I called Cirrus in Duluth the other day after finally deciding that I wanted to learn to fly in an SR20. I’ve been following this aircraft for many years and intend to buy one in 2 - 3 years time. I want to learn in this aircraft, as it is the only one I intend to fly. I asked Cirrus if there were any flight schools in Ventura County, California (where I live) that might be able to provide SR20 flight instruction and learned that the only company doing this is Wings Aloft in Seattle. Wings Aloft advised me that there might be some possibility of finding an experienced instructor in my area through this website, so here’s the request: If you are an experienced instructor with references, who wants to see me through my flight certificate using an SR20, please contact me with details/conditions/fees, etc., at “cliffcohen@earthlink.net”. Otherwise, I’ll wait until I’ve bought the plane and then find an instructor to teach me in it. Thanks.
Cliff,
First of all, congratulations on your decision to learn to fly. Also, congratulations on your decision to buy the best and best valued airplane in the GA fleet!
As a person who is thrilled with his SR20, I’d recommend you learn in an airplane other than the Cirrus, especially if you’re doing instrument training. First, either Cirrus is a lot of airplane for a student. Personal opinion, but I’d think that a step up to a Cirrus is a better bet. Additionally, the Cirrus does so much of the work for you in instrument work (especially situational awareness), I feel that you wouldn’t be especially well equipped to deal with losing the functionality of something in IMC. Kind of like learning math with a calculator, rather than learning it on paper first, then reverting to the calculator. I’d suggest lessons in a 172, Warrior, Archer, etc (cheaper too) then take your Cirrus when it arrives.
My instrument instructor made me turn off the GPS map for everything but GPS approaches. I cursed him at the time, but I still can visualize where I am when I don’t have the maps.
Good luck!
Andy
I called Cirrus in Duluth the other day after finally deciding that I wanted to learn to fly in an SR20. I’ve been following this aircraft for many years and intend to buy one in 2 - 3 years time. I want to learn in this aircraft, as it is the only one I intend to fly. I asked Cirrus if there were any flight schools in Ventura County, California (where I live) that might be able to provide SR20 flight instruction and learned that the only company doing this is Wings Aloft in Seattle. Wings Aloft advised me that there might be some possibility of finding an experienced instructor in my area through this website, so here’s the request: If you are an experienced instructor with references, who wants to see me through my flight certificate using an SR20, please contact me with details/conditions/fees, etc., at “cliffcohen@earthlink.net”. Otherwise, I’ll wait until I’ve bought the plane and then find an instructor to teach me in it. Thanks.
Cliff,
The question of learning to fly in a Cirrus has come up many times before on this site. Unlike Andy, I think learning to fly in the aircraft you plan to fly after you get your license is a great idea. The Cirrus is really a pleasure to fly and getting used to the higher speeds right from the beginning is much easier than moving up from a slow, high drag machine. You simply learn to fly the Cirrus correctly from the start and don’t have to unlearn habits that might work well in a high drag machine that don’t translate well into a slick Cirrus. The only reason many people learn in 150/172/PA28 etc. is that it’s the most economical way to get a license. It does not in my opinion make it easier to move to a fast airplane.
Regarding IFR training I agree that the Cirrus can make it too easy. I am a CFII and would also insist that someone learning IFR in a Cirrus learn how to use “raw data”. It’s really not hard to get rid of the Garmin map display or to put the checklist page on the ARNAV so that your easy situational awareness is lost.
Once you can do it without the maps adding the maps will make it that much easier and you’ll be that much safer.
Good luck in finding a Cirrus in which to train and happy flying!
Jerry Seckler SR22 N1970
First of all, congratulations on your decision to learn to fly. Also, congratulations on your decision to buy the best and best valued airplane in the GA fleet!
As a person who is thrilled with his SR20, I’d recommend you learn in an airplane other than the Cirrus, especially if you’re doing instrument training. First, either Cirrus is a lot of airplane for a student. Personal opinion, but I’d think that a step up to a Cirrus is a better bet. Additionally, the Cirrus does so much of the work for you in instrument work (especially situational awareness), I feel that you wouldn’t be especially well equipped to deal with losing the functionality of something in IMC. Kind of like learning math with a calculator, rather than learning it on paper first, then reverting to the calculator. I’d suggest lessons in a 172, Warrior, Archer, etc (cheaper too) then take your Cirrus when it arrives.
