If you plan to fly a Cirrus should you train in a Cirrus?

[MacFly]

Some people just don't want to jump into the local flight school's beater 172 or Warrior and learn to fly. The airplane itself can be a turn-off. I get it -- I've certainly flown in more old "ratty" single engine airplanes than most GA pilots in the last 30 years of my life. I'd much rather hop into an air-conditioned SR-22 in the middle of summer than a 1970s era Cessna or Piper trainer. So from that perspective, I look at the airplane itself as an on/off discriminator for new pilots to join the fold. If the Cirrus draws someone in and it makes for what they feel is a satisfactory training experience for the private pilot certificate, then I say go for it. The onus is now on the school/flight instructor's shoulders to account for the issues mentioned above, not to mention some others, in the process of building a safe, conservatively-minded pilot who meets the ACS for the certificate/rating they seek.

Boy...and they do tend to be beaters, too. My recent BFR at my local flight instruction company, (first one one in several years), was disheartening. This is a pretty nice airport, schedule Delta Connection service, and the FBO that owns the planes is a very nice flight center...all glass and chrome, well-organized, all the amenities. Cirrus service center, and an excellent avionics shop.They have 4 airplanes...three 40-year-old 172's and a Bellanca for tail-dragger instruction. Nothing to rent if you want to go anywhere. The planes, 172's at least, are all pretty trashed. Torn and stained upholstery, cracked glare shields, some instruments that are pretty much permanently placarded "INOP". They fly OK, and I assume (hope) that their cosmetic condition doesn't reflect their maintenance, but it's absolutely true that, compared to a lot of flight training centers, getting into a nice, recent, air-conditioned Cirrus that's actually clean and where everything works would be a completely different experience for a brand new student pilot and would likely set a different tone for that student's impression of General Aviation.

I recognize the challenges that flight training schools face these days, and don't mean to indict individual schools, but I can certainly understand the impression difference between a current Cirrus and the general run of beater training aircraft available these days.

 

[tspear]

Yeah.. I get that the Cirrus is not the ideal trainer, but if the OP plans to fly one ultimately it makes sense I think to start in Cirrus

Why is not an ideal trainer?

Tim

 

[Ryan F.]

Why is not an ideal trainer?

Tim

It's not an ideal trainer, at least not for those at the private pilot level. I spoke to this at length in my reply.

Key thing to understand about my comments is that they're not designed to slant "negative" on the Cirrus as a trainer. I'm highlighting the challenges involved in choosing that particular path. Can one learn to fly and become a well-rounded private pilot with all the fundamentals in place? Sure... but it's not going to be easy; it'll take more time; and be more expensive. That side of the balance sheet may not be a big deal for the OP.

 

[tspear]

@Ryan F.

I trained in an 04 SR20 G2 (Avidyne PFD/MFD). And yes, the CFI left it on the engine page the vast majority of the time for a large portion of my PPL.
But Cirrus I believe still does scenario based training, and that was the emphasis back when I went for my PPL/IR a decade ago. As such, the training does take longer because of the huge emphasis on ADM that other programs did not have.

I am not an instructor, but I have flow with a fair number of people looking to switch to Cirrus. I always say, take me up in your plane first, just so I can fly another plane. The reality, pretty much every single one that flies what people consider a "trainer" needs a lot of time on final because they never setup the plane correctly. Cirrus, like Bonanza, or Mooney are travel planes; as such you really need a "stable" and consistent approach on landing either in pattern or out. If you are consistent, you will find you have lots of time. A runway that is 3000ft long, you have 1500ft (midfield entry) plus the 1/2 mile passed the numbers, plus 1/2 mile on base, and 1/2 return to the numbers. That gives you almost 2 miles total, at an average of 90 KIAS, at 40 seconds per mile, you have 80 seconds. That is a lot of time.

