Why is the Cirrus so dangerous?

I have 3.8 hours in an airplane with autopilot. I had it on for about 15 minutes, I thought "this is nice" and turned it back off
 
It's a tool in the toolbox, not a crutch.
 
Some of my thoughts:

1 Cirrus makes a fine machine, operate it correctly and you'll enjoy a long life.
2 Owner's first "real" airplane. Stepping up from a trainer means you are now in a faster sliperier plane. Things happen faster.
3 Pull the 'chute. Many times it seems that folks wait too long to deploy the CAPS. If you think it's time to pull it, PULL! Once you're in a graveyard spiral or covered in 3" of ice it's too late.
4 The chute doesn't mean go. If you wouldn't take the trip if the CAPS wasn't there don't go.
 
Thoughts on the Ballistic Chute.

A friend of mine used to fly F-4's. He was describing to me the ejection system in that it can be configured for only the pilot to initiate the ejection or for either the pilot or REO (Sorry if that isn't the right term for the back seater) to initiate it. He told me that they always flew with it set to the both setting unless they were giving a ride.

Experience had shown that the pilots tend to be way to optimistic about saving the aircraft and it was extremely rare(if ever) for a REO to initiate the ejection when they probably shouldn't have.

Brian
 
Everskyward said:
But that would be a fault of the training program, not of the airplane.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%.

I can appreciate teaching people to operate the automation but you would think they would also want people to get a feel for the airplane.
Click to expand...
One would think that, especially when selling to pilots with lower experience levels, especially for their first 100 hours or so in type.

Don't they require the students to hand-fly at least some of the approaches? Don't they go out and do airwork like stalls and steep turns?
Click to expand...
Yes, they do, but I don't think the basic flying skills are adequately reinforced the way they are when the transition/type training is done completely by hand before introducing the automation. If it were up to me, the autopilot would be "for emergency use only" for the first 100 hours or so in type, and maybe the first 50 hours of instrument time (whichever comes last).
 
DavidWhite said:
It's a tool in the toolbox, not a crutch.
Click to expand...
...and yet, I had a client on a refresher course in an SR22 who complained to the front office because I would not sign off an IPC until he hand-flew an entire ILS approach to IR PTS standards. Since he hadn't hand-flown an approach of any kind in several years, that took some work, and he didn't appreciate spending the extra time on it even after I showed him the requirement in writing (my safety-based arguments having had no effect).
 
Skylane81E said:
Some of my thoughts:

1 Cirrus makes a fine machine, operate it correctly and you'll enjoy a long life.
2 Owner's first "real" airplane. Stepping up from a trainer means you are now in a faster sliperier plane. Things happen faster.
3 Pull the 'chute. Many times it seems that folks wait too long to deploy the CAPS. If you think it's time to pull it, PULL! Once you're in a graveyard spiral or covered in 3" of ice it's too late.
4 The chute doesn't mean go. If you wouldn't take the trip if the CAPS wasn't there don't go.
Click to expand...
Good advice.
 
onwards said:
So... from someone who has never flown one, I had this interesting discussion with a new club member a couple weeks back. He literally just got his ticket (with about 150 hours in), and took a demo flight in an SR20.

He was absolutely thrilled with it. Said he might just buy one, since it just beats the heck out of anything else. I had just gone through my transition training to a fixed-gear 182 (and high-perf endorsement), and was trying to say how steep of a learning curve that was for me, handling the bigger, more capable plane. Then he said the thing that really stuck in mind: "you don't understand, with the Cirrus, you don't have to fly the thing at all. Soon as you're 200ft off the ground, it flies itself, and the same for landing. The technology is awesome!"

I still want to fly the 182 a while longer before I try something as powerful as the Cirrus. AFAIK, he is moving forward on his purchase. All he's flown thus far was a Cherokee and a 172. It made me nervous. That comment really stayed with me, because I want to try to fly the Cirrus, but not if I can't FLY it, if you know what I mean. I felt a little sheepish after that discussion for being a worrywart. Anyway, for what it's worth, this discussion brought that other one back vividly.
Click to expand...


I'm a low time pilot 150 hrs, and have about 10 hrs in the sr20, all dual cc. I felt it was easier to fly than the newer 182 I fly sometimes. It definitely makes you "feel" in control but I never looked at weather or flight planning differently.

The OP might be able to answer part of the question by posting the cause of each of those cirrus accidents.
 
TMetzinger said:
Similar sentiments are used to explain why the WINGS and AOPA ASF and other safety seminars haven't further reduced the fatal accident rate.

