With Cirrus landing is easy. Stopping is hard.
I am in a profession that makes extensive use of statistics to support or refute convention in order to develop evidence based practices. I value wisdom tremendously, but when my hide is on the line, I want data.
While I am by no means an aviation expert, I did research this very question to death before starting lessons. In this truly healthy debate, “time in type” does convey real safety benefits. The US Navy compiled data from years of accident data involving expert pilots. Even the best pilots in the world are accident prone when training in a new aircraft. We can reasonably assume that we are not Navy pilots and that spending 10 hours in an SR22 after spending 60 hours in a 172 will not make you as safe as someone who spent 70 hours in the SR20 and then transitioned to the 22. Who hasn’t almost wrecked a new car because there’s just a different feel or blind spot?
The conclusion I reached was that training in the plane I will eventually purchase and fly on my own is the safest decision I could make (other than flying an airline.)
There is a bit of a false dichotomy inherent to this argument, but assuming you intend to fly a Cirrus, you will be safer if you have learned in one. The data say so. If you intend to (or will likely) fly a Cessna, then that’s where you need to spend your formative hours.
I would also say that as much as I searched and no matter how it feels, glass just doesn’t translate into safety. Unfortunately, “glass vs gauge” is where most of this debate tends to focus, but I would suggest that is the least of the differences between low wing/high wing, metal vs composite, and agile vs docile frames. There are a lot of reasons for this, not the least of which is personal bias. You are most likely safer in the avionics you are more comfortable with. Though, no one sticks a 6-pack to the window with a sucker cup do they?
Having said all of that, “glass vs gauge” is on it’s way to being a moot point.I don’t know anyone who believes glass is a fad that will pass. It is increasingly standard and in the decades to come, analogue instruments will be phased out with repairs and upgrades. Extrapolating from the “time in type” argument, my thought is to get comfortable with glass sooner than later no matter what aircraft you intend to fly- be that a Cirrus or a Cessna. You’ll sooner or later find that even the old rentals have gone to glass.
Glass isn’t a fad. This reply is general, not to your post really but my opinion on learning to fly in a Cirrus, which is just an opinion like so many posted here are as well, is that training to be a pilot is different than training to be a Cirrus pilot. Of course much is the same, no doubt and the PTS is the same. If you intend to fly only a Cirrus (some do), of course more time in type and more experience with its avionics is a good idea. But the broader the training and experience depth a pilot receives (or builds) the better they are equipped to really understand what is going on and to have more tools in their toolbox to use.
Examples:
Tail wheel vs nose wheel - effectively teaches rudder control. A Cirrus with a Yaw damper, on the other extreme, discourages rudder skill development.
Glass vs steam, well that has been beat to death here but I will say going from steam to glass is easier than the other way around. What if you are in a position to fly a steam gauge plane? Your rating will allow it, your skills do not match the rating.
High wing vs low wing - how does the plane handle in crosswinds, when flaps are dropped, etc…
High performance vs low performance - high power can mask a lot of sins and skills. A low power plane will teach finesse, respect for air density, gross weight, load distribution, etc…
There are more, those are only simple examples. There is much in a Cirrus you never get to experience. Trim wheels? We don’t have them. Retractable gear, we don’t have them. Different avionics, yokes, handling differences, the list goes on.
I strive to be a good pilot and pride myself that I am competent to fly many different types. That I choose to fly a Cirrus, well that is nice but it is not my limit nor all I aspire to. And what I have learned over 30 years (in over 30 types) helps me be a safer Cirrus pilot. I hope to fly more before before I hang up my wings. I would like to believe that I have learned something from each of them, even if only a little bit.
Experience matters. Learn something every time you fly, even if its the same type. Heck, try another type. Flying is fun.
It’s not so much that “glass is a fad”, I believe the issue is that most “steam gauges” will continue to operate for decades without issues of repair, replacement, or recertification, while “glass” based systems are much more likely to be obsoleted by the faster paced changes in technology, the availability of “older” parts like CRTs, and the problems of a government certification program that was put in place long before field upgradable software was a remote possibility. For “glass” systems to be as useful as “steam” in a 30 year old airplane with a 60 year old electrical system, regulations need to be updated to make replacement parts, software updates, and certification practical in the 21st century.
