Although I am still a very low time pilot, I feel like I can offer some insight into this question as I just completed my primary and Instrument in a Cirrus.
I stared training in an SR22 and logged about 20 hours in it before the flight school leased back an SR20. I completed pretty much all of the requirements for my PPL, but I was still a year too young. My instructor and I decided to pursue my instrument rating with the time I had left. We used a change in the FAR’s from a few years back that allowed a large portion of PIC XC time to be logged with an instructor in the right seat as Acting PIC. We used this time to work on instrument skill while flying missions I would most likely encounter once I got my license. I found this process extremely valuable as I was getting real world experience with a platinum CSIP in the right seat. While in the process building time with my CFI, my family decided to purchase a 2008 SR22TN. I then transitioned to this aircraft which require a perspective transition, G3 airframe differences, and turbo differences. This probably set me back 10 hours to complete all of this. I finished the rest of my training in my aircraft and took the combined checkered with about 120 hours.
If you can afford it (I am lucky enough to have parents that fully support my hobby, and for that I am eternally grateful) then learn in the Cirrus IF you expect to be flying most of your time in a Cirrus. Now with that said, It is extremely important you find a good CSIP to receive your training from to ensure you get the best possible knowledge base of the complex systems of the Cirrus. I was lucky enough to have a great CSIP from whom I learned so much. My time spent with him was time well spent and I feel like I know plenty about the aircraft I fly, however with that said there is still plenty of learning to be done, so on top initial training in the Cirrus, I also follow the Cirrus reoccurring training requirements and attend a CPPP annually.
For those who have not met Jules, let me add that at the Oshkosh CPPP, he made a hit. Very polished aviator, very talented and forthright in his participation. And he really is young! [;)]
Glad to have him join the community. It was also fun to have his dad attend the Partner in Command course – a bit of role reversal, eh?!
If we buy into that, we cannot/must not complain about high barriers of entry into flying, because, well, we are actually making them even higher. IMHO that’s a very bad thing.
Frankly, and with the caveat that I am not an instructor, I don’t buy this “I am the old grizzled instructor and I am going to make you a great pilot, damn the regs, they are not demanding enough, I know better”. I think the old “flying is really hard, I am the great guy that can do it - and you are not” mystique is coming into play quite a bit here.
Yes, I do think the job of a primary instructor is to make a student able to pass the checkride. That’s what I am buying as a student. No more and - very important - no less. The PTS is plenty demanding with regard to making people safe pilots.
No offense meant. But I am pretty sure we are making a big mistake if we make our club even more exclusive than it already is. A new pilot right after the checkride is just that: a new pilot. It’s ok for him/her to be less experienced. That’s why it is called primary training. And that sense of continuous learning is what needs to be instilled in them, not a sense of “if you only train with me you’ll know everything there is to know when we are finished”. Frankly, as someone new to aviation, I’d run, not walk, from an instructor that told me “Well, the regs say it can be done in 40 hours, but I tell you from the start I’ll require 70”. I may still end up needing 70 or more, but that’s different.
Perhaps my statement was too broad. There are certain aspects of the training that need to be pursued to higher standards then checkride, in particular yaw (rudder) control.
As to this being very bad thing, the data I referred to in my previous post shows exactly the contrary.
I am actually a pretty newbie instructor, definitely not “old grizzled”, although can’t say young neither, unfortunately. I can assure you that there is no mystique involved. All I care about is that that nose is pointing straight down the runway.
On average, you cannot train somebody to pass the checkride in 40 hours now. If I say this it would be … ergh… deceptive marketing? And I really mean on average, there are definitely exceptions.
Your points and concerns are quite valid. There are a lot more “Christophers” trying yo lesrn how to fly than there are “Juiians”. The AOPA in a study cited cost as the biggest reason student pilots drop out. The total pilot population is dwindling. We will not be able to sustain GA in the US unless thete is a way to control costs. It fies not end with training. The cost to own and maintain a plane keeps increasing at a rate far greater than inflation. The AOPA just this week warned the FAA that cost is the biggest roadblock to ADS-B compliance and that around 80,000 airplanes are not worth enough to spend $5000 or more to equip them.
We cannot just say that is the way it is. I still do not understand why it should take a lot more hours to learn how to fly today than it did 40 years ago. Are we seeing a fifferent breed of students that do not work at learning or is it something else?