My instrument instructor made me turn off the GPS map for everything but GPS approaches. I cursed him at the time, but I still can visualize where I am when I don’t have the maps.
Good luck!
Andy
I called Cirrus in Duluth the other day after finally deciding that I wanted to learn to fly in an SR20. I’ve been following this aircraft for many years and intend to buy one in 2 - 3 years time. I want to learn in this aircraft, as it is the only one I intend to fly. I asked Cirrus if there were any flight schools in Ventura County, California (where I live) that might be able to provide SR20 flight instruction and learned that the only company doing this is Wings Aloft in Seattle. Wings Aloft advised me that there might be some possibility of finding an experienced instructor in my area through this website, so here’s the request: If you are an experienced instructor with references, who wants to see me through my flight certificate using an SR20, please contact me with details/conditions/fees, etc., at “cliffcohen@earthlink.net”. Otherwise, I’ll wait until I’ve bought the plane and then find an instructor to teach me in it. Thanks.
Andy,
I totally disagree with you. I think the Cirrus is an outstanding instrument training aircraft.
Your point is that “if something goes wrong” the loss of situational awareness in a SR20 is much higher than in a POS (piece of s**t) aircraft. That is true, but it’s more important to know how the SR20 can fail, than how a 172 with 50 year old avionics will fail. You can still do equipment malfunction training in a SR20 (I have in my 22, having to teach it myself because most of my instructor pool is less familiar than I am) however along the way, you will learn how to recover from failures in ways that training in some ancient POS will not give you.
Did your instructor teach you to use the CDI indicator in your GNS430 display if your CDI head died? Did he teach you to keep #2 crossfilled by default in case #1 died? Have you shot a LOC aproach on the GPSs to simulate radio failure? Did he show you what functionality you lose if #1 dies and how to recover? What about #2? What happens if your flux gate malfunctions and how do you configure the autopilot to fly your course when the DG is going insane?
Nope, I bet you, like me, spent a lot of time doing no-gyro partial panel NDB aproaches to minimums in heavy crosswinds. I wasted probably $1000 of training on something totally useless that I will never do in my life. I don’t even have an ADF. Morover, I could have spent that time and money getting systems training from on an aircraft with modern avionics.
My point is, if you intend to fly new planes in the real world, you should learn on them, and learn how THEY fail. Learning how to fly instruments the way the rest of us learned is only an interesting historical practice, at best.
Instrument training needs to be completely rethought. We spend a lot of time dealing with failures that simply cannot occur anymore, and don’t spend enough time covering realistic failures and ways to recover from them in modern aircraft.
If you’re going to fly modern aircraft, learn in a modern aircraft. If you’re going to fly in a POS, learn in a POS and a modern aircraft.
Paul
Cliff,
I took delivery of my new Cirrus 2 days after obtaining my private although I owned the plane a month earlier. All of my initial training was in Cessna products for a couple reasons, most of which came back to $ and not having the Cirrus until I was almost ready for the check ride.
Reason 1. Where I was living at the time there were no instructors with experience that my insurance company would cover without my spending $ to first get the instructor trained.
Reason 2. I wasn’t too keen on the idea of damaging my new plane practicing landings, It seemed to make sense to learn in an old Cessna.
Reason 3. Wings aloft was under the opinion that I could obtain my license faster in a Cessna. At the time I purchased the plane I needed about 10 more hours for my private, Wings believed that I would need 30 hours in the SR20 before taking my check ride. On reflection I don’t beleive that this would have been true. The check ride would have been a breeze in the Cirrus as long as I was reasonably proficient with the Garmins.
If I had it all to do again, and had a Cirrus available, I would spend the first 20 hours or so learing in someone else’s trainer and then finish in the Cirrus.
As far as instrument training, my CFII had never done a GPS approach prior to working in my SR20 so most of our time was spent on the non-GPS approaches. His favorite trick was to put a piece of paper over the ARNAV as he thought it was so cool. While the GPS maps are great for situational awareness they don’t offer the level of precision the the ILS and VOR needles do. Anyone trying to shoot an approach looking at a map on a 4 inch screen is in for trouble. Unless you are using the autopilot (topic for another day) the maps are only useful to get you to the final approach fix. IMHO, leave em on 90% of the time.
