Cirrus vs. Columbia

[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.