I'm going to invent a new cartoon character - General Blockhead - based on your description. Should he be an Army or an Air Force or a Marine General?
Click to expand...

To quote my retired friend who used to work at the GAO & the Pentagon,

"The Army consists of Good Ole Boys from the Deep South, the Navy is full of New England scions, and the Air Force are surfer dudes from Southern California".

Or, as was explained - "There are 3 military organizations and one corporation".
 
brcase said:
Thoughts on the Ballistic Chute.

A friend of mine used to fly F-4's. He was describing to me the ejection system in that it can be configured for only the pilot to initiate the ejection or for either the pilot or REO (Sorry if that isn't the right term for the back seater)
Click to expand...
That's how it's pronounced, but the actual term (at least for USN/USMC) for the F-4/F-14 back-seaters was Radar Intercept Officer, or RIO. However, they now use the term Weapons Systems Officer (WSO, pronounced "wizzo") in the 2-crew F-18F's. In the USAF/ANG, it's always been WSO for the fighter types in the F-4/F-111/F-15E, and EWO (ee-woe, for Electronic Warfare Officer) in the F-105G/F-4G Wild Weasel SAM hunters and EF-111A Raven jammers.

to initiate it. He told me that they always flew with it set to the both setting unless they were giving a ride.
Click to expand...
...to a non-rated passenger. That's pretty much how we did it in the RF-4C's, too. Only time I ever flew with the command selector valve closed was one time when a knob came loose during a dogfight and landed on the banana links on top of my seat, where pressure on those links could fire my seat. We didn't want to lose a perfectly good jet over something like that.

Of course, in the F-111, when either handle is pulled, the whole capsule goes with everybody in it.

Experience had shown that the pilots tend to be way to optimistic about saving the aircraft and it was extremely rare(if ever) for a REO to initiate the ejection when they probably shouldn't have.
Click to expand...
Pretty much true. In fact, I know of one case in the A-6 (which has no command ejection system) where the pilot initiated an ejection he most definitely should not have, leaving the B/N (bomardier/navigator) all by himself -- halfway down the catapult. After a brief attempt at flying the plane by reaching across to the pilot's side stick (no right seat controls in the Intruder), the B/N punched out about a mile in front of the ship and was picked up by the trailing plane guard destroyer.

The pilot lost his wings for ejecting without a word to his B/N in a panic reaction to two blown tires. Believe me, when you've got 1000-degree 1200 psi steam pushing, a couple of blown tires doesn't slow you down much at all. BTDT on my very first cat shot in 1974, and no, my incident was not the one about which I wrote above. My pilot kept flying, we came around for a visual inspection fly-by, then trapped (my first trap), shut down in the wires, got tugged off the landing area to the elevator, struck below, and parked on the hangar deck where we climbed out to look at what happened (not much -- two new wheels and it flew later the same day). 0.2, 1 cat, 1 trap -- my first carrier flight.:goofy:
 
murphey said:
"The Army consists of Good Ole Boys from the Deep South, the Navy is full of New England scions, and the Air Force are surfer dudes from Southern California".
Click to expand...
You'd be amazed how many farm boys from Nebraska the Navy attracts. Guess they want a change of scenery.

Or, as was explained - "There are 3 military organizations and one corporation".
Click to expand...
Having been Marine-trained and then served in both the Navy and the Air Force, ain't no doubt in my military mind about that. Who's got a link to that image of a USAF aircraft carrier -- the one with the golf course on the flight deck.
 
Ron Levy said:
...and yet, I had a client on a refresher course in an SR22 who complained to the front office because I would not sign off an IPC until he hand-flew an entire ILS approach to IR PTS standards. Since he hadn't hand-flown an approach of any kind in several years, that took some work, and he didn't appreciate spending the extra time on it even after I showed him the requirement in writing (my safety-based arguments having had no effect).
Click to expand...

That's scary.
 
Ron Levy said:
Having been Marine-trained and then served in both the Navy and the Air Force, ain't no doubt in my military mind about that. Who's got a link to that image of a USAF aircraft carrier -- the one with the golf course on the flight deck.
Click to expand...
No kidding..... my favorite joke is the one about how we build bases.

The Navy will build the piers first then the ship support facilities and run out of money before any of the MWR stuff is built....which never gets built because it isn't a priority when money is tight.

The Air Force goes in and builds all the recreational and family support stuff first and when they run out of money then go and ask for more because they still need to build the runway!
 
Not quibbling, but a 400 hour pilot has twice the time I had when I graduated from military flight school. Not a newbe, but I wouldn't call them high time. The type of time is just as important. PIC, cross country, in different weather conditions, and instrument time is what it would take to develop good decision making skills.

