Unfortunately Gordon you’re absolutely right. Flight training especially in technologically advanced aircraft is poor at best. There are too few flight instructors with enough time and experience to provide quality instruction. Most are, as you say, at the bottome of the food chain and are just waiting to get enough hours to move into a job that pays.
The other issue is that we are really limited in what we can do in an airplane. General aviation could really benefit from the use of high quality type specific simulators. Traditionally they have been too expensive to be justifiable but I wonder if with modern computer technology they couldn’t be developed for a reasonable price. While they can’t really teach us how to fly the maneuvers required for private and commercial certificates as well as the real airplane, they are the only way to safely simulate the various ways things can fail. They can do it far better than in the real airplane.
When I had my twins I went once a year to Flight Safety or Recurrent Training Center. Those sessions were by far the best instructional experiences I’ve had in 36 years of flying.
$1.29!!
You must be one of the $50/hr CFIs
In reply to:
General aviation could really benefit from the use of high quality type specific simulators. Traditionally they have been too expensive to be justifiable but I wonder if with modern computer technology they couldn’t be developed for a reasonable price. While they can’t really teach us how to fly the maneuvers required for private and commercial certificates as well as the real airplane, they are the only way to safely simulate the various ways things can fail. They can do it far better than in the real airplane.
Jerry - I could not agree more. Here is an opportunity for Cirrus. They want to break new ground in making GA accessible to more people. They apparently feel that GA airplanes have been in the dark ages and can benefit from the kind of technology that has had such a significant impact on other aspects of our lives. I agree. (Hell, I voted with my wallet!) Coming innovations such as HITS displays, real-time wx, etc. can and will have a great impact on usability and safety.
But this dream cannot be realized unless flight training also undergoes radical transformation. You gotta have both if you really want to move general aviation out of the dark ages. I do not think that a more sophisticated airplane is a substitute for or reduces the need for good flight training!
Cirrus – are you listening? When you can catch a breath, do for Cirrus flight training what you’re doing for the aircraft. Bring it to a higher level. Contract with simulator manufacturers to create truly useful and realistic simulators specifically for your aircraft. Commision FlightSafety and/or other similar operators to put together top-notch training and recurrency programs for Cirrus aircraft. What an opportunity to differentiate from the competition.
This is by no means an indictment of the CFIs or program currently in place, just as an SR22 is not an indictment of a Bonanza. But I think almost everyone would welcome (and pay for) bizjet-quality flight training. And I have no doubt that accidents and insurance rates would go down, and CirrusÂ’ sales would go up!
Since I was berated for charging $1.29 for my last opinion, I have reduced my rate to $0.99!
Gordon, for me I feel fortunate to have an 11,000 hour fired Emory freight pilot to finish off my private license and to work with me on my instrument training. I have also had some lower time instructors, but all have had over 1,000 hours. The current condition with all the furloughs has created a plethora of competent instructors. Their loss has been my gain. I’ve also had about 15 hours of Frasca 141 simulator training. This has helped and I don’t seem to have any trouble with partial panel in my training. This is not to say that I feel 100% sure that I would not pull a chute at 600 feet if I felt something had gone terribly wrong and my IQ suddenly dropped 100 points. To suggest that you would not have any problem with partial panel during an insidious AI failure is ignorant on your part and does not reflect what the studies show; namely, that in simulator studies even the most experienced pilots had a very high rate of loss of control with vacuum pump simulated failures.
The upcoming COPA CPPP program will be an important step towards making type-specific recurrent training available for all Cirrus pilots, and my comments should not be construed as taking anything away from that program, which by all accounts is shaping up to be of very high quality. I don’t know if COPA will ever have the resources to provide simulators or have the manpower or reach to provide on-demand initial type training. I do hope that all Cirrus pilots will take advantage of the CPPP. Perhaps insurance rate incentives can help that along.
