with whatever you paid for it..

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Can you just pay for the first hour or two of the flight portion of the transition training? Might tell you if you really want to spend the rest.

I think they’re nice to fly, I have one flight in one, about an hour...I burned a bit of Hobbs time on the ground just going thru the darn electronic checklist. Just starting to scratch the surface of maybe looking at one to buy. I’m afraid I’d have to part with my current bird, so it’s definitely not an easy decision.

 

[Van Johnston]

Well after a Cirrus renter at our field did this Saturday




This message came out Monday

Club-wide message:

Cirrus Renters,

Starting 1April all renters need to fly with Chief Pilot (Casey) or Director of Operations (Chris) prior to their next Cirrus rental. This flight will be waived if a check out or dual flight with DO or CP has been completed in the last 90 days. Flight will be as long as or short as needed to ensure proper Cirrus and TSFS TSOM procedures adhered. Plan on a minimum of Normal, 50% flap, PO 180* and stall series. This can also be a great time to knock out BFR or IPC. More instruction can be provided if needed. Please refer to the TSOM attached for further currency and recency requirements at TSFS. Thank you and please let me know if you have questions.

 

[RyanB]

I’d like the option of renting when mine is down for maintenance

Is your plane offline enough to justify the cost of the checkout + the cost of staying current/proficient?

I can think of better ways to blow $3k, especially if it’s more or less just for the experience of flying a Cirrus.

 

[wayne]

If it was a couple of SR22s I'd say yes. Pricey, but a good backup.

The other issue is what will you have avionics-wise in your RV-10? Going back and forth from Perspective to something else could be a bit, at least in IMC.

An older SR22 with 430s or 650s would be easier if you have the same in your RV-10. At least it would be for me.



Wayne

 

[PaulS]

Well after a Cirrus renter at our field did this Saturday




This message came out Monday

The place I rent from requires a "checkride" every 6 months. For me it alternates between flight review and IPC.

It's an easy plane to fly, if you fly it correctly, like most planes. A lot of pilots apply things they learned from other airplanes to the Cirrus, like half flaps or extra speed for crosswinds, which is needless for the cirrus and actually makes life more difficult. It's also a plane that if you try to force it onto the ground you can easily end up like your picture.

 

[Tantalum]

It's an easy plane to fly, if you fly it correctly

..and that's just it

but you can't go from a C-172 or a PA-28 and apply those same principles to any SR series aircraft.. it's not just the "joystick" being on the left but it's a plane that was designed in the late 90s vs late 50s and it does fly quite diferently as a result of that

If our OP does his full checkout and then puts 1-3 hours on it every 6 months I think at the worst he's asking for trouble and at the best it was a lot of money for not much return

 

[PaulS]

If our OP does his full checkout and then puts 1-3 hours on it every 6 months I think at the worst he's asking for trouble and at the best it was a lot of money for not much return

I fully agree with this. I do suggest that he go up for an hour or two to satisfy his curiosity. But if you want to fly one, plan to fly it regularly.

 

[mondtster]

I just completed a PA-46 course (meaning I just finished today). I find type-specific training extremely valuable. Yes, the insurance companies have gotten crazy about it, but there is no doubt that I will be a much safer PA-46 pilot now than I would be if I had hopped in with any old CFI and figured it out.

At the risk of getting off on a tangent, I'm curious what the course gave you that couldn't have been figured out with some homework and a few hours of guidance with an average CFI that has some Malibu time. I didn't find the airplane hard to figure out at all and even after having taken initial and recurrent training from a few different providers haven't found any major gaps in my knowledge or experience that I need significant work on. Of course it helps that I also maintain the airplane so I've likely seen one farther apart than many of the training providers have.

To bring this back to the subject of the thread, my experience with the Malibu training also goes for all the advanced, type specific training I've received. I feel like I must be fairly lucky because I think that nearly all the training I've received has been above average. That makes the difference between the type specific training and the general training I've gotten is fairly small, but that certainly isn't the case for everyone.

 

[midlifeflyer]

At the risk of getting off on a tangent, I'm curious what the course gave you that couldn't have been figured out with some homework and a few hours of guidance with an average CFI that has some Malibu time.

It depends. Time in other aircraft may or may not be relevant.

Here's the deal as best I have been able to figure it. Cirrus aircraft are indeed incredibly easy to fly. If it were just about stick and rudder skills, transition would be no more difficult than moving from a Cessna 172 to a Piper Arrow.