Based on your approach, you likely are more methodical than most. But when you look around, how many PPL/IR schools are that methodical about the initial approach, pattern entry... How many keep the plane in tight on the runway on normal flights or are they flying "bomber" patterns. How much un-learning do they need to do before switching to a travel plane.

Learning to do this correctly from the start l believe is the lower cost solution.

Tim

 

[tspear]

It's not an ideal trainer, at least not for those at the private pilot level. I spoke to this at length in my reply.

Key thing to understand about my comments is that they're not designed to slant "negative" on the Cirrus as a trainer. I'm highlighting the challenges involved in choosing that particular path. Can one learn to fly and become a well-rounded private pilot with all the fundamentals in place? Sure... but it's not going to be easy; it'll take more time; and be more expensive. That side of the balance sheet may not be a big deal for the OP.

I read your post after responding to @Tantalum I was curious why he stated so.

Tim

 

[PaulS]

It's not an ideal trainer, at least not for those at the private pilot level. I spoke to this at length in my reply.

Key thing to understand about my comments is that they're not designed to slant "negative" on the Cirrus as a trainer. I'm highlighting the challenges involved in choosing that particular path. Can one learn to fly and become a well-rounded private pilot with all the fundamentals in place? Sure... but it's not going to be easy; it'll take more time; and be more expensive. That side of the balance sheet may not be a big deal for the OP.

Ryan, I thought your post was excellent, something to think about. I was wondering if you could talk about how you handle Private checkrides in technically advanced aircraft, specifically, how do you check, or do you check for VOR proficiency. Also, do you require demonstration things like the autopilot, flight director and things like that. I got my ticket way before the ACS came out and was curious.

As far as the 20 versus a slower trainer for initial training, knowing what I know now, I would probably opt for a slower airplane to train in. But, honestly, were I just starting and didn't know, I would go for a 20. At the end of the day, there is probably no difference. The newer 20s have envelop protection too, which may have prevented the latest accident of that student who spun in while in the pattern.

Finally I read a lot about Cirrus pilots getting ragged on for big patterns. I used to fly 1/2 mile patterns, that was in Skippers and 172s. Now I fly about 1 mile patterns unless I'm doing a short approach. If you fly the Cirrus recommended speeds ( you should when flying Cirrus). You are 100 knots abeam the numbers, add half flaps, turn base, where you should be 90 knots, then full flaps, turn to final, 80 to 85 on final until short final. So turns are bigger because you are going faster, too close in and you are either banking more than you should or you overshoot. On top of that, if you have slow traffic in front of you you need to do even a bigger pattern so you don't run them over. It's part of flying and it doesn't take any longer than a smaller pattern in a slow airplane.

 

[tspear]

@PaulS

I wish the 172s would do 1/2 mile approaches. That would be so nice; I normally see them going a mile or sometimes 1.5 miles (you can see them on the fish finder).

Tim

 

[WannFly]

A great point by Ryan above about avionics and getting glued to them. I started in a 172 with G1000, and ended up focusing on the big TV first 5 hours or so. After a CFI change, the new one (that ended up taking me throughout the PPL) showed up and first thing he did was turn both PFD and MFD off, I think that’s the first time I actually learned something about flying.

 

[Tantalum]

Why is not an ideal trainer

I kind of vacillate with this.. part of thinks it's the perfect trainer because of several reasons
(a) Cirrus has a fantastic training and learning program syllabus, much stronger than any I've seen from an instructor
(b) if you learn to fly a faster plane, one that might float, requires discipline to numbers, and is less forgiving of sloppy flying, then that makes you much more ready to either (A) fly a Cirrus as your permanent plane without transition or (B) fly something else faster and higher performance like a Mooney, Columbia/400/TTx or something
^so I generally think learning on a Cirrus will make you a better pilot.. kind of like.. do you learn the piano by first playing nursery rhymes, or do you just go straight to the Mozart and piece your way through note by note line by line