Stuart
Cliff,
The question of learning to fly in a Cirrus has come up many times before on this site. Unlike Andy, I think learning to fly in the aircraft you plan to fly after you get your license is a great idea. The Cirrus is really a pleasure to fly and getting used to the higher speeds right from the beginning is much easier than moving up from a slow, high drag machine. You simply learn to fly the Cirrus correctly from the start and don’t have to unlearn habits that might work well in a high drag machine that don’t translate well into a slick Cirrus. The only reason many people learn in 150/172/PA28 etc. is that it’s the most economical way to get a license. It does not in my opinion make it easier to move to a fast airplane.
Regarding IFR training I agree that the Cirrus can make it too easy. I am a CFII and would also insist that someone learning IFR in a Cirrus learn how to use “raw data”. It’s really not hard to get rid of the Garmin map display or to put the checklist page on the ARNAV so that your easy situational awareness is lost.
Once you can do it without the maps adding the maps will make it that much easier and you’ll be that much safer.
Good luck in finding a Cirrus in which to train and happy flying!
Jerry Seckler SR22 N1970
First of all, congratulations on your decision to learn to fly. Also, congratulations on your decision to buy the best and best valued airplane in the GA fleet!
As a person who is thrilled with his SR20, I’d recommend you learn in an airplane other than the Cirrus, especially if you’re doing instrument training. First, either Cirrus is a lot of airplane for a student. Personal opinion, but I’d think that a step up to a Cirrus is a better bet. Additionally, the Cirrus does so much of the work for you in instrument work (especially situational awareness), I feel that you wouldn’t be especially well equipped to deal with losing the functionality of something in IMC. Kind of like learning math with a calculator, rather than learning it on paper first, then reverting to the calculator. I’d suggest lessons in a 172, Warrior, Archer, etc (cheaper too) then take your Cirrus when it arrives.
My instrument instructor made me turn off the GPS map for everything but GPS approaches. I cursed him at the time, but I still can visualize where I am when I don’t have the maps.
Good luck!
Andy
I called Cirrus in Duluth the other day after finally deciding that I wanted to learn to fly in an SR20. I’ve been following this aircraft for many years and intend to buy one in 2 - 3 years time. I want to learn in this aircraft, as it is the only one I intend to fly. I asked Cirrus if there were any flight schools in Ventura County, California (where I live) that might be able to provide SR20 flight instruction and learned that the only company doing this is Wings Aloft in Seattle. Wings Aloft advised me that there might be some possibility of finding an experienced instructor in my area through this website, so here’s the request: If you are an experienced instructor with references, who wants to see me through my flight certificate using an SR20, please contact me with details/conditions/fees, etc., at “cliffcohen@earthlink.net”. Otherwise, I’ll wait until I’ve bought the plane and then find an instructor to teach me in it. Thanks.
Andy,
I totally disagree with you. I think the Cirrus is an outstanding instrument training aircraft.
Your point is that “if something goes wrong” the loss of situational awareness in a SR20 is much higher than in a POS (piece of s**t) aircraft. That is true, but it’s more important to know how the SR20 can fail, than how a 172 with 50 year old avionics will fail. You can still do equipment malfunction training in a SR20 (I have in my 22, having to teach it myself because most of my instructor pool is less familiar than I am) however along the way, you will learn how to recover from failures in ways that training in some ancient POS will not give you.
Did your instructor teach you to use the CDI indicator in your GNS430 display if your CDI head died? Did he teach you to keep #2 crossfilled by default in case #1 died? Have you shot a LOC aproach on the GPSs to simulate radio failure? Did he show you what functionality you lose if #1 dies and how to recover? What about #2? What happens if your flux gate malfunctions and how do you configure the autopilot to fly your course when the DG is going insane?
Nope, I bet you, like me, spent a lot of time doing no-gyro partial panel NDB aproaches to minimums in heavy crosswinds. I wasted probably $1000 of training on something totally useless that I will never do in my life. I don’t even have an ADF. Morover, I could have spent that time and money getting systems training from on an aircraft with modern avionics.
My point is, if you intend to fly new planes in the real world, you should learn on them, and learn how THEY fail. Learning how to fly instruments the way the rest of us learned is only an interesting historical practice, at best.
