Cirrus vs. Other for Training

Rgbeard said:
@danuary - any update?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately no, pursuing this has taken a backseat to other priorities. Another time. I did however decide against the Cirrus route. I felt it would be too expensive and too much all at once.
 
danuary said:
Unfortunately no, pursuing this has taken a backseat to other priorities. Another time. I did however decide against the Cirrus route. I felt it would be too expensive and too much all at once.
Click to expand...

Part 61 is great in that you can take lessons at your own pace. Cessna 172 is probably the best trainer and most widely available. Just take a lesson when you have time and do more or less depending upon your situation. A lot of people turn flying into this huge commitment that has to be decided on day 1. That’s not the case.
 
Terry M - 3CK (Chicago) said:
@wayne wow!!!

I wonder how long it would take a 105 knot person to transition to an SR22 and whether the IR is required . . . And whether I could stay proficient.

Hmmmm
Click to expand...

Cirrus has VFR and IFR tx syllabi. IIRC, Each is about 10 lessons long, some can be accomplished in the sim.

I’ll see if I can dig my copies up somewhere. The -20 isn’t that complicated at all, things just happen a little faster. -22 is really turbo management and stuff happening faster, again.
 
That's the thing about using a complex plane as a trainer. They cost more, in this case quite a bit more. Unless you have an unlimited budget, that increases the pressure to fly less. The last thing you want when getting your PPL is to cut corners on practice hours. You need to fly as much as needed to develop the airmanship and control feel that makes you a pilot, not just a machinery operator.
 
Ed Haywood said:
That's the thing about using a complex plane as a trainer. They cost more, in this case quite a bit more. Unless you have an unlimited budget, that increases the pressure to fly less. The last thing you want when getting your PPL is to cut corners on practice hours. You need to fly as much as needed to develop the airmanship and control feel that makes you a pilot, not just a machinery operator.
Click to expand...

And instructors don't let you get as deep into potential trouble as they do with a lower performance, less expensive airplane.
 
danuary said:
Unfortunately no, pursuing this has taken a backseat to other priorities. Another time. I did however decide against the Cirrus route. I felt it would be too expensive and too much all at once.
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear it's been put on the back burner, but sometimes life happens, or priorities change. I own a part of a Cirrus and love flying it, but I would definitely recommend doing your Private in something cheaper, such as a Cessna 172. If the six-pack versus is cheaper to rent than the G1000 I'd fly the six-pack model. You don't need a G1000 for the Private.

Then maybe shift to the Cirrus for, during or right after your Instrument Rating. There are pros and cons on when to switch.
 
dmspilot said:
And in a Cirrus you won't learn as much about stalls and spins as another aircraft with a legitimate recovery procedure (one that's not "pull the chute"). Cirruses are not trainers.
Click to expand...
Your bias is showing. Show some evidence and some facts behind such broad statements.

Tim
 
wayne said:
Sorry to hear it's been put on the back burner, but sometimes life happens, or priorities change. I own a part of a Cirrus and love flying it, but I would definitely recommend doing your Private in something cheaper, such as a Cessna 172. If the six-pack versus is cheaper to rent than the G1000 I'd fly the six-pack model. You don't need a G1000 for the Private.

Then maybe shift to the Cirrus for, during or right after your Instrument Rating. There are pros and cons on when to switch.
Click to expand...

I disagree. One of my son's friends is working on his PPL. He grew in a digital world, he has struggled with the C172 six pack he rents. One flight in the new G1000 changed everything for him.
Also, when you add up the costs to "convert" you skills from a six pack to a PFD, you will find that you likely did not save any money and in fact spent a lot more.

Tim
 
tspear said:
Your bias is showing. Show some evidence and some facts behind such broad statements.

Tim
Click to expand...

Um, the spin limitations of the Cirrus are common knowledge.
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
Um, the spin limitations of the Cirrus are common knowledge.
Click to expand...

Spin training has NOT been part of PPL training for decades. Further, the number of "training" aircraft which can actually perform spins is rather limited compared to previous decades.
So basically, your comment has no point.

Tim
 
tspear said:
Spin training has NOT been part of PPL training for decades. Further, the number of "training" aircraft which can actually perform spins is rather limited compared to previous decades.
Click to expand...

Full stalls and spin awareness have always been part of PPL training and all training aircraft other than Cirrus have proven ability to recover from unintentional spins with conventional, non-destructive recovery technique.
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
Full stalls and spin awareness have always been part of PPL training and all training aircraft other than Cirrus have proven ability to recover from unintentional spins with conventional, non-destructive recovery technique.
Click to expand...

