Newbie looking to upgrade to Cirrus
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't be bothered to read this whole thread as I know it will be a lot of "you should fly a C152 until you get experience, using your PLOG, stopwatch and Compass" and on the other side "The Cirrus is the bees knees"...etc..
I'd go for the Cirrus myself.
I'd go for the Cirrus myself.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Englishal
The main point of debate is the best way of achiving the skills and experience to get the EASA CPL exams passed with the least trouble.
Above you will find some very good advice mainly centered around the acquisition of basic flying skills, something that that post Air France A330 has become a hot topic within the industry.
Opposing this is a guy who has yet to get a PPL who wants to fly ( in his words ) a slippery aircraft with modern technology that in his opinion will expand his skills. The first thing to address is the will the cirrus help with basic hand flying skills ? Having flown the aircraft I found it to be a good solid touring aircraft with little to make it stand out fron the crowd, as for "slippery" well not really ! The composite construction makes for a few knots at the top end but the conservative construction adds a little too much weight to make the performance spectacularly different from the crowd. One thing is blindingly obvious is that flying the Cirrus is not going to expand your hand flying skills very much.
As for helping expand the skill set for CPL navigation it won't ! Even if the intention is to ignore the screens & GPS just the fact that they are fitted and are a comfort blanket that you will be tempted to look at just to back up your DR navigation, this will soon become your default setting rather than correcting errors in your head.........this is a basic skill and a building block for all navigation, it is also an essential skill for passing the CPL navigation test.
Don't think I am anti Cirrus, it is a great way of moving four people long distances in comfort...........it is not the aircraft that will economically prepare you for a CPL just the fact that a C152 with a basic radio burns 23 lts/ hour as aposed to the 40 lts/ hour should tell you that! Then add the cost of maintenance of all the Avionic kit and the chute and you will see why I think that your costs are based on unrealistic operating costs. The first of the Cirrus aircraft must be getting up to the ten year chute inspection and 12 year engine overhaul time now and I think that some cirrus owners are in for a rude awakening on costs.
Any how when Odai has spent a lot of money on flying the Cirrus and starts the CPL course only to find himself having to do extra navigation training will the situation become clear to one who wants to run before he can walk........those wise heads who above advised that the Cirrus is not he way to go have seen it all before and will no doubt see it again as more headstrong young hopefuls get seduced by the new toys, however since the first days of flying one thing has become very clear. Technology is no substitute for skill.........nowhere is this more clear than in the AF A330 crash were a young pilot managed to hold the aircraft in the stall from above FL300 untill it hit the water killing all on board.
Above you will find some very good advice mainly centered around the acquisition of basic flying skills, something that that post Air France A330 has become a hot topic within the industry.
Opposing this is a guy who has yet to get a PPL who wants to fly ( in his words ) a slippery aircraft with modern technology that in his opinion will expand his skills. The first thing to address is the will the cirrus help with basic hand flying skills ? Having flown the aircraft I found it to be a good solid touring aircraft with little to make it stand out fron the crowd, as for "slippery" well not really ! The composite construction makes for a few knots at the top end but the conservative construction adds a little too much weight to make the performance spectacularly different from the crowd. One thing is blindingly obvious is that flying the Cirrus is not going to expand your hand flying skills very much.
As for helping expand the skill set for CPL navigation it won't ! Even if the intention is to ignore the screens & GPS just the fact that they are fitted and are a comfort blanket that you will be tempted to look at just to back up your DR navigation, this will soon become your default setting rather than correcting errors in your head.........this is a basic skill and a building block for all navigation, it is also an essential skill for passing the CPL navigation test.
Don't think I am anti Cirrus, it is a great way of moving four people long distances in comfort...........it is not the aircraft that will economically prepare you for a CPL just the fact that a C152 with a basic radio burns 23 lts/ hour as aposed to the 40 lts/ hour should tell you that! Then add the cost of maintenance of all the Avionic kit and the chute and you will see why I think that your costs are based on unrealistic operating costs. The first of the Cirrus aircraft must be getting up to the ten year chute inspection and 12 year engine overhaul time now and I think that some cirrus owners are in for a rude awakening on costs.