Instrument training needs to be completely rethought. We spend a lot of time dealing with failures that simply cannot occur anymore, and don’t spend enough time covering realistic failures and ways to recover from them in modern aircraft.
If you’re going to fly modern aircraft, learn in a modern aircraft. If you’re going to fly in a POS, learn in a POS and a modern aircraft.
Paul
Well put…Ed
If you’re going to fly modern aircraft, learn in a modern aircraft. If you’re going to fly in a POS, learn in a POS and a modern aircraft.
Paul
I agree with Paul. I will also emphasize that if you get all your IFR training in a Cirrus, don’t run off into the soup flying a “POS” without first getting several hours of what-can-go-wrong dual in the POS. The relative lack of situational awareness and potential for failures different from those you trained for in the Cirrus raise the risk level considerably.
I agree with Paul – the SR-20 is a good instrument training aircraft, with some caveats. I am at the “practice for the checkride” stage of my instrument training, with the first 25 hours in Warriors/Archers, and the rest in our SR-20, and I had some problems making the transition in the middle. While there is occasionally something to be said for “learning it the hard way”, few of the skills I learned from the Warrior were of particular use to me in the SR-20, and many had to be “unlearned”. In retrospect I should have waited to do it all in the Cirrus, and I would NOT recommend splitting the IFR training between two such different aircraft.
One of the frustrating aspects of the transition was the lack of knowledge on the part of the typical CFII of even the basic operation of the GARMIN 430, or of the FARs specific to filing /G. I spent quite a bit of time in the air showing my instructor, for example, the use of the OBS button and CDI for NDB holds (you may never do another NDB approach, but you can still be assigned a NDB hold). Or the use of NAV page 4 for a No-Gyro approach – a cinch compared to doing it in the basic POS Warrior. One CFII often resorted to teaching basic VOR approaches without the GPS not because of any specific teaching goal, but simply because that was what he was comfortable doing.
One other frustrating aspect of the transition to the SR-20 for instrument training was the lack of rudder trim, and the relative coarseness of the electric elevator trim compared to the Piper manual trim wheel. This required far more work on my part than mastering the avionics, and in the first few hours of training in the SR-20 my CFII observed that my efforts to hold within 50 feet/5 degrees of the assigned altitude/heading resembled a left-handed sword fightÂ… Again, doing the whole thing in the Cirrus would have put me in a much stronger position for the checkride, which I hope to do (and passÂ…) in September.
Phil
Holy cow! I didn’t mean to elicit this much response.
Sorry guys, but I don’t think it’s as straightforward as you put forth.
I’ll agree, if someone never flies a plane other than a Cirrus, then there’s probably no downside in being instrument proficient in only one kind of airplane. Personally, with all the work my instrument training took (slow learner), I wouldn’t want that kind of restriction. For example, I flew to Oshkosh (via Sheboygan) with a Cirrus owner who also owns a turbo 210 in the 210 because of the passenger load. I’d hate to have said “gee Ed, better put someone else in the right seat if you want help; unless it’s a Cirrus, there’s not much I can do.” What about someone that wants to eventually go to a twin, or other “advanced” plane with conventional avionics?
Fact is, Garmin and Arnav moving maps are terrific for situational awareness. At the same time, if you learn on a plane with them, the very important part of instrument flying that teaches visualizing the map via the instruments won’t be learned. Ditto for dead reckoning & pilotage in private pilot training. I guess if you figured out a way to cover the Arnav, and put the Garmins on non-map pages, the same could be accomplished. (Not sure what to do about the Sandel, though this would not be an issue in my SR20.)
Paul, your point about the training that doesn’t take place in a Warrior, for example, that is important for the Cirrus is a very good one. However, Wings Aloft and this forum (including you!) have provided a great supplement to my conventional instrument and private pilot training. Sorry, and don’t want to unnecesssarily stir the pot, but for my money, I’ll take my Bachelor’s in a conventional plane, and Master’s in Cirrus technology. I think I get the best of all worlds this way.
Bracing for the response,
Andy
PS Probably not a bad idea to come up with a different term than POS, for the rest of the aviation fleet - might ruffle some feathers.
Andy,
I totally disagree with you. I think the Cirrus is an outstanding instrument training aircraft.