But, for better or worse, Cirrus has focused on systems and, especially once they moved away from the basic 6-pack, put together not only a type, but a suite specific package. So there is training geared toward Perspective avionics which is different from Avidyne. Training is extensive, expensive, and recurrent. As others mentioned, it's geared toward those for whom a Cirrus is primary, whether as owner or renter.

if you want to get an idea, Google Cirrus FOM. You can grab one of their flight operation standardization manuals for some idea about what they are doing. Yes, as you say, a good general CFI with advanced type experience can put similar training together and there really is nothing there (except, of course, CAPS) especially new and different, but that's the way the industry seems to be going.

You can attribute that to good motives or bad but it's the way it is. But their market has bought into it. You can sometimes find places which will rent a Cirrus without CSIP training following the "proper" syllabus, but it will be few an far between.

 

[RussR]

At the risk of getting off on a tangent, I'm curious what the course gave you that couldn't have been figured out with some homework and a few hours of guidance with an average CFI that has some Malibu time. I didn't find the airplane hard to figure out at all and even after having taken initial and recurrent training from a few different providers haven't found any major gaps in my knowledge or experience that I need significant work on. Of course it helps that I also maintain the airplane so I've likely seen one farther apart than many of the training providers have.

For me, it wasn't about things like "take off at this airspeed, here's the flap speeds, etc.", or about how to physically fly the airplane. That's not hard and it flies like every other airplane.

But what was valuable to me was the "best practices" stuff. Standardized Operating Procedures. Tips and tricks that may be buried in the manual (or maybe not in there at all). Integration of systems. How things affect each other. Making sure we go through just about every possible option and configuration with the avionics. Review of accidents and what may not be in the NTSB report. Review of systems in more detail that "here's a diagram". And, I think most importantly, KNOWING that the training I received was coming from people who specialize in these models (the owner has something like >5000 hours in PA-46s), and have a standardized training method and process. That it's not just somebody who managed to fly one around for a while and not crash.

As an example - there are certain models of aircraft that I have time in (some even a "significant" amount of time in), that I have never once landed, and where my total time at the controls is measured in minutes, typically just the "close your eyes, I have the plane" for unusual attitudes. This comes about as a result of doing instrument refresher-type work, or new avionics transitions. If a new buyer came up to me wanting training on how to fly one of these airplanes, I may even meet the insurance company's requirements to do it. But I'd be a lousy trainer for that model (and would refuse anyway).

I'm not saying this type of training is necessary to be a safe pilot. But, I think it's reasonable to say that spending a few days of concentrated instruction with a specialist in any airplane HAS to make someone a safer pilot.

In this case, the next flight I do in the plane with be with someone paying me to fly it. Now, having had significant one-on-one instruction in it, I feel comfortable that I'm not going to make myself look foolish.

 

[wayne]

At the risk of getting off on a tangent, I'm curious what the course gave you that couldn't have been figured out with some homework and a few hours of guidance with an average CFI that has some Malibu time. I didn't find the airplane hard to figure out at all and even after having taken initial and recurrent training from a few different providers haven't found any major gaps in my knowledge or experience that I need significant work on. Of course it helps that I also maintain the airplane so I've likely seen one farther apart than many of the training providers have.

To bring this back to the subject of the thread, my experience with the Malibu training also goes for all the advanced, type specific training I've received. I feel like I must be fairly lucky because I think that nearly all the training I've received has been above average. That makes the difference between the type specific training and the general training I've gotten is fairly small, but that certainly isn't the case for everyone.

As previously posted it was due to too many accidents. Probably too many people with not much experience jumping from a 115 knot trainer with a six pack to a 180 knot SR22 with glass. The Transition training started emphasizing the chute. It changed the presentation of the chute from the "tool of last resort" to "pull early, pull often". There were too many accidents that people were killed or seriously injured that pulling the chute would have allowed them to walk away. I fly a SR22 with dual 430s and I leave the one on the bottom on nearest airport. If the engine dies I'll know if I have the glide range to make it to an airport or not. If in range I'll land it there. If not, I'll look for a good place to descend under the chute, descend to a lower altitude and then pull. Yes, you can pull from cruise altitude, but I'd rather allow less drifting in the wind.

It took me all of the Transition training to feel somewhat comfortable flying it. For me that was getting used to an autopilot and glass. I had plenty of IFR and 430 experience. Oh, I could fly it fine on a nice VMC day after a couple of flights. I fly IFR and expect to go unless the weather is crappy. It took some time to feel good with the SR22 for that, but I could say the same for any significant change in planes for me.

 

[mondtster]

For me, it wasn't about things like "take off at this airspeed, here's the flap speeds, etc.", or about how to physically fly the airplane. That's not hard and it flies like every other airplane.