Full stalls have been removed from the requirements of a PPL. The Cirrus planes were spin tested for European licensing. They recovered fine. Cirrus managed to talk the FAA into the chute being the spin recovery, but the Europeans didn't allow that.
 
If you want to buy and fly a Cirrus might make a case to learn it. BUT. The safety record of traditional trainers like C172/DA40/PA28 is better, even without CAPS. They are more forgiving of stupid mistakes…. Which all student pilots and some non-student pilots make. The Cirrus is less of a stick and rudder plane, so you can build bad habits and the plane will cover them up until it doesn’t. You will get your PPL in fewer hours at lower cost in a traditional trainer, and thus less likely to get frustrated and bail. Some pilots starting in Cirri are going over 100 hours before testing for the PPL. You should be closer to 40 in a simpler plane with focused training. The Cirrus is a nice plane, have 500+ hrs in them. They are serious cross country aircraft but the cost of performance is being more prone to bite you at the edges. If my kids want to learn to fly it will be in a C172/PA28 or DA20/40. Then if they want to go all in, and build some hours, Prove they can really fly, I will get them a Cirrus.
 
wayne said:
Full stalls have been removed from the requirements of a PPL. The Cirrus planes were spin tested for European licensing. They recovered fine. Cirrus managed to talk the FAA into the chute being the spin recovery, but the Europeans didn't allow that.
Click to expand...

You sure about that :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
Full stalls and spin awareness have always been part of PPL training and all training aircraft other than Cirrus have proven ability to recover from unintentional spins with conventional, non-destructive recovery technique.
Click to expand...

Spin awareness and stall recovery are taught in Cirrus. I went through it, not a big deal.

Tim
 
I’m a Cirrus TCI, but most of my instruction given has been in 172s. Teaching in a Cirrus is not any harder and my Cirrus clients don’t have any more difficulty learning than my 172 clients. But they are a lot more comfortable :D
 
dmspilot said:
You got a watered-down, inadequate version of it, since according to our last discussion on this topic you stated you were taught to recover at the horn.

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...us-should-you-train-in-a-cirrus.126293/page-2
Click to expand...

Cirrus has two very distinct "stalls". With "two" wings, the wing root stalls first and the nose starts to drop. If you look closely you will see that there is roughly a 3 degree total difference in camber between the wing sections.
That means from the time the wing root stalls you need to raise the nose another three degrees to increase the AOA on the outboard sections. This is not easy, and I know of only two ways to get there. Either you do it in a steep bank and rapidly pull back on the elevators, or you start with an aft CG, zoom climb with the engine on idle and pull the elevators full back. The first is obviously a great way to spin the plane, the second does not seem like a great way to fly either.
Do not forget Cirrus was designed under a change in FAA philosophy. The plane is "spin/stall" resistant versus recovery; most aerodynamic changes that increase "stall/spin" resistance actually make recover harder also.

Last point, pull the NTSB reports. You see almost no stall/spin in Cirrus when the plane was used as a training aircraft. The super majority of stall/spin reports I have read about in Cirrus are pilots who transitioned to Cirrus from other planes, with anecdotally no notes about Cirrus specific transition training (when Cirrus specific training is done, it seems like it usually is noted).

Tim
 
tspear said:
I disagree. One of my son's friends is working on his PPL. He grew in a digital world, he has struggled with the C172 six pack he rents. One flight in the new G1000 changed everything for him.
Also, when you add up the costs to "convert" you skills from a six pack to a PFD, you will find that you likely did not save any money and in fact spent a lot more.

Tim
Click to expand...
If that’s true, the root problem is that he’s focused on The wrong things in the first place. It takes about 10 minutes to learn to read an analog ASI and Altimeter, which is just about all you need of the six pack during PPL training. Look out the freaking window.
 