Bill,
You are totally right about that. I doubt we will see any operating Entegra or Perspective systems still in use decades from now. They are computers and at some point they will be unserviceable or at least not economically so.
I completely respect the experienced opinions and believe in learning both systems.
All great points, but I would hope (only the government could screw this up) that with time these stacks and panels become no more complicated than an extremely light and highly modular “plug and play” screen on the scale of an iPad that secures to the aircraft.
Updates could/should be as simple as snapping a screen in and out. Updating software and data packages could/should be as simple as LTE or satellite links to a cloud. Current glass avionics are at the “bag phone” phase. Big, bulky, and quickly being overtaken by the next model.
When they hit iPhone level- we’ll be glad for it.
Chris, one of the last things that Alan Klapmeier was advocating in his tenure at Cirrus Aircraft was exactly that – develop a plug-and-play standard so that they could sell you a Cirrus with the avionics options across a portfolio of compatible systems.
Oh, that was about 5 years ago . . . and we clearly have not moved the ball much, even perhaps retrenched into vendor-specific integration that precludes a major manufacturer like Cirrus from switching vendors to satisfy the pilot/owner.
Cheers
Rick
Roger, while your opinion is well stated, it doesn’t address a key challenge that you have posed many times before – how to grow GA or how to keep GA from withering away. Your challenge most often is heard in the context of cost of ownership, so let me address the context of attracting pilots to GA.
Who are the new pilots? And what do they want?
Seems to me that the new cohort of pilots is not necessarily an age-related generation, but often more tech-savvy folks with the means to fly. Few have aspirations of becoming real pilots in the sense of growing up always wanting to fly. The ones that I meet at CPPP often express a desire to travel, to enjoy the adventure, and to share that with others. In other words, flying is a means to an end, not the end itself.
What attracts them?
The success of Cirrus selling more single-engine piston aircraft than any other manufacturer gives me pause about what attracts their customers. Obviously, other companies have deeper histories, but less successful products. Also obvious, Cirrus set out to grow the market. The features that seem to sell aircraft these days are way over the top of what real pilots need, given how often we hear that my G1 has similar utility than the current G5. Yet, the G5 clearly has a long list of features that attracts new buyers, many attracted to personal air transportation, including wide-screen avionics, automated systems, and creature comforts. Oh, and the safety of a parachute system that works.
What barriers still exist to entry?
Contrast those attractions with what frustrates new pilots in GA. Clearly, the FAA processes and regulations frustrate many of them, in part because they do not feel like common sense. Also, the complexity of what it takes to fly from Point A to Point B still exists. As does the complexity of mechanical and electronic systems without using modern information systems. Weather knowledge seems high on their list. While Cirrus has innovated great ergonomics and automation, the system remains klunky.
How instructors affect new pilots?
The range of instructors seems to also have a huge impact on new pilots. Again, going by my conversations at CPPP with new pilots, the stories they tell of luddite instructors worries me. More than one has relayed how their instrument instructor turned off all of the automation in the Cirrus and never taught the student its beneficial uses. Other stories are in the horror category of instructors they fled because of unsafe acts or berating the student for not knowing. In fact, a couple of Cirrus fatal accidents with instructors on board fall into this category, instructors with attitudes that may have contributed to the instructional accident. Contrast that with stories of instructors who adapt their teaching styles to the students learning styles, and magic happens. Fortunately, several of the CPPP instructors receive these testimonials on numerous occasions. It’s a level of excellence that our community benefits from daily.
Knowing what you don’t know?
