Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Is pilot proficiency diminishing with modern, simpler handling, high-performance aircraft?

That accident was a CP on an air taxi. I know our local Inverness ATC are considerate to pilots whose experience they are uncertain of. But a commercial air taxi would be experienced?
Some WANT to try to get in at a busy time, and are happy to change plan at short notice, and to fly non-standard approaches.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

Antonio wrote:

Cirrus SR20 and SR22 aircraft are high-performing, simple-to-operate aircraft with their simpler powerplant-and flying-controls, absence of retractable landing gear, the installation of the safety-enhancing airframe chute and the increased situational awareness afforded by modern flight displays. A similar thought can be had on other modern, high performance types.

Getting the same levels of performance, in the past, required a much more complex handling Arrow, Bonanza , Centurion or otherwise.

I can’t avoid thinking that less-proficient pilots would have been filtered out of the high-performance flyer group in such earlier times, whereas with modern, widespread like Cirri, there is easier access to higher performance aircraft for all. Is this being the case? Is this a good or a bad thing?

I don’t consider the SR20 as a true high performance aircraft; an SR22, yes, but an SR20 will fly similar speeds – both in cruise and approach – as a P28R, but without the distraction of a blue lever and retractable gear so from that point of view, it would allow a less polished pilot to fly it however they might have an issue controlling their energy – the Cirrus being much slipper than a P28R. That point itself might be sufficient to weed out the lesser competent pilots.

Concerning that accident, I don’t think the fact that she was flying a Cirrus that was part of the issue, more that the pilot was less assertive than she could have been and didn’t pay attention to her airspeed as she went around, retracting flaps before she had sufficient speed whilst banking, putting her into a spin; her attention was possibly distracted because she had gone around a number of times and was possibly getting flustered. If I had been at the controls, I would like to think I would have requested an approach onto 13R, possibly with a land after Runway 4 intersection – she would have had a landing into the wind with no issues of sequencing, with a 2300m runway, of which around 1400m were after the intersection.

MedEwok wrote:

I’ve also heard that the Cirrus has a “not nice” stall characteristics. I haven’t flown one yet, so I cannot comment from experience.

With nearly four hundred hours in Cirrus, I can say that the stall characteristics are very benign, due to the cuffed wing with an higher angle of attack near the root of the wing, you can actually feel the buffeting of the stall approaching but still fly keeping the wings level using aileron control as the lower angle of attack at the outer edge of the wing hasn’t yet reached the angle required to stall, meaning the ailerons are still effective. With an accelerated stall, like other aircraft you need to remain co-ordinated to ensure you don’t enter a spin but even if you did, spin recovery technique is standard, please don’t believe the myth that a Cirrus cannot be recovered from a spin without resorting to the airframe parachute.

EDL*, Germany

Investigators found that she consistently raised the flaps below the recommended speed on all go-arounds. Does it suggest that she either did not know the correct airspeed at which the flaps should be raised or did not pay much attention to it on all flights? It’s possible to make a mistake once when under stress but making it three times in a row, it’s not so likely.
And the speed at which she retracted the flaps the last time is astonishingly low. According to the video, it was only 62 kt and this speed has nothing to do with the safe operating of a Cirrus except for landing flare or stall exercises. In any configuration!

LCPH, Cyprus

I agree, this accident has nothing to do with the fact that the plane was a Cirrus. It could have happened to any other plane, just the same way. The PIC was confused, distracted, probably embarassed. I can understand the confusion, its a busy airport, lots of runways, etc. Would asking for vectors help? Probably. The learning point could be for me to monitor yourself and admit if you are overwhelmed, confused, and fall back to aviate part of the aviate, navigate communicate. There is nothing wrong to ask time and pull yourself together, then try again, admitting to ATC your confusion, and ask for more help. She had fuel on board, so she could have done that. Its better to safely land and then answer some questions, telling the story to your friends how stupid you were, then trying to practice such situations, than to die and kill your passengers…
And I am not saying I am a better pilot or I couldn’t get confused. Of course, it can happen. I think the key is if you are able to watch yourself and admit that you are screwed. Then ask for help and not to be shamed about it.