Why it is NOT an ideal trainer
-cost.. at at least $200/hr for an old SR20 at most schools they're much more expensive than most 172/PA28
-learning quality.. the 172/PA28 have very mundane and forgiving characteristics.. unless your training is very disciplined and you're an unusually talented pilot I'm not sure you want a 20 hr person with their solo endorsement out doing practice stalls by themselves in a Cirrus. A 172/PA28 gives you LOTS of warnings that it's unhappy before anything dramatic happens. A Cirrus warns you as well, but your window to assess and correct is thinner. Sitting at Casa Machado (or in the runup areas) you watch many 172 bounce and porpoise their way down the runway. You can't do that in a Cirrus. But maybe it's a chicken or egg thing.. the sloppy planes allow for sloppier training??

Basically, unless someone had plans of owning a Cirrus, Mooney, etc., I would not advise training on one.

left it on the engine page

Funny.. after about 20 hrs in the Cirrus I started doing the same. Between the PFD and all the nav data it already includes, and Foreflight, I found the engine page on the MFD to be much more interesting. Also, SR22 CHTs and fuel flow are a constantly fine tuning act for me.. so it's just easier to leave that page up. In the older Avidyne planes you can leave the top 430 on FPL for easy direct enter-enter and the bottom one for traffic or a map

Cirrus I believe still does scenario based training

The syllabus is fantastic. If only more manufacturers, or instructors, could follow that suit. It's a very nice, standardized, approach to education. I realize their initial accident rate was the genesis of this, but it's a great learning suite they have in the learning management portal

 

[Brad Smith]

They call them "trainers" for a reason. They are for learning the basics and honing those skills (especially footwork) early on so they become second nature. They operate at speeds that allow the student to absorb the experience of flight in a manner they can grasp without too much additional brain loading. Just the basics.
The Cirrus is a high-performance airplane that can tax even an experienced pilot when it comes to keeping up with it. Sure, you can learn to fly in a Cirrus, but your just making it harder on yourself.

 

[dmspilot]

I don't like the idea of giving primary instruction in something where not only are intentional spins prohibited, but the recovery procedure results in totaling the aircraft. Though I supposed this could be remedied by adding a few hours in a different aircraft to the syllabus.

 

[wayne]

I don't like the idea of giving primary instruction in something where not only are intentional spins prohibited, but the recovery procedure results in totaling the aircraft. Though I supposed this could be remedied by adding a few hours in a different aircraft to the syllabus.

Spins are not required for the PPL. I did my PPL training in 172s. They offered a "spin recovery" class. Not required, but recommended. They did it in a Decathlon. Sounded like fun, so I did it. I had a blast.

 

[Tantalum]

I don't like the idea of giving primary instruction in something where not only are intentional spins prohibited, but the recovery procedure results in totaling the aircraft.

Two points:
-Plenty of people train in PA28 and most (that I've flown) prohibit spins, with only a few maneuvers allowed in the utility category (of which spin is not one)
-The Cirrus procedure is to pull the chute not because it *can't* recover but because most idiots flying airplanes with pencil whipped BFRs will not be able to recover from a spin.. so just tell these idiots to pull the red handle and walk away/call an Uber. For what it's worth, the Cirrus has been spun, and was done so for European certification and it exhibited normal spin characteristics

Separate note: kind of goes to my earlier point though that if primary students can't be expected to stall a 172 without spinning it then the Cirrus is not a good platform for primary instruction (without very disciplined instructors/students)

 

[labbadabba]

Cirrus are nice aircraft. Just not many made available for primary training.

I think MillionAir in KHPN trains only in Cirrus aircraft. At least they did...

 

[dmspilot]

Spins are not required for the PPL. I did my PPL training in 172s. They offered a "spin recovery" class. Not required, but recommended. They did it in a Decathlon. Sounded like fun, so I did it. I had a blast.

I didn't say spins were required.

 

[wayne]

I've read everything contained in this thread. I'm a former CSIP, long time flight instructor, and nowadays I give checkrides in all of these airplanes and see pilots at all levels of the airman certification arc. I feel like I'm able to contribute some additional thoughts here which are germane and may be somewhat illustrative.