My mother always told me — “Advice is worth what you pay for it.” — better raise your rates again if you want to be taken seriously! [:)]
But, flight training with an expensive CFII could be an exception to this rule, although I’ve had really EXCELLENT instructors who were cheap, and expensive instructors who I thought had cheated me when the flight time was over…
In reply to:
To suggest that you would not have any problem with partial panel during an insidious AI failure is ignorant on your part and does not reflect what the studies show; namely, that in simulator studies even the most experienced pilots had a very high rate of loss of control with vacuum pump simulated failures.
Huh? I do not recall making any suggestion of that sort at all! If you read that between the lines you are mistaken if you think that’s my attitude. It is just that kind of attitude that is potentially deadly. One cannot ever rest on one’s laurels and smugly think that it can’t happen to you because it most certainly can. Nowhere did I say, imply, or otherwise express that I thought otherwise. Geez.
My points are:
-
If you are going to rely on the 'chute as your solution to save your sorry butt if an instrument fails, that is a problem.
-
The lack of emphasis on / availability of high-quality primary and recurrent training is killing people.
stupid question, but, why not put in a simple vacuum warning lite on the panel?
Why not indeed? That’s why there’s a VACUUM annunciator light in the panel of every Cirrus SR20. (My distinguished colleagues with SR22s are saying “Vacuum pumps? How very quaint.”)
With such a great idea at hand, why not go ahead and create this new simulator yourself? All too many times there’s the expectancy that someone else should do this or that to improve something. Just look at how long WE had to wait for SOMEONE to get serious about NEW GA airplanes - my hat is off to the Klapmeiers. I find that in most cases it is more effective to grab an idea and do it. I don’t mean invent the thing in your garage, but get people working on it. I’ll buy a bunch for my future flying school when you’re done …
A light warning of a vacuum failure is certainly a great step forward, but not the whole answer. Not all AI failures are caused by a loss of vacuum. The AI itself can fail while the vacuum is just fine.
This was posted this morning by Aero-News (http://www.aero-news.net/):
"We’ve gotten a bit more info about the recent downing of a Cirrus SR20 and now know that this aircraft, the 140th bird of the breed, was modified per the recent Service Bulletin… but the parachute in this aircraft did NOT fire after one of the pilots (apparently) failed to actuate the chute properly. The chute apparently did fire on impact… "
Here is what is known about this event, as far as I can tell:
- The airplane crashed;
- The people aboard were not seriously injured;
- The weather was bad;
- The chute was deployed, or deployed itself, at some point in the episode.
From what I’ve seen, everything else is speculation – why trouble began in the first place, what the pilot did, what happened to the chute, why the injuries were not more severe.
This is obviously an important event for Cirrus (to say nothing of the people in the plane). It is also one whose fundamental facts are not yet known – at least not to me.
I am chastened in interpretation of these events by remembering the American AIrlines crash in NYC soon after the terrorist attacks. It was so implausible for anyone in those days that it could have been just an unprecedented mechanical failure – although that is increasingly how it looks. So against my journalist tendencies I’m thinking: I don’t know enough about this latest Cirrus crash to know how to react, except to be (a) sorry and concerned about another crash, and (b) relieved at the limited injuries.
Ouch. A chute opening on the ground is about as useful as that last few gallons of fuel left in the fuel pump. Well, at least they survived…if not a testament to the chute, maybe it’s a testament to those great Cirrus seats!
The article still doesn’t say what the “problem” was, though.
The AI in the Cirrus has one other NICE FEATURE: An off flag when it is not receiving vacuum. So obviously you do not trust the AI when the red flag is out. I do not know the scenarios when the AI might NOT work with the red flag off however.
Brian
I know just enough about gyros to be dangerous, but I have a little personal experience with vacuum-driven attitude indicator failure. I have a 1997 Skylane (it’s for sale if anyone is interested 
Its AI gradually failed. At first, it would be slow to erect. On subsequent flights, it would show a bank when I was flying straight and level. Eventually, it would roll upside down in flight.
We speculated that the malfunction was due to bearing failure.
When I replaced it ($2,000 – thanks a lot, Cessna) I noticed that it was not the original unit. It had already been replaced once before! All this in a plane that had left the factory only four years earlier.