I have no confidence in the AOPA Best Flight Schools. I personally attended one of Top Schools, and it was a joke. Of their 3-4 planes (1970’s Cesna’s) rarely was more than 0-1 air worthy. Their Sim hadn’t worked for years, and 80% of the facility abandoned. Going out of business for months, then opened back up. As a new student, I about walked away from flying as a result. Luckily, when I went to take my written, I found a proper school to transfer to. When I called AOPA to understand their method for determining the “winners”, they explained the results are driven by unsubstantiated customer feedback. These “Customers” are entirely unconfirmed. So they probably had their family members, and friends to flood the ballot boxes.
Is your confidence in this statement (the award was absolutely justified) based on your personal visit and training with them? I believe the award could more accurately be called “Who manufactured the most votes”. The AOPA told me they don’t even tour or review the schools they award. The word “Best” suggests something more to me.
For the record, they were the 2013 “Top 10” winner.
It’s a joke… They aren’t in the top 10 of the state, which the market place is proving as they shrink and students flee.
Shady schools are nothing new and the never-ending money pit that struggling schools create is probably a contributing factor to the horrendous attrition rates of primary students.
Again, I would love to see what Cirrus could do with a school. The fleet would be well maintained, up to date, and I would suspect would be a breath of professional air to the community.
Many of the students would continue to be life long renters at the FBO from the same fleet they trained in and I’d bet dollars to donuts the instrument class would be a draw.
Sean, we must be talking about different schools. I am talking about San Carlos Flight Center, which won 2013 award and this is what I claim is absolutely justified.
To my good fortune, I transferred from BJC to the Cirrus school at APA, where I worked with a bunch of friendly pros. Folks that love instructing as a career and building safe pilots. With their generous fleet of G2/G3 Cirrus, I finsihed private & instrument without one mechanical cancelations. My drive is 2-hours each way from Breckenridge, so it was valuable factor. A clear distinction from my initial school.
My view is based on the single Top 10 school I attended, who won in 2012 & 2013… And also on AOPA’s response to my inquiry regarding their selection process. To a novice, the award was a factor in my decision as I searched for a school in the Denver area. I just figured GA training was inept, if that place was considered one of the best in the nation.
Hey folks, here is an update, with a video of my first solo landing! I am working on getting ready for my check ride.
Here is an update of my training and perspective on this issue:
Training in a 2014 Cirrus SR20 has not been cheap, the plane rents at $255 per hour, and the flight school charges $80 per hour for Cirrus training. Other training is $59 per hour. The school says that they need to charge more for Cirrus instruction to recover the cost of the Cirrus CSIP training. This is mostly BS, as the cost of the CSIP training can be recovered with just a few students, and the CSIP designation expands their pool of students. Its their right to charge whatever they want, but its the right of the customers to stay away, and I think that charging a $30 premium per hour does more harm than good. Sure, some guys just reach in and pay it, but I personally know several students that this has turned off and looked elsewhere for training.
The cost is high to train in a Cirrus, but personally I don’t see “complexity” being an issue, sure it takes longer to learn the avionics and fly a Cirrus well versus a DA20 or 172, but you are training in a Cirrus because you want to fly it anyway, and so it is time well spent. This issue really just comes back to the cost issue discussed above.
My advice to anyone in my shoes is that unless you are going to take delivery soon of a Cirrus, just go with a traditional trainer with a good CFI and flight school. I think it is great to start out on steam guages to learn the fundamentals, but I also think it is a good idea to move quickly to the glass cockpit. In my opinion the best trainer out there is a G1000 equipped C172, but the Diamond DA20 and DA40 are great as well. You will learn the basics and spend a lot less money. It will be good to have experience in different airframes even if you want to end up in a Cirrus someday. If you want to buy a Cirrus soon, then the extra cost of training in a Cirrus begins to make sense. My insurance company originally wanted 40 hours of dual instruction in the make and model (SR22T) before I could fly solo or with passengers, because I am so a low-hours pilot. We talked them into letting my time in the SR20 count towards satisfying that requirement. I fly mainly for business and will usually bring a copilot with me anyway on trips. So in my situation, a low-hours pilot taking delivery of a Cirrus soon, it made sense to train in a Cirrus. For most people it isn’t worth the money. That is my two cents.