...

Thanks for that well written response.

I'm not a CFI, but I was thinking along the lines of what you wrote. Just not as thorough or with the perspective of a CFI.

I did the Cirrus transition training well after my PPL; about 320 hrs after my PPL. I had the IR and multi-engine before doing it; and a complex endorsement too. The biggest thing was the avionics. I thought it would take awhile to get use to the sidestick, but after landing at the end of my first lesson in a SR22 I realized that I had hardly even noticed. I had very little glass panel time at that point, but I had largely flown with Garmin 430/530, so that helped.

I didn't find the transition hard. I did need to get used to the STEC-55x, but the planes I had previously had little to no autopilot capabilities. The PFD takes some getting used to for someone that had flown six-pack panels almost the whole time before that. Later I flew a 2002 SR22 with a six-pack; most of my SR22 time is with a six-pack.

Now, if all one has flown is 172 or slower aircraft, there will be more adjustments. It can seem odd the descending from much further away from the airport. When you at at 11,000' with a tailwind and realize that the distance you will cover in descent at 500 fpm is greater than the minimums for a cross-country flight.

If one really wants to buy a SR22 or fly one regularly, get your PPL in a trainer, then do your IR in the SR22. Yeah, it will cost more than in a trainer, but you will learn the avionics well and build hours in the SR22, which insurance and rental companies will like.

 

[PaulS]

Thanks for that well written response.

I'm not a CFI, but I was thinking along the lines of what you wrote. Just not as thorough or with the perspective of a CFI.

I did the Cirrus transition training well after my PPL; about 320 hrs after my PPL. I had the IR and multi-engine before doing it; and a complex endorsement too. The biggest thing was the avionics. I thought it would take awhile to get use to the sidestick, but after landing at the end of my first lesson in a SR22 I realized that I had hardly even noticed. I had very little glass panel time at that point, but I had largely flown with Garmin 430/530, so that helped.

I didn't find the transition hard. I did need to get used to the STEC-55x, but the planes I had previously had little to no autopilot capabilities. The PFD takes some getting used to for someone that had flown six-pack panels almost the whole time before that. Later I flew a 2002 SR22 with a six-pack; most of my SR22 time is with a six-pack.

Now, if all one has flown is 172 or slower aircraft, there will be more adjustments. It can seem odd the descending from much further away from the airport. When you at at 11,000' with a tailwind and realize that the distance you will cover in descent at 500 fpm is greater than the minimums for a cross-country flight.

If one really wants to buy a SR22 or fly one regularly, get your PPL in a trainer, then do your IR in the SR22. Yeah, it will cost more than in a trainer, but you will learn the avionics well and build hours in the SR22, which insurance and rental companies will like.

Actually I did my IR in a 20 g3/g6, it was a great platform for that. Transition from the 20 to the 22 was a piece of cake and I saved myself $100 an hour while training.

I think MillionAir in KHPN trains only in Cirrus aircraft. At least they did...

In the Boston area, there is 4 different places that I am aware of where you can rent a Cirrus. 3 of those places (2 locations for one company and one other company) will conduct primary instruction in a Cirrus. The other may, but I'm not sure.

 

[tspear]

They call them "trainers" for a reason. They are for learning the basics and honing those skills (especially footwork) early on so they become second nature. They operate at speeds that allow the student to absorb the experience of flight in a manner they can grasp without too much additional brain loading. Just the basics.
The Cirrus is a high-performance airplane that can tax even an experienced pilot when it comes to keeping up with it. Sure, you can learn to fly in a Cirrus, but your just making it harder on yourself.

So what plane do you think is a "trainer" that is generally available. Do not pick a plane which market has turned into a trainer because they are cheap and so many of them, but was designed as one for the civilian market. Outside of a few LSAs, I only know of one. The Tecnam twin.
e.g. The C172 was a family travel plane when it started. Until roads expanded and cars got faster and more comfortable, then planes needed more speed.