Last Edited by robirdus at 28 Feb 08:52
LHFM, LHTL, Hungary

There’s also mental overload to take into account. The pilot was from somewhere quiet in Oklahoma, and like most of us, probably didn’t fly with a fully loaded plane very often. Houston Hobby is a busy mixed GA/airline airfield, and Houston’s second busiest airfield. It’s a major base of operations for Southwest Airlines. I’ve flown into and out of Hobby on several occasions (I once got checked out to rent from Fletcher when they were based there). GA and the airlines get along perfectly fine, but you do need to be on your game and you do need to be able to form a picture of what’s going on around you (situational awareness). It’s pretty much the opposite of the sort of ATC environment that the pilot would likely have been used to in Oklahoma. Add to that the long flight, and relatively low level of fuel remaining (of which I’m sure the pilot was keenly aware) and it’s not hard to imagine the pilot got task saturated.

Andreas IOM

This accident was previously discussed here. IMHO, the pilot was trying hard to please ATC, which is a common thing; we are all trained to obey ATC and it is only the more experienced pilots who learn to keep decisionmaking firmly in the cockpit. This can be really important when you get an aggressive or incompetent, or just very casually talkative, like they often get in the US, ATCO, which is rare but definitely does happen, and I’ve had numerous cases where obeying aggressive controllers would have got me into danger (CBs, etc).

Whether it being a Cirrus matters is obviously going to generate some hot air It is the nature of the way their community is run by the US marketing machine, and some of it washes over here to Europe. I know a pilot who crashed an SR22 after a bit of time in a very busy circuit, trying to fly at minimum safe speed to slot in behind someone else, then got a TCAS warning of a never-seen traffic, and ended up going too slowly, and the plane broke into a violent stall and lost the ~1000ft in not many seconds. He is alive but after serious injuries. Does the Cirrus have aggressive stall? Everything I hear says it does, but it isn’t the only type which does. Is the Cirrus more likely than other types to be flown heavily on the autopilot? Every pilot I speak to says he does exactly that – because the plane is not enjoyable to hand fly for long periods (spring loaded side sticks, and relies heavily on the trim). Obviously it is a question of what you are used to. And I am sure people don’t hand fly a PA46 much, for example.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Antonio wrote:

Cirrus SR20 and SR22 aircraft are high-performing, simple-to-operate aircraft with their simpler powerplant-and flying-controls, absence of retractable landing gear, the installation of the safety-enhancing airframe chute and the increased situational awareness afforded by modern flight displays. A similar thought can be had on other modern, high performance types.
They however cannot escape basic laws or physics, aerodynamics or the intricacies of flying in different operational environments as this accident shows.

In some regards, Cirrus may fall victim to their own marketing. They have marketed their planes to be the ideal plane for everyone and being very easy to fly and operate. While I don’t think it is particularly difficult, from the accidents we have seen, it certainly is not a beginners plane nor one for people who get to their limits in a C172 or PA28. This can also be seen that type transition training to this type has had to be upped quite significantly and now even offers type specific syllabi normally not that much spread in GA.

I am quite sure that once people master the particularities of the quite different cockpit and flying characteristics of the Cirri, they are as safe as any other plane, possibly safer because of the increased training. But I reckon they can bite quite heartily if one succumbs to the illusion that with it’s level of automation and the shute it is a plane for those who think “know thy airplane” is for others.

With regard to this particular accident however, i agree that the airplane type most probably had little if any impact on the outcome. There have however been quite a few accidents, particularly before Cirrus beefed up their initial training, which pointed in the direction that their initial marketing might have attracted the wrong kind of attitude towards their airplanes.