Finally, one thing that your list of examples provides suggest areas that new pilots don’t know. Several items on that list apply to me. Last month, I flew an Avidyne SR20 for the first time (thanks to Pat Scanlon traveling to a talk I was about to give). I have zero time as PIC of an Avidyne avionics suite and zero time in an SR20. I know that I don’t know how to get information quickly from those PFD and MFD screens, so with Pat in the right seat I was willing to fly left seat – and we flew VFR over familiar terrain with no mechanical or avionics issues. Big constraints. Oddly, in looking at several Cirrus fatal accidents, we see pilots with lots of past experience hopping into a Cirrus and flying away as if they know what they don’t know about a Cirrus. Exactly the kinds of pilots you expect, yet they fail to honor what they don’t know.
Nothing is universal, nor simple as a regulation. So all of these things need to be considered by the instructors and examiners. Hence my article in Cirrus Pilot on flight reviews. How can we welcome new pilots who are attracted to personal air transportation while also ensuring that they develop excellence as pilots?
Cheers
Rick
Rick:
In my opinion, what you just wrote above is just about the best post you have ever written. It does summarize all the issues quite correctly and describes the new generation of potential pilots accurately. Instructors are a problem as well in that the variability of their skills in both teaching and knowledge is too wide from the best to the worst.
That is why I have repeatedly tried to emphasize the point that technology is a big part of flying but cannot compensate for all of the other issues you raised. A proper balance is what is needed. Given costs, expectations and variability on the parts of potential pilots and instructors and you have a real challenge to conquer. But there are not enough people with enough money to drive this industry to success. So, as a starting point, cost has got to be front and center in thinking about how to promote this business. Unfortunately, costs collide with safety issues many times. To make a truly bulletproof airplane it would have to be too heavy and too costly to ever get off the ground. there will always be a compromise. My iPad is just as useful to me as my MFD. So why should the MFD have to cost so much? Until we get past that question and solve it, the industry will remain in trouble.
As a bonafide newbie, I can tell you that cost (if nothing else) is going to kill the whole industry- and quick. I am a relatively young (34) and successful guy with an equally successful wife- no kids, and I can tell you the numbers can be hard to swallow for me- for the rest of my demographic, you can forget it.
Individual ownership will be possible for me, but not by a huge margin and that could be something that becomes harder and harder to justify as the years and scheduled updates/repairs roll by. For me, GA in a Cirrus will mean working a few years more. For most people my age, even other professionals, it would mean a lot more than that.
In my humble opinion, manufacturers of real cross country aircraft (read Cirrus) would be well advised to move toward a more vertically integrated approach whereby the fleet is maintained and owned by the company and accessed by consumers who are members of a national scale club- the future of COPA?
Provide training, provide testing, raise a generation of advocates and enthusiasts, take advantage of the economy of scale to purchase fuel and parts in bulk, provide an option to buy hours in these craft from the company that brought them to life.
Bring a new generation to the yoke, or this whole thing is cooked. Even now as I look to purchase within a year or so, I am questioning not whether or not I can sustain my passion, but if the very concept of GA can be sustained. Just without medical reform, you’re going to see more and more of these birds going on fire sale as the pilots in their 50’s and 60’s are unceremoniously regulated out. If there’s no one there to step up to the plate- or worse yet, if there’s no plate, that would indeed be a very sad day. If the space shuttle can end up as a monument to overregulation and spiraling costs, don’t think for a second these 22’s can’t meet a similar grave.
All,
This has been an interesting thread with some valuable posts. (I found Rick’s to be particularly insightful.) We all know that cost is a major impediment to learning (and continuing) to fly. Since the original post started with the premise of learning in a Cirrus, let’s attach a rough cost to earning a PPL. Just looking at flight training and ignoring any associated ground school, reference materials, flight bag, headset, aviation medical, examiner fee, etc.:
- My typical primary student learning in an old, tired C-172 probably logs ~70-75 hrs. before earning their license. Most of that time involves having an instructor in the right-seat. (Solo flight time is a minimum of 10 hrs.) So, for purposes of this thumbnail analysis, assume that includes 75 hrs. of flight instruction. One of the FBOs in Chandler, AZ rents their C-172 for ~$100/hr. (wet). Thus, the student will spend about $155/hr. (aircraft + instructor) for 75 hrs. = $11.6K earning their PPL. Short of having access to a free aircraft and instructor (!), this is probably as inexpensive as it gets in the Phoenix, AZ area.