Tim

 

[tspear]

Why it is NOT an ideal trainer
-cost.. at at least $200/hr for an old SR20 at most schools they're much more expensive than most 172/PA28
-learning quality.. the 172/PA28 have very mundane and forgiving characteristics.. unless your training is very disciplined and you're an unusually talented pilot I'm not sure you want a 20 hr person with their solo endorsement out doing practice stalls by themselves in a Cirrus. A 172/PA28 gives you LOTS of warnings that it's unhappy before anything dramatic happens. A Cirrus warns you as well, but your window to assess and correct is thinner. Sitting at Casa Machado (or in the runup areas) you watch many 172 bounce and porpoise their way down the runway. You can't do that in a Cirrus. But maybe it's a chicken or egg thing.. the sloppy planes allow for sloppier training??

That was me. After 25 hours or so, I was out there flying on my own, including practicing slow flight and stalls.
Really not that scary, fly to the stall horn, not through it.

And yes, I find the C172 promotes sloppy technique; as evidenced by the bouncing landings. If you actually fly a C172 by the book, and land the way Cirrus, Mooney and Bonanza type societies advocate, you will never bounce a C172. The technique is the same for all of them, the sight picture changes; but the technique is the same.

Tim

 

[dmspilot]

That was me. After 25 hours or so, I was out there flying on my own, including practicing slow flight and stalls. Really not that scary, fly to the stall horn, not through it.

If you are recovering at the horn, you aren't practicing stalls.

 

[dmspilot]

So what plane do you think is a "trainer" that is generally available. Do not pick a plane which market has turned into a trainer because they are cheap and so many of them, but was designed as one for the civilian market. Outside of a few LSAs, I only know of one. The Tecnam twin.
e.g. The C172 was a family travel plane when it started. Until roads expanded and cars got faster and more comfortable, then planes needed more speed.

The strategy of a company's marketing department does not determine whether an aircraft makes or doesn't make a good trainer.

 

[tspear]

If you are recovering at the horn, you aren't practicing stalls.

Define stall.
Someone can correct me if I am wrong. But the last few times I discussed stalls with a DPE or CFI they would disagree with your assessment.
From a PPL perspective, not an aerodynamic view, then yes. Going to the stall horn is practicing a "stall event". See https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_120-109A.pdf
Stall warning horns are considered impending stall warning system. As such, this meets FAA criteria for the PPL.
Going past the horn actually makes pilots not react to it; you teach them to ignore it. Then next time they are turning base to final and the horn beeps they ignore it and are now a negative statistic.

Tim

 

[tspear]

The strategy of a company's marketing department does not determine whether an aircraft makes or doesn't make a good trainer.

Then define it. because apparently you know all

Tim

 

[dmspilot]

From a PPL perspective, not an aerodynamic view, then yes. Going to the stall horn is practicing a "stall event". See https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_120-109A.pdf
Stall warning horns are considered impending stall warning system. As such, this meets FAA criteria for the PPL.

This is completely wrong. Student pilots and private pilot applicants are required to be proficient in fully developed stalls and to demonstrate them on the practical test. The proper references are Part 61 and the Private Pilot ACS, not an AC for Part 121 air carriers.

 

[Tantalum]

And yes, I find the C172 promotes sloppy technique

This is my biggest issue with it.. people get away with everything short of murder in those planes. Competent training and disciplined pilots should be cultivated, and the Cirrus might be a great candidate to cultivate that. A proficient pilot who's going to fly to near IFR standards even as a PPL, and can come over the number each time at roughly 75 knots (in a -22) as they start the flare, etc.