..been a while since we had a good Cirrus thread! My last Cirrus flight was in August of 2020 (or thereabouts).. so it's been a while, but -

dmspilot said:
And in a Cirrus you won't learn as much about stalls and spins as another aircraft with a legitimate recovery procedure (one that's not "pull the chute")
Click to expand...
-this really isn't true. I did the official 10 part Cirrus transition for the SR20 and then a few years later an SR22T. The courses were comprehensive, and I used two different CSIPS for each. Both went to a full stall, wing drop and all, several times. We didn't do it in the SR22 but in the SR20 we did the whole falling leaf hold-it-in-a-stall thing. It's no 172 or PA28.. but it's not an immediate lose control death trap, and to the point about proper recovery procedures there was planning of stall practice around coordination, wing drops, etc. And yes, a brief that if a proper spin was entered and recovery was not immediate (using standard procedures) to pull the chute. Luckily it didn't come to that, even in a full stick held back falling leaf situation if you 'step on the ball' it's not too crazy

dmspilot said:
spin limitations of the Cirrus are common knowledge
Click to expand...
..and often misquoted. For European certification the Cirrus was required to do a series of spins, the whole 'pull the chute' wasn't satisfactory so there were something like 43 (35?) full on spins performed. Each time the plane recovered normally. The chute was also added as a result of a mid-air accident that was very personal to the Klapmeier family.. not because 'it couldn't recover from a spin so the FAA required a chute' .. however, if you have a chute, why not use it? It's like criticizing someone for putting on a life jacket when the boat sinks (real mariners swim like men!)

It's also a straw man to say that it's a guaranteed life saver, or that flying without one is a death sentence. It's a tool in the bag to use.. who doesn't want more options when faced with an emergency? If at the very least it gives a nervous flyer, pax, family member peace of mind
 
tspear said:
pilots who transitioned to Cirrus from other planes
Click to expand...
..and this is why while I generally see no issue in doing primary in 172 / PA-28 as a cost saving measure to get down the basics.. BUT, if your long term plan is to be flying a Cirrus you really need to do the proper syllabus in it, or just learn in it.. a one hour checkout won't cut it. It's different enough that if you are used to moping around the pattern at 75 knots in a 172 something like an even an SR-20 is going to be a big change.
 
tspear said:
Cirrus has two very distinct "stalls". With "two" wings, the wing root stalls first and the nose starts to drop. If you look closely you will see that there is roughly a 3 degree total difference in camber between the wing sections.
That means from the time the wing root stalls you need to raise the nose another three degrees to increase the AOA on the outboard sections. This is not easy, and I know of only two ways to get there. Either you do it in a steep bank and rapidly pull back on the elevators, or you start with an aft CG, zoom climb with the engine on idle and pull the elevators full back. The first is obviously a great way to spin the plane, the second does not seem like a great way to fly either.
Do not forget Cirrus was designed under a change in FAA philosophy. The plane is "spin/stall" resistant versus recovery; most aerodynamic changes that increase "stall/spin" resistance actually make recover harder also.

Last point, pull the NTSB reports. You see almost no stall/spin in Cirrus when the plane was used as a training aircraft. The super majority of stall/spin reports I have read about in Cirrus are pilots who transitioned to Cirrus from other planes, with anecdotally no notes about Cirrus specific transition training (when Cirrus specific training is done, it seems like it usually is noted).

Tim
Click to expand...

Or you just be patient and wait for the airspeed to decay and the airplane will fully stall. The Cirrus gives plenty of warning for the stall, sometimes it seems like forever, but it will happen without extreme control inputs. Power on in a 22 is 80 percent power, get the nose to 20 degrees pitch up, increase right rudder as you slow and wait for it. Power off is just enough elevator to keep the airspeed bleeding off, rumble, bitching Betty complains for a little bit then the nose drops. Nbd. Banked / accelerated stalls, just stay coordinated, and nothing surprising happens.

Recovery is easy and sure. If a wing drops, step on the opposite rudder, nudge a little aileron in if it makes you feel better, recover and you are good to go. They handle awesomely.
 
Salty said:
If that’s true, the root problem is that he’s focused on The wrong things in the first place. It takes about 10 minutes to learn to read an analog ASI and Altimeter, which is just about all you need of the six pack during PPL training. Look out the freaking window.
Click to expand...

If you never had an analog dial in your life, it takes a lot longer to read. Digital clocks,, digital thermometers, digital watch.... In my house, we have exactly two analog dials in the whole house. My watch, and my wife's.
My youngest is a senior in high school, she was never taught how to read a dial; especially a multi-hand dial like the altimeter.

Tim
 
PaulS said:
Or you just be patient and wait for the airspeed to decay and the airplane will fully stall. The Cirrus gives plenty of warning for the stall, sometimes it seems like forever, but it will happen without extreme control inputs. Power on in a 22 is 80 percent power, get the nose to 20 degrees pitch up, increase right rudder as you slow and wait for it. Power off is just enough elevator to keep the airspeed bleeding off, rumble, bitching Betty complains for a little bit then the nose drops. Nbd. Banked / accelerated stalls, just stay coordinated, and nothing surprising happens.