Your point is that “if something goes wrong” the loss of situational awareness in a SR20 is much higher than in a POS (piece of s**t) aircraft. That is true, but it’s more important to know how the SR20 can fail, than how a 172 with 50 year old avionics will fail. You can still do equipment malfunction training in a SR20 (I have in my 22, having to teach it myself because most of my instructor pool is less familiar than I am) however along the way, you will learn how to recover from failures in ways that training in some ancient POS will not give you.
Did your instructor teach you to use the CDI indicator in your GNS430 display if your CDI head died? Did he teach you to keep #2 crossfilled by default in case #1 died? Have you shot a LOC aproach on the GPSs to simulate radio failure? Did he show you what functionality you lose if #1 dies and how to recover? What about #2? What happens if your flux gate malfunctions and how do you configure the autopilot to fly your course when the DG is going insane?
Nope, I bet you, like me, spent a lot of time doing no-gyro partial panel NDB aproaches to minimums in heavy crosswinds. I wasted probably $1000 of training on something totally useless that I will never do in my life. I don’t even have an ADF. Morover, I could have spent that time and money getting systems training from on an aircraft with modern avionics.
My point is, if you intend to fly new planes in the real world, you should learn on them, and learn how THEY fail. Learning how to fly instruments the way the rest of us learned is only an interesting historical practice, at best.
Instrument training needs to be completely rethought. We spend a lot of time dealing with failures that simply cannot occur anymore, and don’t spend enough time covering realistic failures and ways to recover from them in modern aircraft.
If you’re going to fly modern aircraft, learn in a modern aircraft. If you’re going to fly in a POS, learn in a POS and a modern aircraft.
Paul
Andy,
I totally disagree with you. I think the Cirrus is an outstanding instrument training aircraft.
Your point is that “if something goes wrong” the loss of situational awareness in a SR20 is much higher than in a POS (piece of s**t) aircraft. That is true, but it’s more important to know how the SR20 can fail, than how a 172 with 50 year old avionics will fail. You can still do equipment malfunction training in a SR20 (I have in my 22, having to teach it myself because most of my instructor pool is less familiar than I am) however along the way, you will learn how to recover from failures in ways that training in some ancient POS will not give you.
Did your instructor teach you to use the CDI indicator in your GNS430 display if your CDI head died? Did he teach you to keep #2 crossfilled by default in case #1 died? Have you shot a LOC aproach on the GPSs to simulate radio failure? Did he show you what functionality you lose if #1 dies and how to recover? What about #2? What happens if your flux gate malfunctions and how do you configure the autopilot to fly your course when the DG is going insane?
Nope, I bet you, like me, spent a lot of time doing no-gyro partial panel NDB aproaches to minimums in heavy crosswinds. I wasted probably $1000 of training on something totally useless that I will never do in my life. I don’t even have an ADF. Morover, I could have spent that time and money getting systems training from on an aircraft with modern avionics.
My point is, if you intend to fly new planes in the real world, you should learn on them, and learn how THEY fail. Learning how to fly instruments the way the rest of us learned is only an interesting historical practice, at best.
Instrument training needs to be completely rethought. We spend a lot of time dealing with failures that simply cannot occur anymore, and don’t spend enough time covering realistic failures and ways to recover from them in modern aircraft.
If you’re going to fly modern aircraft, learn in a modern aircraft. If you’re going to fly in a POS, learn in a POS and a modern aircraft.
Paul
I’ll bet there are lots of pilots out there that can’t even dream of owning one of the newer composite planes; they would be tickled pink to own a “POS” as you would term these older planes or even be able to frequently rent a “POS”.
bill
I very much agree with Paul on what to train in. I do take exception to calling other a/c “POS” :-). I’ve had some very good times in those old planes and some of them can do stuff that Cirrus’s will be able to do in ten years if Cirrus makes a lot of progress.
In teaching computer logic, a fast-moving field, the old-timers would say “you can’t learn this new stuff unless you understand the old stuff”. If you know the old stuff, it makes learning the new stuff a little faster. But for greatest efficiency, just learn the new stuff. People that learned the old way (like me, in both computer logic (starting around 1972) and flying (1976)), sometimes like to think that they learned whatever the best possible way and that the new folks, by taking “shortcuts”, are missing out by their laziness. It is just nonesense. Like Paul says, learn the new ways, the new failure modes (which Wings Aloft instructors, in my experience, lack the systems knowledge to impart and it isn’t part of their curriculum), the new strategies, etc.