It's important to look outside the plane (VFR, head on a swivel, all that), but instruments and precise flying are also important. I've done a fair amount of safety pilot flying for freshly new PPL folks (80-120 hrs) and it's amazing how bad some of these people are at maintaining an altitude or heading or landing the plane competently.. I don't know what's causing what.. loose instruction or a sloppy plane or just less competent new aviators. If its the former or latter then the Cirrus might not be a good plane to learn on for someone

 

[tspear]

This is completely wrong. Student pilots and private pilot applicants are required to be proficient in fully developed stalls and to demonstrate them on the practical test. The proper references are Part 61 and the Private Pilot ACS, not an AC for Part 121 air carriers.

Nope. https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs/media/private_airplane_acs_change_1.pdf
See Page 41 snip below. look at the parentisis for PA VII S3.



Tim

 

[dmspilot]

Nope. https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs/media/private_airplane_acs_change_1.pdf
See Page 41 snip below. look at the parentisis for PA VII S3.

View attachment 86742

That's a slow flight task, not a stall task. Misleading reference.

 

[Tantalum]

I didn't say spins were required.

Then why not provide training in a plane that's prohibited them? The taper wing -161/-181 Cherokees don't allow spins either, yet they make up plenty of the training fleet. If you can "step on the high wing" there's no reason a Cirrus should spin, even in a fully developed falling leaf stall.. the plane will happily just meander it's way back down to earth, so long as you stay on your feet

If it does spin.. the manufacturer wants you to pull the chute; because spins have killed tons of people and pulling a red handle vs rebuilding the training paradigm around spin training is easier.. but the Cirrus does recover just fine from a spin with standard spin recovery techniques. If it's just a fear of getting into a spin I think that says more about the student and instructor, than the merits of a plane as a trainer

Almost all of my last 400 hrs are on Cirrus.. it's a fantastic plane. I'm just not sure it would be right for everyone to train on

 

[PaulS]

A stall is when the wing stops flying and the nose drops. Flying to the horn is ok, you get most of the practice, but getting use to the nose drop really helps in my book, plus dealing with the occasional wing drop, which is a good thing to practice too.

 

[Tantalum]

Now I wonder what the craziest (non military) plane is someone has learned to fly on

If you have oodles of money, is there anything stopping someone from learning on a PC-12/TBM? No type rating required.. so..

 

[tspear]

That's a slow flight task, not a stall task. Obviously, a stall during slow flight would not be desirable. If the only way you feel you can prove a point is by cheating and lying, don't bother to try.

Ah, I love the internet, where communication is at its best. Especially the personal attacks due to assumptions
I stated slow flight and stalls. I was referencing that section. If you mean power on and power off stalls, pages 42 and 43 of the ACS, that was later in my training. And yes, in that case you fly to nose drop. In the Cirrus, that is not much past the stall warning horn. Now in the C172 I did a BFR in a few years ago. Wow. That is all I can say, that horn was going for what seemed like forever.

Oh, and you never answered, what is a perfect training plane.

Tim

 

[tspear]

Now I wonder what the craziest (non military) plane is someone has learned to fly on

If you have oodles of money, is there anything stopping someone from learning on a PC-12/TBM? No type rating required.. so..

I have read of someone getting PPL/IR all the way through in a Citation. Not sure of the veracity.

Tim

 

[dmspilot]

Then why not provide training in a plane that's prohibited them? The taper wing -161/-181 Cherokees don't allow spins either, yet they make up plenty of the training fleet. If you can "step on the high wing" there's no reason a Cirrus should spin, even in a fully developed falling leaf stall.. the plane will happily just meander it's way back down to earth, so long as you stay on your feet

If it does spin.. the manufacturer wants you to pull the chute; because spins have killed tons of people and pulling a red handle vs rebuilding the training paradigm around spin training is easier.. but the Cirrus does recover just fine from a spin with standard spin recovery techniques. If it's just a fear of getting into a spin I think that says more about the student and instructor, than the merits of a plane as a trainer

Almost all of my last 400 hrs are on Cirrus.. it's a fantastic plane. I'm just not sure it would be right for everyone to train on

Sometimes it can be a valuable lesson to let a student experience the wrath of their mistakes. The aforementioned Cherokees can be spun and recovered, just not intentionally. Meanwhile, Cirrus states, "Because the SR20 has not been certified for spin recovery, the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) must be deployed" and "do not waste time and altitude trying to recover from a spiral/spin before activating CAPS" (emphasis mine). How far does an instructor let a student go before applying anti-spin inputs? Becoming an impromptu test pilot is usually not a good thing.

