Cirrus vs. Columbia

[mitsdriver]

My thanks to everyone for their input so far.

BTW, Why does the SR-22 have such a high accident rate? Is it a relatively diffcult airplane to fly or is it just another example of people with bigger checkbooks than logbooks?

 

[FlyingSkip]

Looking at the NTSB accident log, and factoring in how many of them darn things have been sold and are flying every day, I don't think the accident rate on the SRs is anything exceptional. With that said, several of the incidents/accidents I've read about HAVE been guys who have let the aircraft (which is WICKED easy to fly and CAN instill a false sense of security!) get ahead of their own knowledge. There have been other posts on here with people slamming the SRs, and probably will with the Columbias et al because they want to blame the technology for pilot errors. By that I mean, they wouldn't have made the error if the airplane didn't have all this whiz-bang stuff and let them put themselves into that situation. IMHO, that's a crock! People do stupid stuff every day, whether it's drinking and getting behind the wheel of a car, putting dangerous substances into their bodies (from cocaine through double cheeseburgers!) or flying beyond their experience and training level. You can't blame an aircraft for these incidents---put the blame where it needs to be, squarely on the shoulders of the dumases who made the bad decisions!

Some of the people I run into when I'm on the road are the modern-day followers to the old "Doctor Killer" Bonanza days, as you put it "bigger checkbooks than logbooks". Unfortunately, until we can outlaw stupidity and keep the culprits on the ground, there will be people who will run Cirri and Columbias and Cessnas and Maules and... well, you get the idea. They'll crash perfectly good airplanes because of their own stupidity. Pray for them and try to stay out of their way!

 

[mzaharis]

Totally forgot - here's a comparison review of a Columbia 350 vs a Cirrus SR22 from IFR magazine.

http://www.chesavtraining.com/Cirrus-vs-Lancair.htm

EDIT - just noticed that he updated the article to include some comments on the G-1000.

Here's a review of the SR22 from the same author and magazine:

http://chesavtraining.com/Articles/Dennstaedt_SR22.pdf

Here's a review of the 400 from the same author and magazine:

http://chesavtraining.com/Articles/Dennstaedt_Columbia400.pdf

All were done using Avidyne versions of the Columbias.

 

[MAJIC9]

A friend of mine looked at both (Columbia 300 back then and 22) and bought the Cirrus..... then upgraded to SR-22GTS recently. Not sure what this tells you -- he (and me too!) loves it and isnt' showing any signs of regret

 

[FlyingToIST]

Oh boy,
don't even get me started on insurance companies about Cirrus. They wanted 1000 TT/ 500 Instruction and 250 HP for a Sr20 CFI. I guess they don't know that people are hiring into some regionals with hours lower than that. Also, why request a HP on an aircraft that is not an HP?
This is the underwriter request.. I won't mention any names but the name goes with a rising bird from ashes

 

[groundpointsix]

I think the insurance minimums you were given seem a little high even for the cirrus. We have a customer at our FBO with a cirrus and the open pilot minimums for his plane are 500TT and 10 in type.

 

[FlyingToIST]

I think the insurance minimums you were given seem a little high even for the cirrus. We have a customer at our FBO with a cirrus and the open pilot minimums for his plane are 500TT and 10 in type.

There are some reasons for the higher minimums:
- I have been in business only for 2 years. So that plays against me a lot.
- I have a very bad underwriting company that doesn't even want me to operate high performace or complex airplanes before i can actually show them some history.
- Aviation insurance doesn't work like car insurance. Places that you can go to as an alternative are limited. I currently have only one competitor underwriter and i am not even sure if i switching to them next year will be a good option.
- No insurance company quotes you mid term.
- The underwriter doesn't like Cirrus because of the parachute.

 

[mcjohn]

- The underwriter doesn't like Cirrus because of the parachute.

Yeah, no sh!t. As a CFI, imagine if your student was showing up wearing a chute and harness for a non-aerobatic lesson. You might reconsider signing this wing nut off.