- A few local flight schools have SR-22s available for ~$225/hr. (wet). And, they generally charge a little more for flight instruction in a TAA aircraft. So, figure that the student will spend ~$300/hr. for a Cirrus and instructor. However, learning in a glass cockpit takes longer. Some estimates - no personal experience on my part - are ~120 hrs. Thus, this student will spend $36K to earn a PPL.
While these are only estimates, let’s consider the implications. What portion of our population can set aside that much disposable income? We all know that wealth distribution within the US is extremely disproportionate. That is, most of the wealth is held by a small segment of the population. Hence, growing our pilot population is a challenge since only a small segment of the total population can afford the training, much less the on-going expense of aircraft ownership, operation, and maintenance. And, with training in a Cirrus (other advantages/disadvantages aside) costing ~3X more than in an older, “round dial” airplane, I believe that only a small portion of the total student pilot population will elect to train in a Cirrus.
Craig
Craig:
What, in your estimation is the reason it is taking 75 hours to learn in a Cessna 172? WE just had two local students here earn their private in a Piper Warrior at 41 and 50hours respectively.
But, either way, learning in a Cirrus, as you pointed out, is far more expensive than learning in a more typical trainer.
Craig,
Those numbers are pretty close to what I am paying in FL right now. The 172 route is estimated to cost about 10K for 40hrs (including ground). You can expect 60-80 hours TT for something like 15-18K to wrap it up.
In the SR20, the cost is about 13K for 40hrs and the expected time is 70-90hrs. So you’re looking at 22-25K just to get the PPL in a 20. Once that’s done, you’re looking at similar numbers to get IFR cert and you don’t even have a High Performance endorsement yet.
I suspect I will be nearly 30K lighter before I am able to take the controls of a 22 and go somewhere. Even if you make 400K a year, that’s more than a month’s take home. There are plenty of doctors and lawyers who don’t make a quarter of that.
Maybe some of this is “training creep,” maybe not. I soloed at 25 hours and several people at the school commented that it was very quick. I was embarrassed, since I see the average out there is about 10-15 hours. That’s a whole new thread, though.
Time to get your PPL may vary, but I would expect to be closer to the 40-50 hour mark in a C172. Of course the more frequently you fly the fewer hours required, because you don’t have to learn the same thing over and over. The SR22 is not a 747, if you get your ratings you can easily transition to the 22 with the right training schedule. Budget some mentor time, which is probably the best money spent. The buttonology of the G1000 can be learned on the computer, or on the ground hooked up to a GPU. It is spending silly money to learn the avionics in the air.
Charles,
I don’t disagree at all- those numbers are very reasonable, but they aren’t nearly that common anymore. Schools are requiring more time (money) than ever. I am on the search for a good 22 mentor to help me transition.
Brian,
To answer that, I first started thinking about my students and was tempted to say that I teach mostly older adult learners. Then, I realized that wasn’t really true. [:)] So, I looked at my PPL syllabus. The primary reason for the additional time is simply that I require more flight time than the “minimum” - ref. attachment. Just looking at my estimated times for each training session, I added things up: presolo = 19.25 hrs. of dual, post solo = 40.5 hrs. of dual. Plus, the student has about 16.25 hrs. of solo. I also require more cross-country experience than the minimum - two dual cross-countries (one short & one long) and three solo cross-countries (two short & one long).
Other than the inherent length of my syllabus, three other factors come to mind:
- I teach out of a towered airport (KCHD). While everyone needs to learn proper radio comms, the stress induced by talking to a controller seems to slow the pace of learning somewhat. I know that when I receive a new instrument student who earned their PPL at a nontowered airport, their radio work usually needs improvement. So, I suspect that instructors working at nontowered airports provide less instruction/practice to their students in that area.