Any how when Odai has spent a lot of money on flying the Cirrus and starts the CPL course only to find himself having to do extra navigation training will the situation become clear to one who wants to run before he can walk........those wise heads who above advised that the Cirrus is not he way to go have seen it all before and will no doubt see it again as more headstrong young hopefuls get seduced by the new toys, however since the first days of flying one thing has become very clear. Technology is no substitute for skill.........nowhere is this more clear than in the AF A330 crash were a young pilot managed to hold the aircraft in the stall from above FL300 untill it hit the water killing all on board.
Last edited by A and C; 25th Nov 2012 at 08:13.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C some good points but maybe a tad dramatic.
Btw you will learn some pretty solid imc skills flying a cirrus just as much as a 172 - the first might have flash glass screens but both fly much the same and will give you the same sensation held in a stall with buzzer whaling.
Pays your money as the saying goes. If you can afford a cirrus its a more comfortable way to build hours but for sure much more costly. If money were no object personally i would fly mostly the cirrus but enjoy some hours in a small variety of other types which would nicely round ones flying skills.
Ps i do think you might be a little anti cirrus
.
Btw you will learn some pretty solid imc skills flying a cirrus just as much as a 172 - the first might have flash glass screens but both fly much the same and will give you the same sensation held in a stall with buzzer whaling.
Pays your money as the saying goes. If you can afford a cirrus its a more comfortable way to build hours but for sure much more costly. If money were no object personally i would fly mostly the cirrus but enjoy some hours in a small variety of other types which would nicely round ones flying skills.
Ps i do think you might be a little anti cirrus
.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 25th Nov 2012 at 08:45.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: scotland
Age: 43
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have to agree with A and C, but i would add one thing, i would not learn that well in a Cirrus too much temptation to use the power of the G1000, if i wanted to get the most of out learning i would go with something very basic a Virus SW, or a Piper Cub, i would not go to the expense of working towards my CPL until i could fly using nothing but my compass, stopwatch and map and maybe aE6B Flight Computer.
I love computers, i love the technology in aircraft today, but having basic skills down dead is the only way to go.
Fats
I love computers, i love the technology in aircraft today, but having basic skills down dead is the only way to go.
Fats
Last edited by fatmanmedia; 25th Nov 2012 at 09:00.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we did quite well out of the last Cirrus chute deployment in the UK, perhaps a few more would futher line the pockets !
BTW was that one repaired and flying again or written off? just wondered how you did well out of it?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A&C
I think there are differing views across the world on what is best for an airline pilot wanabee. I have heard quite the opposite stated in the USA, whereby the airlines PREFER someone who has been "brought up" on Glass cockpits and modern tech, rather than someone who has 1500 hrs in a C152. I guess it makes them easier to train in some respects.
In the UK you are probably quite correct, but in the UK we will still use stopwatch and compass even if we had a G1000, because "it is the proper way".
In the UK you are probably quite correct, but in the UK we will still use stopwatch and compass even if we had a G1000, because "it is the proper way".
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
007helicopter
The aircraft is back in the air following repairs.
Englishal
I don't really see the idea of training basic skills on glass as an advantage, especially when if all the electrics fail on your Boeing or Airbus all you have is the very basic instruments that you first met when you stepped into a C152.
Should the worst happen (after the old gits like me have retired) then your glass trained FO is going to have an uphill struggle to fly the aircraft just when he could do without the steep learning curve. That is exactly what happened on the AF A330.
I would say that the move to glass from the start is driven by the bean counters.
In a perfect world pilot training would start with twenty hours on the Piper Cub followed by the rest of the basic flying on the SF260, Unfortunatly outside the military this would never happen.
Englishal
I don't really see the idea of training basic skills on glass as an advantage, especially when if all the electrics fail on your Boeing or Airbus all you have is the very basic instruments that you first met when you stepped into a C152.
Should the worst happen (after the old gits like me have retired) then your glass trained FO is going to have an uphill struggle to fly the aircraft just when he could do without the steep learning curve. That is exactly what happened on the AF A330.
I would say that the move to glass from the start is driven by the bean counters.
In a perfect world pilot training would start with twenty hours on the Piper Cub followed by the rest of the basic flying on the SF260, Unfortunatly outside the military this would never happen.
Last edited by A and C; 25th Nov 2012 at 10:06.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft is back in the air following repairs.