The parachute concept is so strange. I was walking through the lobby of the FBO the other day and a SR22 guy was talking to a group of people about how safe the aircraft is because of the chute and how easy it's gonna be for them to have peace of mind flying it.
My 2 cents: If you're so darn afraid of small GA aircraft that you have to have a chute on a plane then just wear a freakin chute and harness for cryin out loud. Better yet, when you show up to hop on a small regional wear a chute and harness!?

 

[FlyingSkip]

Missing the Point...

J-Mac, I gotta call you out on this one cuz I think you're missing the point.

The Cirrus Airframe Parachute Sytem (CAPS). The rationale behind having this critter on the airplane is quite simple. It isn't a fear of small GA airplanes or an omen that something is going to happen or an opening to fly beyond either the pilot's or the aircraft's capabilities...It's simply a piece of safety equipment that in the right (I guess that should be WRONG!) circumstances could possibly help to save someone's life. It's that simple. It's not a cure for cancer, it's not going to make your grandmother's breasts sag less, it's not a license to go out unprepared for a flight or to fly into conditions that don't warrant it---it's simply another piece of gear that helps to make the flight just that little bit safer. As a pilot, I know that there are very few circumstances where I'm actually going to deploy the parachute, but in those situations (engine failure at night hard IFR over mountains or water, birdstrike through the glass that blinds me, after a midair to name a few I've thought about) it's nice to know it's there. That's as a pilot. Now, look at it from the viewpoint of the passenger/s. We get all excited about multiple engines, etc as safety enhancements, but someone who doesn't fly only knows that if something happens to the guy in the left seat he's done sooner or later, no matter how many engines take him to the scene of the crash. Does this happen frequently...Oh sure, you hear about them every day, right? But you have to realize that in THIS GUY'S mind, it's a possibility and it leaves him with no options. Until the parachute is there... Part of my passenger brief is, and I quote myself: "The Parachute System is now armed (after I take out the safety pin). It will remain under my control at all times unless I am incapacitated. If this occurs and I am unable to respond to you or fly the plane, then you would pull these two levers to the rear (I indicate the throttle and the mixture) and then pull the CAPS handle firmly and steadily until you hear the rocket ignite and the parachute deploys. At that point sit up straight, make sure your seat belt and shoulder harness are as secure as you can make them, and then plan on opening the doors and exiting the aircraft after it is securely on the ground or at rest".

Am I scaring them, giving them nightmares for days or saying in any way that this aircraft is splendiforous because it has this whiz-bang neato system onboard. No. I'm simply giving them an opportunity to....Gawd, I hate to use these liberal, bullsmack politically-correct terms, but here goes!...an opportunity to be empowered that if everything goes to crap they can have some say over whether they live or die. That's it.

Don't be a Luddite and pooh-pooh systems that can keep people alive, simply because some people talk about them in the wrong terms, or even worse other dumases use them as an excuse to fly without using good judgement. Anything, I repeat ANYTHING that I can have onboard my aircraft that might save me, my passengers or somebody on the ground is good gear as far as I'm concerned. As my old USMC Platoon Commander used to say..."Laminate it, take it to the field, might save your life someday".

 

[mtrv]

Don't be a Luddite and pooh-pooh systems that can keep people alive, simply because some people talk about them in the wrong terms, or even worse other dumases use them as an excuse to fly without using good judgement. Anything, I repeat ANYTHING that I can have onboard my aircraft that might save me, my passengers or somebody on the ground is good gear as far as I'm concerned. As my old USMC Platoon Commander used to say..."Laminate it, take it to the field, might save your life someday".

Good points! Just last week, another airplane crashed into a field, but only a few hundred feet from a residence, after the pilot had been in-capacitated for quite some time, and ran out of fuel.

Now imagine a passenger in this scenario with no piloting experience, or a pilot suffering a heart attack, that might have a chance of pulling the BRS system. Two scenarios where the outcome might be better than just diving or spinning full steam into someone's occupied home -------------which just happened to happen in the last two weeks too!