- I don’t teach students to do touch-and-goes until after solo. Before then, we do full stop-taxi backs. Although that approach stretches out takeoff/landing instruction prior to solo, the students get more practice on the radio because of the additional comms. Plus, I think that it’s safer to not have students reconfiguring the plane at a high speed when they are just learning to steer with their feet…
- The airspace around PHX is a little complicated. And, it’s busy with lots of flight training activity. I probably spend more time than absolutely necessary making sure that students don’t get lost or blunder into someone’s airspace.
Craig
Edited to correct a couple of typos.
Syllabus - PPL Flight Training ver 2 rev A.pdf (97.2 KB)
Craig,
so let me play devil’s advocate here: is it a good thing for GA as a whole when flight instructors decide on their own that learning to fly should be even more expensive and complex than the FAA thinks? Do you think you are losing students to instructors with a shorter syllabus?
FWIW, I continue to be surprised by the lack of, shall we call it, commitment many students (and pilots) show towards flying. I believe that is a key issue regarding how quickly and easily one can learn to do it.
Thomas, I think AOPA looked into this very issue, and found that student pilots are lost to slow progress. The biggies listed were money, time, delay to first solo, and instructor student conflicts. I think it is best to get the PPL as fast and safe as possible and instill compassionately in the student that the PPL, like the Instrument ticket, does not prepare you for many things you will encounter in the real world, but is a license to carefully learn what it takes to do it in the real world. We need more pilots. Not many out there are going to stick with a 100 hour syllabus in an overly complex, turbocharge, FIKI, glass cockpit (with 150 buttons) aircraft… IMHO. I did my PPL in 41 hours in a Diamond, and it changed my life. had it required 60, 80, or 100 hours, probably never would have gotten there.
Thomas,
Do you really think that I decided on my own that learning to fly should be even more expensive and complex than the FAA thinks? Good grief, that wasn’t my thinking at all. When I sat down and wrote all of the lesson plans required by the FAA to cover the topics they deem necessary and then estimated how long it would actually take someone to learn the associated skill, it totaled more than 40 hours! Mind you, the FAA minimum requirement is 40 hrs. with only 20 hrs. of it being dual. While that was doable when people received rote instruction flying planes from grass/dirt strips without radios, these days it’s pretty unusual. So, no, my objective wasn’t and isn’t to make things more complicated than they need to be. Rather, it’s to train pilots to safely operate today’s planes (well, may airplanes that are <30 yrs. old) in complex airspace under a variety of conditions. There are reasons that GA fatalities as a whole haven’t declined in decades. IMO inadequate primary training is one of the reasons.
To address your second question, I’m sure that I lose students to instructors with a shorter syllabus. A better question might be “do I care?”. And, the answer is no. Happily, I’m retired and don’t depend upon providing flight instruction to makes ends meet. I’m more concerned that primary students manage to earn their PPLs and then run past the boundaries of their training without realizing it. Admittedly, a PPL is a “license to learn” as we all know. I want to ensure that my students learn without killing themselves. Most of them will probably never fly a Cirrus…
I agree with you. Folks want things that are quick and easy. They also want things that don’t require an on-going commitment … like training, initial or recurring. To me, this observation directly relates to your first paragraph.
Craig
I am with Craig, I see much closer to 70 hours than 40 hours. It certainly depends on the airport and the airspace, but also on the standards. The school I teach at has very strict requirements and the chief pilot will not let anybody solo who is unable to land parallel to the centerline. And I really mean parallel. Coupled with local wind patterns at San Carlos, that takes perhaps longer then usual time to proficiency. But then it is a real proficiency, well above PTS.
On the flip side, he must be doing something right, because the club won the AOPA Award as best flight school in USA in 2013 and is growing pretty fast. I didn’t yet have a student complaining about too high standards. So I don’t buy the argument about loosing students to instructors with shorter syllabus. But it takes a real effort to create a social environment that supports flying, with countless events, seminars, barbeques and fly-outs.
Training to bare minimums just to pass the checkride is doing students a disservice in my opinion.