Now for a little more opinion: every SR2x pilot should become instrument rated. If you can afford the finest piston IFR platform, you can afford the time and money to get the rating. It just isn’t that hard (I am about the slowest learner on the planet, if I can do it, you can do it). And it will help everyone’s insurance rates.
As one Cirrus investor likes to say, have a great Cirrus day :-).
Robert Bedichek
Andy,
I totally disagree with you. I think the Cirrus is an outstanding instrument training aircraft.
Your point is that “if something goes wrong” the loss of situational awareness in a SR20 is much higher than in a POS (piece of s**t) aircraft. That is true, but it’s more important to know how the SR20 can fail, than how a 172 with 50 year old avionics will fail. You can still do equipment malfunction training in a SR20 (I have in my 22, having to teach it myself because most of my instructor pool is less familiar than I am) however along the way, you will learn how to recover from failures in ways that training in some ancient POS will not give you.
Did your instructor teach you to use the CDI indicator in your GNS430 display if your CDI head died? Did he teach you to keep #2 crossfilled by default in case #1 died? Have you shot a LOC aproach on the GPSs to simulate radio failure? Did he show you what functionality you lose if #1 dies and how to recover? What about #2? What happens if your flux gate malfunctions and how do you configure the autopilot to fly your course when the DG is going insane?
Nope, I bet you, like me, spent a lot of time doing no-gyro partial panel NDB aproaches to minimums in heavy crosswinds. I wasted probably $1000 of training on something totally useless that I will never do in my life. I don’t even have an ADF. Morover, I could have spent that time and money getting systems training from on an aircraft with modern avionics.
My point is, if you intend to fly new planes in the real world, you should learn on them, and learn how THEY fail. Learning how to fly instruments the way the rest of us learned is only an interesting historical practice, at best.
Instrument training needs to be completely rethought. We spend a lot of time dealing with failures that simply cannot occur anymore, and don’t spend enough time covering realistic failures and ways to recover from them in modern aircraft.
If you’re going to fly modern aircraft, learn in a modern aircraft. If you’re going to fly in a POS, learn in a POS and a modern aircraft.
Paul
if you get all your IFR training in a Cirrus, don’t run off into the soup flying a “POS” without first getting several hours of what-can-go-wrong dual in the POS
Why would an SR20 owner want to fly a POS? Apart from reminding yourself why you fly a Cirrus? Oh, sorry Kevin, forgot that you fly a Perfectly OK STOL. 
if you get all your IFR training in a Cirrus, don’t run off into the soup flying a “POS” without first getting several hours of what-can-go-wrong dual in the POS
Why would an SR20 owner want to fly a POS? Apart from reminding yourself why you fly a Cirrus? Oh, sorry Kevin, forgot that you fly a Perfectly OK STOL.
Which admittedly was a plain jane 182 in its former life! And aside from airframe modifications, its panel is a mix of the old and the new. Dean G’s 260se on the other hand has a panel that is every bit as state-of-the-art as any Cirrus.
IFR is a completely different–and much better/safer–ballgame with the new avionics. Even partial panel sans gyro instruments is far easier: the turn coordinator and GPS digital heading reference make this seem to me little more difficult than with the AI and DG on line.
Phil,
By far the best way to set the trim is with the autopilot. Don’t hesitate to use it, especially when trying to read an approach plate.
However, you still need to be comfortable flying the plane by hand. My altitude hold decided to die 2 days before my instrument check ride about 2 weeks ago and did that make me nervous.
After the examiner gave me a speech about how he almost always uses autopilot when doing approaches in actuals I explained what happened to mine (I had put a very unofficial looking “inoperative” sticker on it). The examiner was great, especially at one point where he “took the plane” so that I could study an approach plate and found himself 500 ft high before he noticed.
2 days later I embarked on my longest cross country to date, from Iowa to San Diego, sans alt hold. I eventually figured out that the plane really is pretty easy to trim manually, at least for pitch. Just takes some getting used to.
Good luck on your exam. By the way, the examiner was so thrilled with the plane, and how much safer modern technology has made flying, that the check ride seemd more like taking one of the geezers from the FBO for a joy ride than a test.