 

[drinkduff77]

I could be wrong but wasn't CAPS supposed to be an alternative to spin recovery design and testing? I think that was the real reason behind it and the added safety in situations such as pilot incapacitation or loss of flight control, etc. was just a welcomed byproduct of the design.

-'duff

 

[FlyingSkip]

Talked to a couple Cirrus factory guys, and I'll buy you a beer if you can get them to admit to that line (although I've heard it myself and would never argue the point!). They simply state that the CAPS is appropriate in multiple potential emergency situations INCLUDING inescapable spins. Whatever. I have it on good authority that Beech looked at parachutes more than 15 years ago for new Bonanzas and Barons and that the idea was shot down by corporate legal types who envisioned all the lawsuits from people flying older models w/out the parachutes. "If this was such a great idea for your new planes why didn't you put it in my '51 A36 back in the day?! I want $20 million!" Supposedly both Cessna and Piper have "Cirrus Killers" in development because they're reeling from the sales success of the SR-20/22s. Any bets on whether they'll incorporate something along the lines of CAPS/BRS if they can say it's a "totally new" model and not something that would come back to bite them legally such as an add-on to an existing airframe, ie Skylane, Saratoga etc.?

 

[mtrv]

I could be wrong but wasn't CAPS supposed to be an alternative to spin recovery design and testing? I think that was the real reason behind it and the added safety in situations such as pilot incapacitation or loss of flight control, etc. was just a welcomed byproduct of the design.

-'duff

Here is a link to spins & FAA certification of the Cirrus/BRS

http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/2003/sp0302.html

I do know from an article on the development of the Cirrus, that the chute idea was there from the beginning. It was demonstrated to work in 1997 & FAA certified in the latter part of 1998. Wish I could find a link to this article.

 

[kaj837]

Oh boy,
don't even get me started on insurance companies about Cirrus. They wanted 1000 TT/ 500 Instruction and 250 HP for a Sr20 CFI. I guess they don't know that people are hiring into some regionals with hours lower than that. Also, why request a HP on an aircraft that is not an HP?
This is the underwriter request.. I won't mention any names but the name goes with a rising bird from ashes

Not having flown a Cirrus yet, I have little to add, but I am aware of a company in Orlando, Fl that rents SR-22's with the following minima: PPL with Instrument, 250 tt ot 150 hrs in a Cirrus Aircraft, 3 to's and ldg's in an SR-22 in previous 90 days, and they require that complete their Cirrus trasition course, and have a proficiency check with them in the previous 12 months. Apparently their insurance carrier is a bit more liberal. None of those requirements seems terribly out of line. Incidentally, I have no connection with them, I just happened to see their website. http://www.flyairorlando.com/index.htm

 

[FearlessFreep]

I just came back from a visit to a friend that has a Cirrus for sale. We took it around the patch once and I got very little stick time in it (downwind/base/final/landing). It was my first experience in the aircraft. These are my impressions:

First off the seating position is really weird.

Can't adjust the seat height.

All that fancy avionics just seem to be overkill. Had to sit there for about 2.5 minutes for everything to get spun up before you can even taxi.

The egronomics are just flat goofy.

Seems to fly ok, I could see how some could prang it. My landing was kinda dropped in - mind you I have not flown a small aircraft for a while (I fly 74's) so my sight picture was not completely dialed in. It was my impression that the different seating position may be a factor as when I flew a 172 after flying the 74 for a while I did not have that problem, mind you I do have lots of experience in 172's and only about 3 minutes in a Cirrus.

It's pretty quiet - did not have headsets on in the aircraft and the noise level was not ear splitting

Great visibility

Rear seat passenger said it was the most comfortable small aircraft they had ever rode in.

No steerable nosewheel seems pretty chintzy on such an expensive aircraft.

To me it just seems a bit different from most other aircraft I have flown. The biggest gripe I have it the buggy seating position among other issues. Don't like the single lever engine control. Like the ability to be able to tweak stuff as needed. The avionics bootup needs to be faster - don't need to be sitting there on the ground burning very expensive fuel while everything spools up.

Seems pretty fast - though like I said did not have a lot of time in the aircraft.