Recovery is easy and sure. If a wing drops, step on the opposite rudder, nudge a little aileron in if it makes you feel better, recover and you are good to go. They handle awesomely.
Click to expand...

Paul,

I am too fat. CG ends up to far forward that I cannot maintain 20 degrees nose up with full aft yoke. :D

Tim
 
tspear said:
If you never had an analog dial in your life, it takes a lot longer to read. Digital clocks,, digital thermometers, digital watch.... In my house, we have exactly two analog dials in the whole house. My watch, and my wife's.
My youngest is a senior in high school, she was never taught how to read a dial; especially a multi-hand dial like the altimeter.

Tim
Click to expand...
I understand that. But, we learned how to tell time on a "multi-hand dial" at, what, about 5 or 6 years old? I think an adult can figure it out in less than an hour.

My guess is that they don't want to learn, and are therefore uncomfortable with it, because they haven't taken the 10 minutes to learn it. It takes far less time to learn how to use a 6 pack than it does a G1000, whether or not you know how to read a dial.
 
there's an interesting field of human factors and visual analytics that talks about the best ways to display different types of data..

digital is not always better.. for certain types of data points analog (or analog style) is superior

Take a look at fuel gauges, it's not strictly a gallon (or lbs (or kg :eek:)) count, even the fancy digital ones show a representation of volume. Vertical speed, turn coordination, many glass gauges still retain analog routes.. especially on the JPI.. you're basically still getting the same round RPM and MP

Having flown many planes that contain some hodge podge of G5 / GI-275 / steam I find I prefer the steam for vertical speed, airspeed, and turn coordination. For altimeter, AI, and heading the glass is superior (far)
 
@Salty

Missing the point. It is not a question of learning how to read it, it is a question of being able to process it while doing other things. I am willing to bet you can glance at an analog altimeter and know the value. The younger generation have to look at it and think/process it. This may only take a sec, however it takes all your concentration away from flying the plane.

@Tantalum

I keep up with some of the human factors due to being in the IT field. And what used to be recommended and dominated is changing, as the demographics change. The fuel gauge is a great example, you will find on many recently designed cars it has moved or is moving away from dial to a bar. The reason is younger generations process the bar faster, while older generations tend to be familiar with both representations.

Tim
 
FastEddieB said:
Learning to fly in a Cirrus is definitely doable. I took over a student who owned his own Cirrus and finished up his Private, and later his Instrument.

That said, I think there's a lot to be said for learning the basic stick and rudder skills in a simpler plane. Even if money is no object, I feel there's benefit to having fewer distractions when learning the basics.
Click to expand...

This!

I'm no professional but I firmly believe that learning in a plane that teaches you the "feel" of flying will pay dividends. Technology and electronic gizmos WILL fail. Learning with the lowest form of automation possible will help you WHEN (not if) the automation fails.

*skip the rest because it is not aviation related but I feel it is germane to the conversation*

When I joined the Army in 95 we learned land navigation with a map and compass. When I retired in 2019, I was teaching land nav to Soldiers that had never used anything but a moving map GPS. I have always been in a combat specialty so I prepared for everything I hoped to have not being available. Fast forward to 2004 and somewhere in Iraq... My M1 tank was now equipped with a moving map GPS, satellite uplink, and situational awareness of every friendly or reported enemy in the same battlespace. I was the lead tank and my antenna was damaged on a previous mission so it would not connect. The command group wanted to scrub the mission because of a lack of automation. I pulled out my map board, compass, and map overlay to show we were ready. New enemy contact reports were marked on the map, checkpoints were reported based on terrain association/city blocks, and engagement areas were modified by understanding the radio transmissions. We even had flag sets ready if radios were jammed or became inoperative. We completed the mission not because we were all-stars but because we had trained for equipment failures.

I'm not suggesting for a second that someone launch into IMC conditions using backup gauges if their G1000 fails but I am saying that training on those standard gauges to begin with will be invaluable WHEN the fancy digital equipment fails.
 
Last edited:
I think that because younger people are incredibly adept at working with technology is exactly why their first airplane experience should be flying something that doesn't have a lot of technology. Because to me, a pilot needs to first learn how to fly the plane with his or her head looking out the window. I believe that makes for safer pilots. At the other end of the spectrum is someone who can barely fly themselves, and is more of a computer operator. I don't think that detracts from the Cirrus as an airplane. Just my 2 cents.
 
Funny thread, in that I see a lot of plugs for 172s, and unless I missed it, no mentions of 152s.