Stuart
I agree with Paul – the SR-20 is a good instrument training aircraft, with some caveats. I am at the “practice for the checkride” stage of my instrument training, with the first 25 hours in Warriors/Archers, and the rest in our SR-20, and I had some problems making the transition in the middle. While there is occasionally something to be said for “learning it the hard way”, few of the skills I learned from the Warrior were of particular use to me in the SR-20, and many had to be “unlearned”. In retrospect I should have waited to do it all in the Cirrus, and I would NOT recommend splitting the IFR training between two such different aircraft.
One of the frustrating aspects of the transition was the lack of knowledge on the part of the typical CFII of even the basic operation of the GARMIN 430, or of the FARs specific to filing /G. I spent quite a bit of time in the air showing my instructor, for example, the use of the OBS button and CDI for NDB holds (you may never do another NDB approach, but you can still be assigned a NDB hold). Or the use of NAV page 4 for a No-Gyro approach – a cinch compared to doing it in the basic POS Warrior. One CFII often resorted to teaching basic VOR approaches without the GPS not because of any specific teaching goal, but simply because that was what he was comfortable doing.
One other frustrating aspect of the transition to the SR-20 for instrument training was the lack of rudder trim, and the relative coarseness of the electric elevator trim compared to the Piper manual trim wheel. This required far more work on my part than mastering the avionics, and in the first few hours of training in the SR-20 my CFII observed that my efforts to hold within 50 feet/5 degrees of the assigned altitude/heading resembled a left-handed sword fightÂ… Again, doing the whole thing in the Cirrus would have put me in a much stronger position for the checkride, which I hope to do (and passÂ…) in September.
Phil
What are the big differences? I am currently doing instrument review in a 172 (having been out of flying for the last 11 years).
Also how do you do an NDB hold as you mention?
Currently I am using POS avionics and haven’t read up on the 430 to see what it can do.
Thanks, Bruce
I agree with Paul – the SR-20 is a good instrument training aircraft, with some caveats. I am at the “practice for the checkride” stage of my instrument training, with the first 25 hours in Warriors/Archers, and the rest in our SR-20, and I had some problems making the transition in the middle. While there is occasionally something to be said for “learning it the hard way”, few of the skills I learned from the Warrior were of particular use to me in the SR-20, and many had to be “unlearned”. In retrospect I should have waited to do it all in the Cirrus, and I would NOT recommend splitting the IFR training between two such different aircraft.
One of the frustrating aspects of the transition was the lack of knowledge on the part of the typical CFII of even the basic operation of the GARMIN 430, or of the FARs specific to filing /G. I spent quite a bit of time in the air showing my instructor, for example, the use of the OBS button and CDI for NDB holds (you may never do another NDB approach, but you can still be assigned a NDB hold). Or the use of NAV page 4 for a No-Gyro approach – a cinch compared to doing it in the basic POS Warrior. One CFII often resorted to teaching basic VOR approaches without the GPS not because of any specific teaching goal, but simply because that was what he was comfortable doing.
One other frustrating aspect of the transition to the SR-20 for instrument training was the lack of rudder trim, and the relative coarseness of the electric elevator trim compared to the Piper manual trim wheel. This required far more work on my part than mastering the avionics, and in the first few hours of training in the SR-20 my CFII observed that my efforts to hold within 50 feet/5 degrees of the assigned altitude/heading resembled a left-handed sword fightÂ… Again, doing the whole thing in the Cirrus would have put me in a much stronger position for the checkride, which I hope to do (and passÂ…) in September.
Phil
… especially at one point where he “took the plane” so that I could study an approach plate and found himself 500 ft high before he noticed.
… more like taking one of the geezers from the FBO for a joy ride than a test.
Stuart,
I sure hope your examiner doesn’t frequent this board!
Congrats on your test…
Mike.
Also how do you do an NDB hold as you mention?
Currently I am using POS avionics and haven’t read up on the 430 to see what it can do.