N470RD Looks smart after its repair's
Last edited by 007helicopter; 25th Nov 2012 at 16:26.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if you do get your CPL/IR ME and get a job on jets, there is a good chance you will be flying some basic stuff.
Jet2 have a mainly 737 classic fleet, which means you will need to know your scan, the glass on the classic is not much o be fair, I should know, I fly a 300.
Jet2 have a mainly 737 classic fleet, which means you will need to know your scan, the glass on the classic is not much o be fair, I should know, I fly a 300.
One of the Citations I fly is a CLASSIC
But with a highly advanced GPS system KING90B 
The one I brought back from India was such a wreck you did not need a simulator for emergency training
All good for the soul!!!
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 25th Nov 2012 at 17:28.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it matters what avionics are in real commercial aircraft. The OP has obviously made up his mind, and to be honest, looking at his other posts, I would be very surprised if he ever actually ends up as a commercial pilot.
My guess is that he will join the ranks of the very happy PPL/IR types who can afford to fly the more kitted-up, faster aircraft. I'm sure he will gain maximum enjoyment and pleasure from this, probably taking in several European trips. I suspect that some of the pilots in this category get a real kick from mixing it with commercial traffic, and take delight in looking down on other types of GA flying as "less advanced" since they're part of this "exclusive" club. My sense is that the OP might well feel very happy and fulfilled in this environment.
I anticipate some indignation and abuse for this, but it's not intended as a negative statement. It is merely my thoughts based on observation. There are many flavours of GA pilot, all gaining pleasure from different types of flying. Eg the aerobatic crew, who don't like straight and level for longer than necessary to show the judges that a manoeuvre is complete; the hardcore weightshift brigade, who delight in freezing their nuts off in pursuit of very low cost, high value fun; the vintage rag and tube stalwarts who twirl their moustaches whilst expounding the merits of a side-slip approach to achieve a perfect 3-pointer; and the usual newbie crowd, who all got their tickets at the same time and like nothing more than hiring a club 4-seater to cost share their way to a £65 bacon sandwich. They're all equally valid and relevant, and all have their (natural) prejudices.
The OP has demonstrated quite clearly that he is unwilling to listen to advice that goes against his preconceived ideas, even when evidenced and given by experienced people. So I would suggest to let him get on with it. He will learn his own path by experience, probably getting his fingers burned and slightly ripped off in the process, although hopefully not.
My guess is that he will join the ranks of the very happy PPL/IR types who can afford to fly the more kitted-up, faster aircraft. I'm sure he will gain maximum enjoyment and pleasure from this, probably taking in several European trips. I suspect that some of the pilots in this category get a real kick from mixing it with commercial traffic, and take delight in looking down on other types of GA flying as "less advanced" since they're part of this "exclusive" club. My sense is that the OP might well feel very happy and fulfilled in this environment.
I anticipate some indignation and abuse for this, but it's not intended as a negative statement. It is merely my thoughts based on observation. There are many flavours of GA pilot, all gaining pleasure from different types of flying. Eg the aerobatic crew, who don't like straight and level for longer than necessary to show the judges that a manoeuvre is complete; the hardcore weightshift brigade, who delight in freezing their nuts off in pursuit of very low cost, high value fun; the vintage rag and tube stalwarts who twirl their moustaches whilst expounding the merits of a side-slip approach to achieve a perfect 3-pointer; and the usual newbie crowd, who all got their tickets at the same time and like nothing more than hiring a club 4-seater to cost share their way to a £65 bacon sandwich. They're all equally valid and relevant, and all have their (natural) prejudices.
The OP has demonstrated quite clearly that he is unwilling to listen to advice that goes against his preconceived ideas, even when evidenced and given by experienced people. So I would suggest to let him get on with it. He will learn his own path by experience, probably getting his fingers burned and slightly ripped off in the process, although hopefully not.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alas, money does not buy judgement. I cringe to think of the family and friends that are persuaded to fly as passengers in light aircraft who are all too unaware of the statistics.
Over in the USA, we used to call Bonanza V-tails "doctor killers". The medical chaps make a lot of money, and are clearly superior beings, at least in their own minds. Sometimes they manage to write off their entire family.
How difficult it is to come to terms with hostile weather enroute, and make that Uturn, when an important meeting or the company car is waiting at your destination.....or you have promised the girlfriend a trip through the alps....
