Cirrus vs. Columbia

[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

 

[mcjohn]

pull The Chute !

 

[BluDevAv8r]

pull The Chute !

But you just said "not pull the chute." Which is it?

 

[mcjohn]

Pool the Shoot. Shoot the pool. Poot the Shool....I dunno..my head hurts!:nuts:

 

[FlyingSkip]

I just wish I had the kind of coin to be able to afford either one of these fine airplanes instead of being a "professional pilot" and relegating myself to a lifetime of flying something someone else owns cuz I'll never be able to have one of my own!!!

Although I've always liked that line about "if it flies, floats or *****, rent it don't buy it". I had a wise man tell me that one time and I haven't been able to prove him wrong no matter how hard I've tried!!!

 

[siucavflight]

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

The Cirrus is high performance, it puts out 310 HP, which is over the 200 that requires a hp endorsement.

 

[FlyingToIST]

The Cirrus is high performance, it puts out 310 HP, which is over the 200 that requires a hp endorsement.

All you had to do is to go to www.cirrusdesign.com and see the specs of the airplanes. Go there, see them and we'll talk later

 

[BluDevAv8r]

The Cirrus is high performance, it puts out 310 HP, which is over the 200 that requires a hp endorsement.

The SR22 has a 310hp engine but he was talking about the SR20, which has a 200hp engine, thus, no HP endorsement required.

-Neal

 

[siucavflight]

All you had to do is to go to www.cirrusdesign.com and see the specs of the airplanes. Go there, see them and we'll talk later

I thought that we were talking about the SR-22, not the SR-20 Because you really can not compare the SR-20 to anything that is in the Columbia line.

 

[BushwickBill]

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

Those are fine mins to rent but the 1k 500 given HP endorsement is for instruction in the aircraft. Insurance underwriters make a killing off of instruction. I'm suprised they dont require the $5K factory CFI training course. There is an acronym for it but I don't remember it it. If I had 5k to spare I would take a 208 course at flight safety.

 

[mcjohn]

I flew as safety pilot today in a SR22. Any reason I can't log that as PIC? The guy was making horrible hand flown instrument approaches in the thing so I was acting purley as a CFII even though I'm not one.

 

[BluDevAv8r]

I flew as safety pilot today in a SR22. Any reason I can't log that as PIC? The guy was making horrible hand flown instrument approaches in the thing so I was acting purley as a CFII even though I'm not one.

Why can't you...as a CFI-A...log that as dual given? Even if you were in the clouds you can log flights as dual-given if you aren't a CFII. The only thing you need a CFII for is to give IPC's and sign off students for the IFR checkride. Perhaps I am missing something here but that is always what I thought the CFR's allowed and provided for on this issue.

-Neal

 

[Gutenberg]

I'll take the columbia 300/350 over the 22 any day.
Cirrus-
chincy plastic dash
easily cracked wheel fairings ($1800 a set)
crappy factory support
no prop control
hard to steer on the ground
comm 2 antenna barely gets a signal out on the ground
cheap gap seals (well, not inexpensive, but broken easily)

Columbia-
better composite engineering
more "solid" interior
prop knob for better control of power settings
cooler looking
better feel
speed brakes
easier to steer in the ground

BTW, if Diamond made an HP version of the DA 40, it would blow both away.


This is scientific fact and is not up for argument or discussion

 

[Luxor Two]

Ok Turd..............


Ever pass your 135 cirrus ride yet?

 

[mcjohn]

Why can't you...as a CFI-A...log that as dual given? Even if you were in the clouds you can log flights as dual-given if you aren't a CFII. The only thing you need a CFII for is to give IPC's and sign off students for the IFR checkride. Perhaps I am missing something here but that is always what I thought the CFR's allowed and provided for on this issue.

-Neal

Yeah, I know I can log it as dual given. I'm questioning the high performance aspect of it. I don't have the HP endorsement but I'm pretty sure that doesn't matter. Just so long as I have the ASEL rating should be fine right?!
If not, then ehhh.....that was an SR20!

 

[JimNtexas]

I flew as safety pilot today in a SR22. Any reason I can't log that as PIC? The guy was making horrible hand flown instrument approaches in the thing so I was acting purley as a CFII even though I'm not one.

If you don't have a HP endorsement, then you could not have been the 'real' FAR 1 PIC.

Since you were safety pilot you were not manipulating the controls, so you could not LOG PIC as sole manipulator.

Therefore you were a required crewmember during the time the PIC had the hood on and can log SIC.

 

[Learsforsale]

If you don't have a HP endorsement, then you could not have been the 'real' FAR 1 PIC.

Since you were safety pilot you were not manipulating the controls, so you could not LOG PIC as sole manipulator.

Therefore you were a required crewmember during the time the PIC had the hood on and can log SIC.

I believe you can according to 61.51 (e)(1)(iii) which allows you to log PIC if you are acting PIC of an aircraft on which more that one pilot is required under the type certificate of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.
The last phrase is important when you look at 91.109(b) which clarifies when simulated instrument conditions can be conducted (which requires a safety pilot or CFI)

So while the other pilot is under the hood, you as the safety pilot can log PIC, at least that is one interpretation. This is of course assuming that you have cat/class in the aircraft.

 

[JimNtexas]

So while the other pilot is under the hood, you as the safety pilot can log PIC, at least that is one interpretation. This is of course assuming that you have cat/class in the aircraft.

That's only correct if the not-real PIC is the sole manipulator. If the safety pilot isn't the FAR 1 PIC and is not manipulating the controls then he or she is not acting as PIC in any capacity. He or she is a required crewmember while the other pilot is under the hood and can log SIC, but not PIC.

Even though the SIC in this example holds a CFI, he is not qualified to be the FAR 1 PIC due to lack of the HP endorsement, so the CFI ticket really brings nothing to the party. I suppose our non-HP CFI could also log 'dual given', but not PIC except while he is the sole-manipulator of the controls.

See Doc's Far Forum where this is beaten to death.

 

[BushwickBill]

If you don't have a HP endorsement, then you could not have been the 'real' FAR 1 PIC.

Since you were safety pilot you were not manipulating the controls, so you could not LOG PIC as sole manipulator.

Therefore you were a required crewmember during the time the PIC had the hood on and can log SIC.

??? Oh no not the SIC thing. Not SIC in a SR-22! Oh no this thread has been tainted!

 

[JimNtexas]

??? Oh no not the SIC thing. Not SIC in a SR-22! Oh no this thread has been tainted!

Be afraid, be very afraid.

 

[mitsdriver]

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.

I like the idea of the BRS system because in many airplanes you can't easily bail out if you wanted to. Trying to bail out of something like a Decathlon with the bulky chute on, especially from the back seat, and especially if you only have a few seconds to spare, is difficult at best.