Last Edited by Mooney_Driver at 28 Feb 10:25
LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Well, I agree this accident is little type-related.The point I intended was that for pilots used to this type of airplane it may be easier to succumb to a feeling that you do not need to be on top of your game—-the plane’ll do it for you or something like that.
Kind of the feeling of Airbus pilots that led to Habsheim or perhaps AF447, the latter leading to additional training too: pilots must not forget the basics and that they are in command, no matter how many bells and whistles are there to help you.
Yes Cirrus may have made the initial mistake to lead pilots to think otherwise. Perhaps Airbus too.
On the opposite side of the piloting mindset spectrum we have Qantas flight 82 or BA38

My point is perhaps certain types (SR2X, Airbus ? ) lead more to the former mindset of piloting than the latter.
I’ve never had that mindset or sat in a Cirrus cockpit more than an hour , but I am wondering if this oversimplification above makes sense and perhaps is something others have experienced in themselves or other pilots.

Last Edited by Antonio at 28 Feb 14:41
Antonio
LESB, Spain

Antonio wrote:

Yes Cirrus may have made the initial mistake to lead pilots to think otherwise. Perhaps Airbus too.

One could say that there were parallels, even though the reasons were different. But yes, the initial Airbus crashes and incidents went along the lines of a false sense of security. With Cirrus, I think it had a lot to do with the clientele they attracted.

Both have since seen that their initial concepts had to be revised massively. Both have since achieved a much better safety.

But to get back to the original question: Each kind of airplane needs type specific training, which also includes a certain mindset, which indeed can be different from type to type. And that is what the “new” type airplane training needed to evolve into. Yes, some of those are ridiculously easy to fly thanks to all the bells and whistles, but that also means they bite a lot harder if you let things get out of hand.

Somehow there is a parallel to road traffic too, where “autopilots” for cars are a great thing as long as people don’t misuse them. Which obviously has happened a lot of times. So the mindset has to change, which it will. but it takes time.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Mooney_Driver wrote:

n some regards, Cirrus may fall victim to their own marketing. They have marketed their planes to be the ideal plane for everyone and being very easy to fly and operate. While I don’t think it is particularly difficult, from the accidents we have seen, it certainly is not a beginners plane nor one for people who get to their limits in a C172 or PA28. This can also be seen that type transition training to this type has had to be upped quite significantly and now even offers type specific syllabi normally not that much spread in GA.

There are enough pilots and schools in the US which use the SR20 as ab-initio trainers, there is nothing difficult about landing the Cirrus as long as you trim and fly the numbers; yes, there are a couple of differences between C172 / P28As and the SR20 – namely, you will always be flying with a little bit of power on down to the runway and secondly, your picture is totally different due to the lower dashboard in the Cirrus.

What is significantly different is the reaction to a sudden application of full power, i.e. on a go around – you really need to get into the habit of using the right rudder if you slam the throttle wide open – but that will be the same with all aircraft if stepping up from a 140 – 180 horse power engine coupled with a fixed pitch engine to a higher powered engine with constant speed propeller; with the SR22, it’s even more critical to be aware of the torque – accidents have happened after an application of power without adequate application of right rudder. But again, if you went from a C172 to (e.g.) a Bonanza F-33 with the same IO550 engine, you’d probably have the same issues – possibly more so, because you’d be needing to watch gear and propellor settings and in the circuit, you’ll be busy.

Concerning training, this has been offered by Cirrus in order to make the fleet as a whole less susceptible to errors caused by new pilots which is admirable. I don’t believe that it has “had to be upped quite significantly” as you claim, but it was primarily introduced as a marketing and safety tool, allowing people to look beyond statements such as “this is a dangerous and difficult aircraft to fly”. Such statements were typically causing pilots to look away from used Cirrus aircraft and buying other (used) models, thus reducing the pool of pilots who could regularly upgrade their G2 to G3, to G5, to G6 because they couldn’t offload their previous steed. By offering up to 3 days free training, it overcomes such objections, it’s not an admission that the plane is difficult to fly but tackles the prejudices in the market openly.

As for this type specific syllabi not being normal – the Pipistrel Virus I sometimes fly also has an online course to give people an introduction to flying the plane – before I started flying it, I did the course. It discusses everything the Cirrus course discussed. Because of this, should I infer that this is because the plane is difficult to fly? No, it’s a method where the manufacturer can show he stands behind his product, as do Cirrus.

EDL*, Germany
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top