The only time the AI showed a flag is when I shut down the engine at the end of the flight.
I realize this is too small a sample size from which to draw any statistically significant conclusion, but it kinda makes you wonder if AI failures aren’t more common than you might think.
As an aside, common wisdom is that electric gyros are more reliable than vacuum instruments, since they’re not sucking potentially contaminated air through them.
-Mike
In reply to:
although I’ve had really EXCELLENT instructors who were cheap, and expensive instructors who I thought had cheated me when the flight time was over…
I’m not completely surprised. I think the thing to look for is experience, and is the instructor a professional flight instructor or is it kid just building time. Another important criteria is whether you can stand the guy/gal. They can be the greatest CFI ever but if their style or personality drives you crazy than little learning will take place. Still, I like to go up with a variety of CFIs for IPCs and such just to keep me on my toes. I’m happy if I can say that I learned something new, and I’m almost always happy.
Forgot…bet if you add up everyone’s repetitive ‘failures’ of important avionics and systems…we can expect more downed pilots…Now, one of the most valued assets of the Cirrus…“the Chute” has apparently failed too…
After a year on this site and the thousands of problems…are we pilots or still ‘test pilots’ playing “Russian Roulette” for Cirrus while they figure out (but most often never resolve) failures.
So for everyone on this site who consistently goes to bat for Cirrus’ misgivings and chastises me for trying to hold them accountable for our 1/4 million investmment plus our lives…if a failed chute doesn’t make you think twice…It unfortunately will take a loss of life because of their failures…before we as a group get fed-up (scared enough) to get 2 year old problems PERMANENTLY resolved.
This guy probably made several errors in judgement (the first was probably taking off in that horrible weather ripping through Kentucky). But as humans and for many of us as inexperienced pilots (me 350 hrs VFR) that’s why I bought this plane with a Chute…just in case I am a little human (unlike Gordon) up there and make an error in judgement…it wasn’t suppose to cost me my life…now who knows.
For all you guys with your incredible experience…lighten the hell up and REMEMBER when you were inexperienced and MADE ERRORS IN JUDGEMNET yourselves and failed AI’s, vac pumps, HSI’s, vibrations, jammed throttle cables, outrageous oil temps, flappin flaps and of course, the eternal shimmies, etc. scared the shit out of you too…They did me and I experienced EVERYONE of the aforementioned problems and more as a rookie…WE got away/handled them and now its EXPERIENCE. Maybe one day I will be overwhelmed too. God knows Cirrus has given me plenty of opportunity…to fail.
I hope the 2 involved never read on this site how they were trashed (yes you did) minutes after the accident as idots for not handling a failed AI.
Wasn’t it Firestone AND Ford who said (denied) there was anyithing wrong with their tires or vehicles…but the evidence said otherwise…I hope after the investigation the FAA finds several things FAILED for these poor folks (including the chute) and that’s why they went down and then go after Cirrus’ ass. Cirrus has tons of eveidence and KNOWS things aren’t quite right and you know it too! if their not accountable, they’ll sure as hell be liable.
Bet you a plane (lancair) we will refer to this post again as an unfortunate I told you so…
Take care
…I hope the 2 involved never read on this site how they were trashed (yes you did) minutes after the accident as idots for not handling a failed AI…
Who said they had a failed AI? Ionly read a report that stated they were having problems with their instruments. I think you are transferring the AI comment from another post.
This 'general ’ topice has been kick around in a few threads…which began as a failed AI and progressed/regressed from there.
In reply to:
I am chastened in interpretation of these events by remembering the American AIrlines crash in NYC soon after the terrorist attacks. It was so implausible for anyone in those days that it could have been just an unprecedented mechanical failure – although that is increasingly how it looks.
I am curious as to what do you refer to with regard to the “unprecedented mechanical failure”? If you mean the tail section falling off, I have been presented a rather sobering alternate explanation for that crash event, by a former American Airlines flight engineer. The tail section did indeed fall off, but that may have been the result of other factors and certainly not turbulence from a 747.