But what was valuable to me was the "best practices" stuff. Standardized Operating Procedures. Tips and tricks that may be buried in the manual (or maybe not in there at all). Integration of systems. How things affect each other. Making sure we go through just about every possible option and configuration with the avionics. Review of accidents and what may not be in the NTSB report. Review of systems in more detail that "here's a diagram". And, I think most importantly, KNOWING that the training I received was coming from people who specialize in these models (the owner has something like >5000 hours in PA-46s), and have a standardized training method and process. That it's not just somebody who managed to fly one around for a while and not crash.

As an example - there are certain models of aircraft that I have time in (some even a "significant" amount of time in), that I have never once landed, and where my total time at the controls is measured in minutes, typically just the "close your eyes, I have the plane" for unusual attitudes. This comes about as a result of doing instrument refresher-type work, or new avionics transitions. If a new buyer came up to me wanting training on how to fly one of these airplanes, I may even meet the insurance company's requirements to do it. But I'd be a lousy trainer for that model (and would refuse anyway).

I'm not saying this type of training is necessary to be a safe pilot. But, I think it's reasonable to say that spending a few days of concentrated instruction with a specialist in any airplane HAS to make someone a safer pilot.

In this case, the next flight I do in the plane with be with someone paying me to fly it. Now, having had significant one-on-one instruction in it, I feel comfortable that I'm not going to make myself look foolish.

Russ, thanks for the insight. I singled you out to ask the question because I have the most experience in the Malibu of the airplanes that I have type specific training in and based on your posts I believe you have a fair amount of experience in more advanced airplanes so I got curious. This isn't the first time I've asked an almost identical question but last time the experience among the respondents wasn't the same and nobody could give me a tangible answer on what they felt made the training so much better.

It is interesting how different training providers work. The place where I got my initial training basically did some systems overview (but left it pretty shallow in my opinion) and drilled instrument procedures and how to run the avionics. Much of the training was performed in a simulator and provided by jet pilots working their way back down the food chain so they were trying to adapt their jet flying style to the Malibu and get you to fly it that way. I agreed with some of their techniques and some I didn't. The guy I've been using for recurrent is a more middle of the road guy, focusing on both stick and rudder flying and instrument procedures. We've went over some paperwork I didn't in initial training and ground discussion of systems has taken a back seat to practicing specific procedures dealing with abnormal situations caused by failing systems.

I can't complain about any of the training. It has been good, but not fundamentally different than the other training I've received. I've also got some time in the Cirrus, but did not go through the CSIP training. The training I did received was from a high time Cirrus pilot and high time instructor so I'm not sure how much difference there would be between the two curriculums there would be.

I know what you're talking about when you mention your flight instructor experience. I've got the same in several twins - I easily meet the FAA minimum requirements and insurance requirements but there is no way I'd take on a student to transition them into an airplane of that type. It doesn't do anyone any favors in my opinion.

At the end of the day, in the airplanes where insurance requires type specific training you do the type specific training if you want to fly it. I think that both the Malibu and Cirrus are airplanes that need more than the "1 hour checkout". Especially when the pilot in question is progressing up the ranks and may have limited time in higher performance airplanes. Twins, and the training necessary to fly them well is much the same in my book.

 

[Salty]

..and that's just it

but you can't go from a C-172 or a PA-28 and apply those same principles to any SR series aircraft.. it's not just the "joystick" being on the left but it's a plane that was designed in the late 90s vs late 50s and it does fly quite diferently as a result of that

If our OP does his full checkout and then puts 1-3 hours on it every 6 months I think at the worst he's asking for trouble and at the best it was a lot of money for not much return

I'd probably fly it a couple hours every other month or so. Especially if I find it similar to an RV-10. If I find them comparable, I'll probably keep comfortable in the Cirrus as a proxy. I probably won't have perspective in the -10, but I'm planning a nice Garmin panel, so it shouldn't be that much different.

 

[mondtster]

It took some time to feel good with the SR22 for that, but I could say the same for any significant change in planes for me.

That was more or less my point...

As I posted above, I wanted to hear an honest answer about the training from an experienced pilot on what they thought was so much better about the structured training they received in a required course vs. what a good instructor would provide. I still don't think there is that much difference but I do suspect that if the insurance companies didn't intervene on airframes like the Malibu or Cirrus you'd continue to see a string of accidents from pilots taking on more than they can handle and finding an inadequate trainer simply to check the box.

If I were the OP, I'd make my decision on whether to train or not based on two things. 1. Are the avionics similar to what will be installed in the RV he is building? If yes, then the exposure to them would be valuable. 2. Does he want to fly the airplane beyond the checkout? If yes, then I'd do the training. If either is no, I'd spend the money elsewhere on some different type of training that will expand his ability/knowledge.