Unless your aircraft has at least two reliable engines, a pressurised cabin enabling you to fly above the weather, and you hold a current night and IFR rating, its safer and often quicker to go by road.
Over in the USA, we used to call Bonanza V-tails "doctor killers". The medical chaps make a lot of money, and are clearly superior beings, at least in their own minds. Sometimes they manage to write off their entire family.
How difficult it is to come to terms with hostile weather enroute, and make that Uturn, when an important meeting or the company car is waiting at your destination.....or you have promised the girlfriend a trip through the alps....
Unless your aircraft has at least two reliable engines, a pressurised cabin enabling you to fly above the weather, and you hold a current night and IFR rating, its safer and often quicker to go by road.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW although the G1000 is an option few Cirrus are Garmin friendly - most are fitted with Avidynes.
Over in the USA, we used to call Bonanza V-tails "doctor killers". The medical chaps make a lot of money, and are clearly superior beings, at least in their own minds.
Last edited by thborchert; 25th Nov 2012 at 21:27.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is nothing wrong with the basic warrior.
IMHO most pilots don't appreciate this much since they have neither experienced a new aircraft design themselves nor have their passengers (BTW, doesn't matter if it's a Cirrus or a DA40 or a Corvalis or even a TB). If you take the basic warrior from the 70s, most pilots will simply walk up and get in. Most passengers will walk up, hesitate and start a barrage of questions: Tell me again how old this is? What did you say the rules for maintenance are? and so on. Take them to a Cirrus, and the pilots will spend a half hour drooling over it before they board. Passengers, OTOH, will simply get in, buckle up and wait for you to go - after all, it looks like the Audi they drove to the airport in.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All Cirrii from about 2009 onwards are Cirrus Perspective by Garmin, a derivative of the G1000 with some (important) added features, e.g. a keypad. No option since about three months after introduction.
.
Unless your aircraft has at least two reliable engines, a pressurised cabin enabling you to fly above the weather, and you hold a current night and IFR rating, its safer and often quicker to go by road.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 25th Nov 2012 at 21:41.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thborchert
You prove my point exactly. I can show you a whole bunch of pilots who wouldn't give a Cirrus a second glance. I personally am no more interested in them than I am in an Evektor Eurostar - nicely designed, some minor foibles, expensive and for all it's clean presentation, doesn't particularly excite me.
Different aeroplanes are designed for different jobs, different pilots like to do different things, and therefore different aeroplanes are right for different pilots. There's no need to go around slagging off a Warrior - if you want to do a CPL, in many cases that's what you'll use, for good reason. If you want to whizz off to France, take your TB or Cirrus, etc, etc.
Take them to a Cirrus, and the pilots will spend a half hour drooling over it before they board
Different aeroplanes are designed for different jobs, different pilots like to do different things, and therefore different aeroplanes are right for different pilots. There's no need to go around slagging off a Warrior - if you want to do a CPL, in many cases that's what you'll use, for good reason. If you want to whizz off to France, take your TB or Cirrus, etc, etc.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As i said most cirrus dont have garmin 
.
.
You prove my point exactly. I can show you a whole bunch of pilots who wouldn't give a Cirrus a second glance.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No 15-year-old would hang a poster of a Warrior (or a Warrior cockpit) in his room. A Pipistrel Panthera? Different story. Warriors don't capture the imagination anymore, if they ever have.
I get kids taking pics of my 25 year old steam cockpit and are chuffed to bits getting chucked in the Captains seat while I do the walk round and the FO sorts out the load sheet. And we have the added bonus of a 25 year old cartridge portaloo type bog adding to the on board atmosphere.
The aviation nut 15 year olds will have anything they can get there hands on there walls be it a tommy, warrior or spitfire. One lad at the school used to arrive the day after flight international came out with an exploded section view of any aircraft you like. We used to hide it for a while and claim it was missing or it hadn't turned up in the post yet. Could never have to heart to prolong the teasing to long.
Some folk get there rocks off on spanking new techno kit.
Some get the same for vintage.
Some for tail draggers
Some like myself really don't care what the cockpit is like as long as the engine starts and we can go flying. The cheaper it is the more flying we can do. Lest face it most of the time you are looking out the window so as long as the seat isn't a torture device I will fly anything.