We were flying 45 to 60 hours a month over seas. We weren't just going on cross country trips, we were in an area of enemy operations. Even in the States, we seldom just flew somewhere. There was usually training or a mission involved unless you were a transportation fella.

As has been discussed before on here, time in the plane is also important. That first 100 hours seems to be most dangerous.

When one starts making long, cross country trips at higher altitudes in instrument weather conditions, a lot of skill are drawn on and it takes time to acquire the knowledge to evaluate everything and develop judgement.

What's the saying: It's through experience we avoid making mistakes: making mistakes is how one develops experience; (where you want to make mistakes is with an instructor on board, in a sim or when you have several outs.)

Best,

Dave
 
Art VanDelay said:
Cirrus aircraft are a lot like pit bulls - all depends on the owners. Actually I see a great deal of similar marketing tactics going on with the LSA Icon aircraft. I believe if they ever get their weight issues sorted out (and that's a big if) we will see a huge number of accidents with that airplane. Having twenty hour pilots driving around in an airplane where sometimes you should land with the gear up and sometimes you should land with the gear down is an invitation to disaster.
Click to expand...

Show me a 20 hour pilot driving around in an LSA.

How many people get their PP in 40 hours? A lot fewer will get a SP in 20. The requirements for some parts of the training are a bit lighter (no night, eh?), but learning to fly the airplane is still learning to fly the airplane. And something amphibious is going to take even longer still.

20 hours is marketing fiction.
 
This whole question seems to come up perennially and I think it could be better re-phrased: "Why do pilots buy high-performance birds and then don't keep their skills up enough not to kill themselves in them?"

In the 90s it was the "Forked tail Doctor killer", the V-tail Bonanzas. In the modern era, the Cirrus is getting that moniker. As the record shows above, the Mooneys and others killed nearly as many people... it's really a performance aircraft problem.

My answer: A lot of people with money are attracted to shiny things they don't want to take the time to learn to operate. Note the number of shiny Lexii and/or BMWs with drivers who couldn't possibly make those vehicles perform to their maximum capabilities if they tried. It's not limited to aviation.
 
Here's the real problem - You can buy the plane but you really can't buy the experience - that only comes with time (yes, that costs money too, but hopefully you can see my point).

The problem is that the people who can afford to buy these planes don't generally have the time to devote to being proficient AND current in the plane.
 
Ron Levy said:
You'd be amazed how many farm boys from Nebraska the Navy attracts. Guess they want a change of scenery.
Click to expand...

Dad's ex-Navy and a land-locked farm kid from South Dakota and Colorado.

His decision was based on choosing his job and not getting drafted to the jungles of Vietnam as a grunt, since his number was about to come up...
 
In the F-4 the valve in the back seat that controlled the ejection sequence was called the 'command selector valve'. When open the back seater also ejected the front seater, when closed, the back seater left on his own.

The back seat always ejected if the front seater ejected. The front seat always fired first in this mode

When I was an F-4 Electronic Warfare Officer (EWO) I always preferred to fly with the handle closed, but I never ever told that to my pilots.

Most, but not all, pilots preferred to fly with the command selector open. A few wanted it closed. This seemed to hurt a lot of back seater feelings, but I never felt that way.

I was willing to buy the bar if I decided to walk home and the pilot was subsequently able to recover the airplane and land on his own.

I have a very close friend who was an F-4G EWO. One day he was flying with a senior officer who wanted the selector valve left closed.

Their F-4G caught fire, and the pilot didn't want to eject, even though the boldface said 'if fire is confirmed eject'. My friend did something I would never have done, he looked in the mirrors, saw the flames, opened the valve and ejected them both.

As they ejected the F-4 went violently out of control in roll. The pilot escaped unharmed, but my friend was seriously injured when his seat separated and punched through his parachute as it was deploying.

His pilot latter said that my friend saved his life by opening the command selector against the pilot's instructions.

To get back on topic, I wonder how many Cirri chute deployments have been made outside of the tested airspeed/altitude envelope?

PS: I once flew an F-4 that was a former Thunderbird. It's command selector valve had a third position - 'off'. In this position the rear ejection seat was disabled.
 
kgruber said:
Because it is a high performance airplane sold to low performance pilots.
Click to expand...

Bingo! We have a winner!

This is why the RV 10 is a superior airplane. Very forgiving wing. Low speed stalls / landings, no adverse flight characteristics if you close the doors properly. :rolleyes:


Did I mention the RV 10 costs less, is experimental (that is a good thing), and you can burn car gas? :D
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
If it were up to me, the autopilot would be "for emergency use only" for the first 100 hours or so in type, and maybe the first 50 hours of instrument time (whichever comes last).
Click to expand...