Thanks, Bruce
Bruce:
This is my technique. For the NDB Hold, first make sure the 430 CDI selection is on GPS, then enter the NDB as your direct destination, and twist in the assigned radial on your external CDI or HSI (as a ‘from’ radial, so at the bottom). Now hit the OBS button on the 430. The external CDI will transfer the radial you twisted in over to the 430, and it will now act as though you are tracking a VOR radial – while the 430 map will show a line through the NDB with the ‘fromÂ’ radial side (the inbound hold leg) in purple, while the ‘toÂ’ radial on the other side of the fix is white. If you twist the CDI, that line will rotate, but it will always be centered on your selected waypoint. Once you cross the fix and turn toward the radial, you can slide right into the inbound leg of the hold and center up the needle, getting the wind correction right off, the GPS distance to the NDB, and the flag will flip when you cross the fix. This technique also makes it very easy to visualize the entry into the hold. This whole thing works just as well on an intersection hold as long as the waypoint is in the database, and it is an easy one to practice on the 430 simulator. When I told my CFII about that one, he could hardly wait to use it on his upcoming multi checkrideÂ…
And for another obscure Garmin trick…For VFR into an unfamiliar airport with multiple runways and the tower simply telling you to enter a “right base” to one of them, you can use the OBS technique to line up with the right runway. Call up a non-precision approach for that runway, and select Vectors to Final, but don’t activate it, so it just loads into the FPL page. Scroll down the FPL waypoints to the missed approach point, which will be marked as “RWxx”, with xx the runway number, and hit the Direct button, and activate it. Now hit OBS, and twist in the runway heading as a “to” radial into the CDI. The line on the Garmin will now be precisely through the center-line of that particular runway, and will show distance to the threshold (and a VNAV profile, for that matter, for those straight-in black-hole night approaches).
Phil
Andy,
I agree with you that if you’re going to fly multiple airplanes, both with contemporary and antiquified avionics, you should be proficient in both.
However, in my not so humble opinion, an airplane equipped with a full suite of contemporary avionics is a better place to start if you are going to have to use both.
They typical instrument training course starts with flying straight & level under the hood, then manuvers, holds, then some instrument failures & unusual attitudes, then holds, and apps. with & without a full panel.
We don’t toss partial panel at a guy who is still learning to fly straight & level.
To me, flying IFR in a POS (plain old ship?) is not any different than flying in a Cirrus with near total avionics failure.
I think a good contemporary IFR training course should include learning what you can and can’t do with RAIM failure (something my CFII never taught me), flying with GPS failure but working NAV radios, ARNAV failures, and Sandel failures,
Some of these failures (losing all 4 possible moving map displays) are going to give me different levels of situational awareness. I would expect a CFII competent in contemporary avionics systems to fail individual instruments as well as possible combinations (including systems failures of BAT1/ALT1 or BAT2/ALT2).
I learned instrument training by the book, with an “old school” instructor (someone I admire and still think is a great CFII). That’s what I wanted because I thought that would make me a better IFR pilot. I wanted to be >proficient< at landing in IMC at minimums with nothing more than a wet compass, an altimeter, a turn coordinator, and a scratchy AM radio. If someone wants to learn that way, more power to them. However, looking back on it now, I was a fool to make that choice given what I wanted out my training. I don’t believe that made me a better IFR pilot. In fact, I consider my training deficient given the aircraft I do fly. I had to teach myself how to take full advantage of the aircraft during the 95% chance that it would be operating normally. Additionally, I had to teach myself the systems failures in the Cirrus.
The time and money I invested in that form of training was wasted compared to the knowledge I would have picked up had I invested in training in contemporary avionics management.
Frankly, I’d love to spend an afternoon or three with a good CFII who is totally familiar with SR22 systems and come up with a comprehensive IFR training program for contemporary aircraft. I can always become a better pilot. 
I can always become a better pilot.
…as Walt would certainly attest to if you got him to drop his guard. He had to suffer through me hand flying under the hood the other week as I knocked the rust off of my IFR training.
One of his comments to me was that I was so preoccupied with preparing for failures, that I spent most of my time screwing with all of the instruments trying to make sure that every possible information source was active and configured, instead of keeping my load managable.
With an aircraft as complex as the Cirrus, it’s not really necessary to tune in both the two NAV radios and the GPSs on the slight chance you might have a spontaneous GPS 1 & 2 failure in the middle of an aproach.
After failing my #2 garmin (chuckle) so that I wouldn’t screw around so much with the equipment, he said: “Just fly the damn aircraft.”
Good advice.
From now on, when I train, I will train the way I fly inr eal life. Configure the avionics & backups that make the most sense, monitor the AP, and respond to failures as they occur.