 

[dmspilot]

Ah, I love the internet, where communication is at its best. Especially the personal attacks due to assumptions
I stated slow flight and stalls. I was referencing that section. If you mean power on and power off stalls, pages 42 and 43 of the ACS, that was later in my training. And yes, in that case you fly to nose drop. In the Cirrus, that is not much past the stall warning horn. Now in the C172 I did a BFR in a few years ago. Wow. That is all I can say, that horn was going for what seemed like forever.

Tim

I stated, "Student pilots and private pilot applicants are required to be proficient in fully developed stalls and to demonstrate them on the practical test," which seems to me to be a clear, unambiguous statement. To which you replied "Nope" and tried to support your position with a misleading (IOW, fake) reference. Not sure what part of that constitutes a personal attack.

Oh, and you never answered, what is a perfect training plane.

There is no such thing.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

what is a perfect training plane.

Curtis JN-4

 

[tspear]

I stated, "Student pilots and private pilot applicants are required to be proficient in fully developed stalls and to demonstrate them on the practical test," which seems to me to be a clear, unambiguous statement. To which you replied "Nope" and tried to support your position with a misleading (IOW, fake) reference. Not sure what part of that constitutes a personal attack.

There is no such thing.

My bad. I was thinking of my discussion with @Tantalum about letting student pilots.
The personal line was "If the only way you feel you can prove a point is by cheating and lying, don't bother to try." which made assumptions mostly in a negative manor.

Tim

 

[dmspilot]

My bad. I was thinking of my discussion with @Tantalum about letting student pilots.
The personal line was "If the only way you feel you can prove a point is by cheating and lying, don't bother to try." which made assumptions mostly in a negative manor.

Tim

It seemed like you were being misleading on purpose especially with cropping out the name of the task. If not then I apologize.

 

[tspear]

It seemed like you were being misleading on purpose especially with cropping out the name of the task. If not then I apologize.

No, just replied too fast while doing something else and not paying enough attention.

Tim

 

[Tantalum]

Sometimes it can be a valuable lesson to let a student experience the wrath of their mistakes.

How far does an instructor let a student go before applying anti-spin inputs? Becoming an impromptu test pilot is usually not a good thing.

fair enough, and that's why I said originally that the Cirrus might not be the ideal trainer. It can certainly be done, but you generally wouldn't teach sailing on a boat with an overpowered rigged and grinders. You could, but the experience will be far different than learning on a Capri, etc

My bad. I was thinking of my discussion with @Tantalum about letting student pilots.

Haha, letting student pilots do what?

Still, I have to think that the Cirris death spin with caps only recovery is not that big of a deal, there are plenty of schools that instruct in SR20, by now we would hear of student/spin induced caps pulls I assume

PS - stalling a 172 is a unique experience, the horn comes on, then the one eternity later the buffet comes on, and then another eternity later it finally breaks. You would have to get very far behind the airplane to inadvertently stall it. Like you pointed out though, the window between initial horn and brake is much tighter in the Cirrus

 

[MacFly]

PS - stalling a 172 is a unique experience, the horn comes on, then the one eternity later the buffet comes on, and then another eternity later it finally breaks. You would have to get very far behind the airplane to inadvertently stall it. Like you pointed out though, the window between initial horn and brake is much tighter in the Cirrus

I agree with this. To this day, after 50 years of flying Cessna's, at Flight Reviews, I have to take my cue from the instructor as to when a 172 stalls to his satisfaction.