 

[Half Fast]

Do you still have access to the Skychaser? If so, it seems the only real justification would be learning a plane similar to the RV you’re building.

Would the $3k for training take away anything from your build?

 

[Salty]

Do you still have access to the Skychaser? If so, it seems the only real justification would be learning a plane similar to the RV you’re building.

Would the $3k for training take away anything from your build?

Skycatcher lives in Utah now. Time is more a factor for the build than money, but I need excuses to keep flying regularly anyway and not let the build distract completely from flying.

 

[Datadriver]

So, the flight school at my airport just got two brand new SR-20s with perspective. I’m toying with the idea of getting checked out, but good lord it’s expensive. It’s with a cirrus certified instructor. I’m trying to justify the cost when I already own a capable plane.

hard pass. I did the training and flew SR22s for about 50 hours back in the late otties. If you already own and are building too that is just $ right down the drain. I also don't think an SR20 is comparable to your eventual RV10 (20 is underpowered for starters)

 

[RussR]

Russ, thanks for the insight. I singled you out to ask the question because I have the most experience in the Malibu of the airplanes that I have type specific training in and based on your posts I believe you have a fair amount of experience in more advanced airplanes so I got curious. This isn't the first time I've asked an almost identical question but last time the experience among the respondents wasn't the same and nobody could give me a tangible answer on what they felt made the training so much better.

As a CFI, I was interested in what types of experience their other clients generally had, and how they progressed in the course, so my trainer and I had a few conversations about that. He said that I, being a very active pilot with experience in numerous airplanes both higher and lower performance than the PA-46, am not the typical student. Of course they do get some others like me, but a lot of what they see is pilots who used to own typical 4-seat airplanes who jumped to a pressurized/turbocharged and/or turbine PA-46 as an upgrade. One client even went from 100 total hours all in a Cessna 172 into the PA-46 (I forget which model). He said that many of their clients really only fly 60 or so hours a year. So in those cases, I absolutely think it's important to get them immersed in focused, dedicated training - emphasis on "immersed", meaning not an hour or two after work once a week.

Could I have been a safe pilot without it? I think so, but I'm not the normal target audience for this training. And the insurer required it, so of course I went. But even so, I did still get quite a bit out of it. Did I feel that ALL of the training was necessary for me? No, there were a few things we covered that I didn't think were very valuable _to me_, but to the instructor's credit, once he saw I was already proficient in those tasks, we moved along. Everybody will be different, of course.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Could I have been a safe pilot without it? I think so, but I'm not the normal target audience for this training. And the insurer required it,

And that's the key. Just like rules established by flying clubs and rental FBOs regarding currency, minimum runway length, max winds, etc, they are targeting a low (sometimes lowest) common denominator.

 

[Salty]

So I logged an hour in the sr20 this afternoon. Here’s my review:

• Took forever to get off the ground. I was about to abort the takeoff when it finally picked up speed.
• Climb performance was ok.
• Cruise performance was excellent
• I was expecting to love the side stick, but I hated it. Very hard to finesse. Did not feel like I had good control on gusty landing that would have been no big deal in another plane
• The plane is crazy comfortable and quiet. The AC was awesome
• It has no personality. Felt very disconnected and little feedback
• Because of the quiet and lack of feel, it lulls you to want to stare at the huge screens instead of flying
• Avionics are fabulous, of course, just let the autopilot fly and watch the movie

 

[PaulS]

So I logged an hour in the sr20 this afternoon. Here’s my review:

• Took forever to get off the ground. I was about to abort the takeoff when it finally picked up speed.
• Climb performance was ok.
• Cruise performance was excellent
• I was expecting to love the side stick, but I hated it. Very hard to finesse. Did not feel like I had good control on gusty landing that would have been no big deal in another plane
• The plane is crazy comfortable and quiet. The AC was awesome
• It has no personality. Felt very disconnected and little feedback
• Because of the quiet and lack of feel, it lulls you to want to stare at the huge screens instead of flying
• Avionics are fabulous, of course, just let the autopilot fly and watch the movie

Lol, how did I miss this review?

The stick takes two minutes to be able to fly it competently. A couple hours to master the trim, since it is touchy, I think this is mostly due to less motion to get to full deflection versus older aircraft.

The crosswind performance is excellent, even better in a 22, hands down the best out of the limited number of planes I've flown.

Personality and feedback? If you mean smooth ride and fast, then yup, that's what it is.

The big screens can be a distraction, especially if you haven't spent the time to master them, that's why good training is essential.

The new 20s with the Lycoming engine have 215 hp which makes a difference on performance.

The autopilot? The GFC 700 is phenomenal, great autopilot, great to have especially when you are doing long legs.