Rwy20 wrote:
This particular pilot who is the first to get every new Cirrus model was also discussed on COPA, and people who know him seemed to suggest he was a very careful, meticulous pilot who got a lot of training (and also a nice guy personally).
So it is someone Cirrus know really well, so to speak their ideal customer… buying each new model and getting it first, well, I reckon they know if he’s ready for this as they will want him to buy the G2,3,4,5,6,7 e.t.c. of the jet as well… and he needs to be alive for that.
Rwy20 wrote:
Obviously there is also the question how to measure experience.
Not only. There is one massive difference between pilots who, after a often very hard selection, go through a structured ab-initio program and end up in the RH seat of a 737/A320 with 200 hours (European thing, it takes 1500 hours now in the US) but then have someone left of them who has considerably more hours and someone who flies a jet alone because his pocketbook allows him to. I agree with what’s next: There will be pilots who can master a jet like that in less that 500 hours and others which won’t be able to ever manage it, particularly single pilot.
boscomantico wrote:
For private jet ops, I would put the number much higher (not as a legal minimum of course, just as ballpark for “best practice”). Maybe 750 hours. And yes, I do think that all in all, hours flown (within GA) is a valid proxy for “experience”.
That is just as arbitrary as any other fixed number. The question will be, what kind of experience are we talking about? 2000 hours instructing in a C150 won’t automatically mean that someone like that can master a Jet while someone who has maybe been washed out after quite some jet training in the military because he could not take 9G regularly would find the Vision jet a piece of cake even at 200 hours. There are so many ways to get licensed and not all are suitable for the specific task at hand.
I have to say my reaction was knee jerk and actually very probably injust to the guy. I just felt reminded at the previous and current “doctor killer” airplanes like the Bonanza, the Mailbu and to an extent also the SR22 where the problem ALWAYS was the pilot, who had the cash but not the ability to fly the plane money could buy him were at fault. I hope this is not what will happen with the Vision Jet as well.
Rwy20 wrote:
First of all, I doubted that “number of hours” is meaningful for this decision. And then I didn’t want to limit it to the Vision Jet.
I agree. It is the training and experience you had along the way. For any airplane really, not only for jets.
I’ve flown in Vision simulator and found it very easy. One button to start the engine, one lever to add power and if you can use an iPad then you can use the G3000. Number of switches is reduced to minimum – simplicity and automation. I don’t see any problem to teach someone straight out of PPL how to fly it. But then, you don’t want people to get into trouble that affect all aircraft – CB, ice, low visibility, gusty wind and so on. So, I’d say an IR and 100-200 hours should be required.
It seems to me that the biggest transition here is not flying the plane but assessing and dealing with the weather.
Unless you want to burn money, you don’t have the option of a low level run, say 1000-2000ft, below the cloudbase, which you have in an SR22. You need to always head for FL250, to the certified ceiling of FL280.
But FL250-280 will only just clear a warm front… maybe.
So this is not the “almost all weather” plane which say a CJ is.
In Europe for sure, nobody will do a jet TR unless you have an IR.
This is also highly relevant here in Europe. We have all seen this as being a possible outcome (i.e. carry on N-reg for ever, excluding Denmark and Norway) but if it comes back, it will decimate the pilot population flying turboprops and jets privately. It would really hit the Cirrus jet business here, IMHO.
It’ll be easier to fly than any piston single ever made, so 50hrs or a PPL should do it. But if we throw in single pilot workload in the IFR environment, weather avoidance and planning like Peter said etc, etc, then it gets a little more complex. I dunno, 500hrs as an average? I feel challenged in heavy IFR, with heavy ATC in my Turbo Commander, and I have about 800hrs.
AdamFrisch wrote:
It’ll be easier to fly than any piston single ever made
Sorry, but I have to say that is nonsense. I would put it in the same category as a late-model Piper Malibu (piston); minus the engine management hassle and with easier to operate systems, but on the other hand being a bit faster and having a different engine response.
Cobalt wrote:
Sorry, but I have to say that is nonsense. I would put it in the same category as a late-model Piper Malibu (piston); minus the engine management hassle and with easier to operate systems, but on the other hand being a bit faster and having a different engine response.
Exactly. As I wrote like a Meridian or TBM.
Well, we must agree to disagree. You can not compare a SE Jet with a SE turboprop or SE complex turbo piston. The turboprop and the Malibu are much more complex operationally. This aircraft has no reverse, no CS props, no way to change airflow separate from power. That’s the majority of your approach and departure IFR workload right there.