That'd not be a bad idea. I use the autopilot as little as possible over the first 50 hours I get into a new aircraft. I make sure I'm familiar with its operation so I can hit it on if there's a good reason to, and otherwise I hand fly the plane and get to know it.

Makes a big difference.
 
There have been periods in aviation where we'd be saying this about any number of airplanes which really were well designed, just flown by inexperienced pilots.

Frankly, I don't get it. I'd rather have a Bonanza or Mooney than a Cirrus any day of the week. It makes no sense to me, spending >$300k on a 4 place single that does 155kts.

Same applies to the TTx, $750k for a piston single with a 900lb useful load? It baffles me people pay these prices for these airplanes.
 
All I have to say to the ignorant "plastic" references to the cirrus being a composite airplane, and using that to slam cirrus because of pilot error, is why don't you look up Bonanza fatalities when that airplane became popular, it might surprise you.
 
Adodero said:
I'd rather have a Bonanza or Mooney than a Cirrus any day of the week. It makes no sense to me, spending >$300k on a 4 place single that does 155kts.

Same applies to the TTx, $750k for a piston single with a 900lb useful load? It baffles me people pay these prices for these airplanes.
Click to expand...

According to the numbers from Wikipedia:
In 2006 a new Beechcraft Bonanza (~176 kts, 1133 lbs useful) sold for ~$700k.
In 2008 a new Mooney Acclaim (~237 kts, 1004 lbs useful) sold for ~$580k.
In 2009 a new Cirrus SR22 (~185 kts, 1174 lbs useful) sold for ~$530k.

Perhaps your preference for Bonanza and Mooney airplanes refers to airplanes built decades ago - well before Cirrus existed. When compared to aircraft of similar vintage and mission profile, it seems to me Cirrus models have been roughly comparable to their peers value-wise.
 
Everskyward said:
But that would be a fault of the training program, not of the airplane. (...) Don't they go out and do airwork like stalls and steep turns?
Click to expand...
I found that I am extremely good at procrastinating at this kind of work, especially since it costs money. So in the end I just go alone around the pattern and few times, check off soft field, short field landings, and wrap it up. I am afraid that my upcoming tailwheel class is going to open with a large chunk of remedial stick and rudder.
 
Inverted said:
All I have to say to the ignorant "plastic" references to the cirrus being a composite airplane, and using that to slam cirrus because of pilot error, is why don't you look up Bonanza fatalities when that airplane became popular, it might surprise you.
Click to expand...

I believe that we have already established that the Bonanza had similar issues to those now being experienced with the Cirri, and further, that the Cirrus is a "dangerous" aircraft only when it has a pilot exercising poor judgment.

I love my Bonanza; I've flown in Cirrus aircraft, and they are marvelous birds, too.
 
DavidWhite said:
I have 3.8 hours in an airplane with autopilot. I had it on for about 15 minutes, I thought "this is nice" and turned it back off
Click to expand...
Remember that 33U had an autopilot, too... we flew it to 50R and you had the same reaction then as well so you may have more like 5 hours.

Ryan
 
The rudders are the pedal-looking things on the floor, usually two of them at each pilot station. Since you haven't ever needed them before, I think you'll soon come to know why the paint is worn off the pedals in taildraggers while those in trikes always look like they are new. :wink2:
zaitcev said:
I found that I am extremely good at procrastinating at this kind of work, especially since it costs money. So in the end I just go alone around the pattern and few times, check off soft field, short field landings, and wrap it up. I am afraid that my upcoming tailwheel class is going to open with a large chunk of remedial stick and rudder.
Click to expand...
 
Geico266 said:
This is why the RV 10 is a superior airplane. Very forgiving wing. Low speed stalls / landings, no adverse flight characteristics if you close the doors properly. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I haven't flown an RV10 yet, but the characteristics you attribute to it are no different than my experience with the Cirrus SR-series. OTOH, you can be reasonably sure that any SR22 will fly just like any other SR22; you do not have that same assurance with Experimental/Amateur-Built aircraft.
 
denverpilot said:
Heh... yes, it explains the OP's question perfectly. :rofl:

"Cirrus are dangerous because back and front-seaters in F4s can't figure out who's going out first."

:dunno: :lol:
Click to expand...
Actually, the back-seater always goes first -- it's designed that way, no matter who pulls the handle. The issue is preventing interseat and seat/canopy collisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top