Unless you’re particularly big or heavy, or want to train with a CFI who is, a 152 is less expensive, and every bit as good as a 172 for someone starting out. Some even think better.
I rent 172s when I’m taking another person somewhere, for comfort.

but if I’m going somewhere close solo, or doing currency work? 152s. I like the control feel.
 
Albany Tom said:
I think that because younger people are incredibly adept at working with technology is exactly why their first airplane experience should be flying something that doesn't have a lot of technology. Because to me, a pilot needs to first learn how to fly the plane with his or her head looking out the window. I believe that makes for safer pilots. At the other end of the spectrum is someone who can barely fly themselves, and is more of a computer operator. I don't think that detracts from the Cirrus as an airplane. Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

https://memes.yarn.co/yarn-clip/feee8a17-bf24-49b0-a15d-7d96c713a654#vsgqVJau.copy

Come on Mav...
 
Last edited:
SFDukie said:
Funny thread, in that I see a lot of plugs for 172s, and unless I missed it, no mentions of 152s.

Unless you’re particularly big or heavy, or want to train with a CFI who is, a 152 is less expensive, and every bit as good as a 172 for someone starting out. Some even think better.
I rent 172s when I’m taking another person somewhere, for comfort.

but if I’m going somewhere close solo, or doing currency work? 152s. I like the control feel.
Click to expand...

I started in a 152 and couldn't handle stalls. No matter what I did, a wing dropped and I was scared. I moved on to a 172 because my instructor wanted me to be successful. Later on I moved to a Cherokee before going back to a 172 to complete my PPL. I didn't make the later transitions because I wanted to but because of transfers during my training.

I honestly believe that moving to a more docile airplane in either the 172 or PA-28 was a disservice. Understanding the stall and why the wing dropped should have been the focus but I didn't understand that at the time.
 
I'm a CFI in a flying club with a single airplane, an SR-20. We do private pilot training from scratch in that Cirrus, and have had good success. It is more expensive than getting your certificate in a 172 or Cherokee, for sure. People do it anyway, sometimes because they already know they want to fly a Cirrus after they get their certificate, or because any available alternative in our area is going to be ancient and in poor mechanical shape, relatively speaking. Even tall/big pilots can sit comfortably in an SR-20 without rubbing shoulders. I believe that CAPS is only the icing on the cake.

Some things are harder to learn in the Cirrus (for example, the electrical system is more complex than in most trainers). Others are easier, in that the Cirrus masks poor technique better in some cases than other trainers. Which makes me say that it would be even more beneficial for a Cirrus student to also get some taildragger exposure during the training, to prevent forming of bad habits which may be OK most days in the Cirrus but can bite you under the right circumstances.

- Martin
 
There are reasons to train in a Cirrus, there are reasons to not train in a Cirrus, and they have mostly been touched on here. If it is any help, the one thing that I would say that is unequivocal. The Cirrus as a trainer IS NOT safer from a statistical fatality standpoint than the conventional trainers, C172, PA28 and DA40. If anything the statistics favor the conventional trainers. They are docile and more idiot proof. Just take the safety thing out, because it is not safer in the training environment. The number of Cirrus fatals in training flights with CFI's onboard is a little sobering, and poorly understood in my opinion. Otherwise a great plane, but high performance, which makes it a great traveler but performance comes at a cost in other areas. It is less tolerant of stupid pilot tricks than many others. You can safely teach your kids to drive in a 600HP Corvette (theoretically). Could make a case to teach them in something less sporty though.
 
Martin Pauly said:
Some things are harder to learn in the Cirrus (for example, the electrical system is more complex than in most trainers). Others are easier, in that the Cirrus masks poor technique better in some cases than other trainers. Which makes me say that it would be even more beneficial for a Cirrus student to also get some taildragger exposure during the training, to prevent forming of bad habits which may be OK most days in the Cirrus but can bite you under the right circumstances.
- Martin
Click to expand...

In what way does Cirrus mask poor technique better? I do not know anyone who has ever stated that before so I am curious.

Tim
 
@red4golf @Albany Tom

Do NOT confuse the MFD with the PFD. The majority of Cirrus has both; and pretty much any trainer you fly now has an Nav/COM and engine display which are pretty much an MFD. The vast majority of your statements about systems management deal with the Nav/COM, Transpoonder, Maps... all functionality in the MFD. It has nothing to do with the six pack or PFD display.

What you are arguing for is not six pack vs PFD; you are really stating everyone needs to fly a J3 Cub first and work their way up.

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