The speed is a red herring. It does not take longer to get used to higher speeds if you’ve trained on it initially (military or any ab-initio right seater). And even if you haven’t, it’s very fast to learn. Out of my transition to a brand new concept I knew nothing about, a turbine, I would guess less than 5% was attributed to “getting used to the fast speeds”.
I would bet good money you could do you PPL in A Cirrus Jet just as quick as you could do it in a C150.
I would bet good money you could do you PPL in A Cirrus Jet just as quick as you could do it in a C150.
I agree – if you are a bright smart organised disciplined switched-on person with a good understanding of how “mechanical bits” work.
SEPs are horrible. Noisy, smelly, most of them are shagged, everything rattles and shakes, there is almost no performance (a C150 gets off the ground only because the earth is a sphere) and a lot of effort goes into managing all this. But most people can learn to fly them – because everything happens slowly and there is almost nothing to understand.
Many people say jets are really easy to fly and having been in some I can see where they are coming from (though only 12.34% of PPLs would ever grasp a Collins Proline cockpit 
) and I wrote this here before, but I knew a guy who bought a CJ (few million), spent ages trying to learn to fly it (basically, to pass an IR test in it), and eventually gave up and went back to pistons, having lost a few million along the way. A very clever guy (in the pure IQ sense) but “disconnected” from the mechanical world.
How many SR22 (or other piston) pilots are “disconnected” from the mechanical world? It may be a good Q. It probably relates fairly closely to how many have the IR and are comfortable with it.
Also I think a plane which must be climbed to FL250+ does need really very good de-ice – because it’s gonna be tested pretty often. Almost every time I go into IMC below 0C I get this and the Cirrus jet has thinner wings.
I would bet good money you could do you PPL in A Cirrus Jet just as quick as you could do it in a C150.
Not sure how you would conduct this wager, and getting through the ded reckoning bits of a PPL in a jet might be amusing. You also need an IR for practical reasons.
If these aircraft are going to operate from good quality USA airport infrastructure would tend to agree with Adam that a well designed course should allow an IR holder with reasonable standards and currency to get up to speed quite quickly. I think the risk is trying to stretch performance and fly these aircraft like an SEP, without the discipline of jet performance calculations, into GA fields which are too small, or screwing up fuel reserves, or finger malfunction on the AP/FD. You also will have the high altitude endorsement training with simulated flame out, emergency descent drill, re light attempt, loss of glass, IFR limited panel glide descent and eventual PFL – unless this is negated by the chute.
If the sectors are from one tame ILS runway to another, and the ’chute is your main emergency drill, perhaps they will be easier than a pressurised SEP?
loco wrote:
I don’t see any problem to teach someone straight out of PPL how to fly it. But then, you don’t want people to get into trouble that affect all aircraft – CB, ice, low visibility, gusty wind and so on. So, I’d say an IR and 100-200 hours should be required.
I would not let anyone straight out of a normal C150 PPL fly a SR22! Let alone a jet. Apart, I am not sure but I guess you need additional qualifications? High Performance Airplane and probably a type rating?
IR yes, not even an SR22 makes much sense without it, actually not many travel planes do. I would say that in Europe, it will be next to impossible to fly the Jet VFR with the airspace maze around it is often borderline difficult to fly even with a 150 kt airplane and not bust any airspaces. Jets in Europe are essentially IFR travel tools.
AdamFrisch wrote:
It’ll be easier to fly than any piston single ever made, so 50hrs or a PPL should do it. But if we throw in single pilot workload in the IFR environment, weather avoidance and planning like Peter said etc, etc, then it gets a little more complex. I dunno, 500hrs as an average?
It may be easier in terms of systems and engine operation, but it is a fast airplane and these are really something which do require a proper training AND some experience, particularly if the IR was made in a slow plane. Ok, for the kind of runway this airplane is going to be used from (particularly in the US) it may be less of a problem, but those coming directly from a low power trainer will need a LOT of training to get up to speed with it. Also, working the Garmin 3000 as any Garmin set to a degree that you can work it in a high speed high workload environment needs a LOT of training and experience yet again.
Frankly, this is what I thought is the problem with a lot of these planes which are more capable than it’s pilots. And that was the beef I had with Cirrus trying to lure inexperienced newbies at the time, with the well known result. Same happened with the Bonanza and to a lesser extent the Malibu too, unqualified people were convinced by the sales reps that this plane is a piece of cake. Until they started falling apart and crashing all over the place.