As to the insurance - from what my friend said there is a substantial difference in the rates for the SR22 versus the SR20 like 18K a year versus 7K a year. Yeoww! He also said that the insurance companies were wanting to see more total time and time in type before the rates would come down. Supposedly there have been a number of losses that negatively affected the insurance companies.

The BRS chute is in my opinion a good idea though should probably be used only as an absolute last resort. Once you deploy it you are along for the ride as there is nothing that you can control while under canopy.

Don't know anything about the Columbia.

 

[BluDevAv8r]

I thought that they were supposed to be less to insure because of the lack of retractable gear and the silly parachute system.

There is nothing silly about the CAPS system whatsoever.

But it wouldn't surprise me if that changed rapidly seeing as how folks have pulled the chute on final or inside of a severe thunderstorm.

Can you find me the accident report of either of those 2 instances? I can't seem to find either. I might be looking in the wrong place but I don't ever recall hearing of a deployment in either of those 2 situations.

But yea...if I was flying over the mountains (especially at night) and I had some sort of engine or flight control problem, I'm pretty sure I'd use that silly system you speak of, then use that extra time floating to the earth to radio to ATC or an overhead aircraft of my lat/long so that the rescue choppers could be dispatched.

I've never flown a Columbia but I have loved almost every hour of my 150 hours in the SR22. Great airplane and great company.

-Neal

 

[JimNtexas]

My wife (and I suspect a lot of others) really like the idea of the parachute. I'm sure that wives have driven a lot of Cirrus sales.

What's the envelope for chute deployment? Can the chute be deployed from normal cruise flight or must one slow down?

 

[FlyingSkip]

Max DEMONSTRATED CAPS deployment speed is the same as maneuvering speed at max gross, 133kts, with a normal cruise in the 22 of about 185 plus or minus a couple. So, you're supposed to slow it down if possible.

Anecdotally, at least one deployment took place at over 200 kts in a dive and was successful. The system is designed to open sequentially over a period of several seconds, the idea being that the partially open 'chute won't create undue stress for the first couple seconds, and then it will fully deploy. My boss has been through the motion simulator and says that deployment from cruise flight creates a definite pitch up at first, and then the a/c rocks back under the fully-deployed chute and then comes down vertically in a level attitude. BTW, that's one thing a lot of people are surprised to learn at first---when they see the rocket/chute assembly is behind the baggage compartment, they think it will end up hanging nose down from the tail, swinging back and forth like a lead weight at the end of a fishing line!

All in all, it's kinda like those brightly-colored ones long ago---one handle I arm every flight and hope like heck I never have to pull!

 

[mcjohn]

J-Mac, I gotta call you out on this one cuz I think you're missing the point.

It's not a cure for cancer, it's not going to make your grandmother's breasts sag less

Doh!!!!:laugh: Thanks for going easy on me there Skip. I'd just as soon wear the chute. That all. I'd love to fly the ol Cirrus and when the time comes I might be hittin ya up for a job. Ya know, if the chute marketing has made Cirrus so successfull then I think I need to get into the chute business and out of the flyin!! I have no beef with the chute. I'm just hearing the folks down stairs sling the same old sales pitch over and over. "If your wings fall off just pull the chute." "If you someone has a heart attack in the cockpit pull the chute!" "If your engine quits pull the chute!" And I think it's that last one that really gets me. If your engine quits:
A airspeed best glide and trim for it
B best field and set up for it
C checklists for restart/emergency landing

Not PULL THE CHUTE!

O.K....O.K...if your over water or rugger terrain pull the chute.

 

[BluDevAv8r]

"If you someone has a heart attack in the cockpit pull the chute!" "If your engine quits pull the chute!" And I think it's that last one that really gets me. If your engine quits:
A airspeed best glide and trim for it
B best field and set up for it
C checklists for restart/emergency landing

Not PULL THE CHUTE!

What if it was night time? What if you were over the mountains? What if you were over water? What if you didn't know what you were over? What if it was IMC with 200 OVC?

-Neal