No, I have not, but then again so has no one else, as there hasn’t been a simple, modern SE jet on the market until now. Logic tells you/us that it will be simpler just because it has less moving parts and more automation. The TBM is 25 years old in systems.
AdamFrisch wrote:
So are you saying that the Cirrus Jet, that’s actually slower than the TBM, no RSVM, has less moving parts to it, no CS props, no reverse or any of that, is higher workload in an IFR environment?
Adam,
I would think that Jason is right with this. It is not only the engine management and all that, but it is speed and energy management plus the fact that everything has to be done MUCH faster on the navigation side too.
There are several aspects to it. First of all, with a cockpit like this you need to get current and then STAY current much more than with a GPS box you know how to use. Yes, a lot is automated, but that does not necessarily mean it is easier. You need to stay ahead of the airplane and it’s automatisation which is what has in the past killed a lot more experienced people. Remember the A320 accidents in the beginning? At least two of those were due to the fact that the pilots did not fully understand the automatisation or were too confident of it, which was equally deadly.
To stay current on a new box means flying it very often, at least initally. As long as you still have to think, ok, how do I enter this now, you are not current. I see this even in my pedestrian GNS430W, if I don’t fly for a couple of weeks I have to think how to do this or that. This may work at 100-130 kts (but it is not even then ideal) but a fully integrated cockpit at 200kts plus speeds on an IFR arrival and then reprogram the whole arrival because the runway changes e.t.c: This will require a very high degree of currency.
The other bit is engine and energy management, where a slippery jet simply has no tolerance for mistakes. Even moving from a 100 kt to a 150 kt plane needs serious training in this regard, let alone moving from a 150 kt to a 300 kt airplane. Also comparing to military single fighters won’t work. Even though now they are as complex to use as any modern glass cockpit, the ones we are thinking off were often very basically equipped leaving the pilot really concentrating on the flying bit. In today’s IFR world, the opposite is true. Manual flying is minimal, everything works with integrated GPS/GNS systems which you need to know how to work them and keep ahead of them. That is the difficult bit, not the actual handling itself.
I am with Jason here. Jets are no toys and they do not belong into the hands of people who think they are. Listening to some of the stuff written here, I do surprise myself by wondering wheather regulators should not make darn sure that these kind of planes do not get into the wrong hands. The FAA did so when they rose the minimal hours for being an airline pilot to 1500. Maybe something similar is necessary for operating jets of any kind, not to this extent, but maybe a training program which adequately builds up people. Maybe a restriction on Single Pilot Ops requiring 100 hours dual ops line intro before being allowed SP or equivalent time in a similarly performing airplane.
In the end I think Jason said it correctly, at least in the US, the insurers will decide who can fly this jet and who can not. And maybe that is not a bad thing. Someone who can dash out 2 millions for a jet like this should be able to afford a co-pilot until he is really ready.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Someone who can dash out 2 millions for a jet like this should be able to afford a co-pilot until he is really ready.
Yes. But that might become a problem, if they turn out these airplanes at the numbers they claim. Hundreds per year… If the insurer insits on 100 hours supervision for each owner/pilot, where are all those safety pilots coming from? Experienced jet pilots, current on the latest generation glass cockpit with teaching skills and flexible enough to adapt to aircraft owner timescales all over a country or continent. People like that exist in small numbers, but they fly Globals, Gulfstreams and executive A319s for 1500 Euros a day plus expenses. They will not even touch a plastic single, whatever it is powered by…
That’s true… I have known a number of these pilots (mostly they sat RHS in TBMs and one was a permanent piece of furniture in a CJ) but all are really busy.
AdamFrisch wrote:
The TBM is 25 years old in systems.
It has a single turbine engine with a single lever power control, Garmin G3000, boots and pressurisation. What is the difference?
Let’s just agree to disagree. You think a Cirrus Jet is harder than anything else except a twin engine jet. I don’t. Nothing said here is going to change those views.
AdamFrisch wrote:
Let’s just agree to disagree. You think a Cirrus Jet is harder than anything else except a twin engine jet. I don’t. Nothing said here is going to change those views.
No, I think it is probably a little more challenging than a SETP. Easier than a twin TP in the sense you don’t have assymetrics (of course you don’t have a second engine either which does have downsides). But I do think it would be quite a step up from a Cirrus Piston.
I had over 5,000 hours when I got my first right hand seat job flying a jet, and this followed quite a lot of time in one of the fastest turbo props in the sky. I prepared carefully the night before, got to the plane early and was as ready as I would ever be….or so I thought. By the time the Captain had landed and was taxiing us on to the ramp at our destination my brain was still lurking somewhere over an adjacent country. I’ll never forget that flight – or the sense of complete inadequacy that I felt after it.
Interesting tidbits of informtion I picked up watching a demo video of Cirrus.
Max gear speed is 210kts IAS, Max app flap speed is 190 kts IAS, max full flap speed is 150 kts IAS. Climb out is at 160 kts. Green dot speed was at around 90 kts and he also was in the 90ties coming over the fence. That was with I expect 2 guys on board and he mentions somewhere in the flight that he had 200 USG fuel on board.
I guess that this makes speed control a darn sight easier than maybe thought. The gear can be used as a speed brake pretty much almost all the time as in the flight levels (US) IAS will hardly ever be above gear speed, even at max cruise at FL280. Also the flap max speeds are comfortably high. Vref of 90 kts and abouts is about 10 kts higher than a Seneca II. Cirrus seem to have been trying very hard to make the transition between the SR22 and the Vision as close as it can be so someone who has 500 hours experience on SR22’s of all incarnations should at least feel very much at home in terms of avionics and also look and feel.
Maybe we do not have enough information to judge how much experience and training this jet really needs, it appears that avoinic wise it’s quite close to the SR22 but with more sophisticated G3000 rather than the normal 1000. How it does really behave in the normal GA environment none of us knows, but from what I saw on that video, it is definitly a tamer beast than maybe expected. So Adam might not be that far off after all, I really wonder how people who have the experience to judge that will compare it to a “conventional” jet.
I expect in the US problems will be less than in Europe, as the average US GA airport is a lot larger than ours. It may well be challenging operating this jet into the usual GA hubs with 600 – 800 m concrete though. I reckon it also will take quite a while before we see the first one operate in Europe, as it is not yet EASA certified.
Not sure I really agree with the premise of the original question, as I don’t think “hours” is that relevant. What is important is:
1) Reasonable intellect and general flying ability.
2) Willingness to study the systems theory to really know the aircraft.
3) The right attitude, and specifically the willingness to train thoroughly and seek support and advice and prepare properly.
There are 1000 hour pilots without any of the above who can barely fly a PA28 safely, and then there are 50 hour pilots who have all of the above and will be super committed to flying the aircraft as professionally as they can.
It’s a bit like saying “how many hours to fly a Pitts S2?” – plenty of 1000 hour pilots who would be useless, and some 50 hour Cub pilots who would take to it easily.
Finally, I don’t see the speed as a big factor. It’s not THAT fast, and as Mooney Driver says you can easily slow it down in the terminal area. I think altitude/pressurisation/weather is the bigger challenge.
