Cirrus Down in TX near the pattern 60R

[Yetti]

9 hours ago, M20F said:

I would agree but by the same token when people come here and ask is buying an Ovation good to get their PPL in the posts are overwhelmingly yes of course it is.  A complex/high performance plane of any model doesn't make a good trainer in my book, it has nothing to do with a Cirrus specifically. 

I have about 200hrs of SR22 time and it is a certainly a lot easier to land.  The high wing loading makes them a lot more responsive to control inputs than a Mooney (which drives like a dump truck) but it makes them real twitchy when trying to be precise hand flying an ILS where dump truck control is more preferred.  Personally I don't get why people like Cirrus's so much but I also don't get the hate for them either. 

Probably was not making myself clear.

Maybe the Cirrus is not a good primary trainer because of the side stick and the springs.  In stall practice you will see a CFI put both hands under each side of the yoke to make sure it stays level.  The side stick would need to be able to yank back to a relative position to be level.  Yanking and relative position are not achievable

This article talks about the springs and not being able to feel the plane.

http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20

My transition instructor could feel the plane. 1/8 of a ball outside and he would speak to you about the rudder.   A little slow on base or final he would let you know (luckily I was feeling it to and already reaching for the throttle.

I think the PC system is the input that creates the dump truck feel which removes the twitchyness that the Mooney could have. 

Never flown a Cirrus, never flown an Ovation

 

[M20F]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

Sorry, F, you'll not find much support for your "bank as hard as you want in the pattern, just don't pull back in the yoke" approach here.

Perhaps my statement was a little aggressive to make a point, the point is it isn't bank angle that gets you.  Many use the 30 degree limit but then one day go a little bit further and then incident occurs.  Here is an article discussing a Mooney.  I am certainly not advocating 60 degree banks in the pattern but if like the SR22 pilot in the video Kevin linked somebody finds themselves going there, let go of the stick.  The nose will drop, you will lose altitude, but you are not going to fall out of the sky as happened to the SR22 pilot.

1 hour ago, PTK said:

Consider this and tell me what you think: 

G force, aka load factor,  increases by a factor of cos−1(θ). Where θ is bank angle.

Vs in a bank = Vs level / square root cos (θ).

Example: in a 60° bank the G's increase fy a factor of 2.

Yes in a 60 degree bank G's are increased approximately a factor of 2, a rough thumb provided by charts that predate calculators.  If you fly a 52 degree bank your G's are somewhere between @ 1.4 (45 degree) and @ 2G (60 degree).  The POH's are showing Vs / Vso in relation to bank angle as a rough thumb so you don't need to do square roots and cos math in your head.  It still doesn't change that it is wing loading increasing AOA, not bank angle that is causing the change in V speeds.

20 minutes ago, Yetti said:

I think the PC system is the input that creates the dump truck feel which removes the twitchyness that the Mooney could have. 

A high wing loading (SR22) makes it quick to respond to a turn input but won't sustain it as well as low wing loading (Mooney).  It takes a lot more to get the Mooney turning but it is better over the length of the turn (sustained performance).

[Yetti]

My rule that I beat into my head.   "Push down"

Slow on final - push down

Coming up off the runway too fast - push down

have to make the impossible turn - push down

Doing u turns to landing - push down

trying to make the field after whatever - push down

Just hope I remember it when I need to do it.

 

[aviatoreb]

9 hours ago, Bob said:

This year I completed training in a Cirrus and have 30hrs in it, not much, but enough to understand the plane.  I see three main things that may contribute to a bad ending in a Cirrus.

1)  They move along fast but also loose speed very fast.  Approaching to land, I had to keep telling myself "nose down".

2)  They fly very smooth, almost too smooth, so it is hard to really feel the plane.  Its is very hard to feel speed changes.

3)  Way too many checklists with way too many lines within each checklist.  The Cirrus training drills in your head to use every checklist, always.  The checklist workload is way too high!

 

I think it may be the compliant fiberglass wings that make it so smooth.  I had a DA40 which had even longer aspect wings, and more compliant and I would see them out the window flexing as I went over the bumps, like being on springs it was like the wings were McPherson struts.

I have flown on separate occasions with people with extra long checklists - for the DA40, for the Cirrus, and once even for a Mooney.  I was marveling each time how much they diverted attention from flying the airplane, in the pattern, to work on their checklists.  I am not a CFI, but in the right seat, with one of those pilots, I lost confidence and I was watching the ball and ready to take action just in case.

[Yooper Rocketman]

John Deakin wrote a great article a long time ago "Throw away the stupid check list".  http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182037-1.html   A lot of my checklist policies follow his great advice.

It doesn't actually advocate throwing it away, but long check lists are not necessarily the safest procedure to fly.  We had an airline pilot write the check lists for our two mercy flight planes.  The start up through run up checklist was 150 items, with some things repeating themselves 3 times.  I rewrote my own and got it down to less than half.  I found other pilots, after time, skimmed the list instead of actually checking every item, especially items on the list multiple times, thinking they checked it the first time.  On my Rocket, I use the "Flow" method and a short checklist in the form of a decal on the console, and then a short acronym as I roll on to the runway.  One thing I do that I usually explain to "new" passengers, is every item on my shorter check list is verbalized out loud, whether I am alone or flying with the seats full.  I have not found anyone take issue with me talking out load as I do my list.

I NEVER use a written check list once flying (except emergency procedures if, and only if, I have time at a safe altitude).  Those items are memorized, with words or acronyms like GUMPS.  My after landing check list is really simple once on the taxi way; Flap (up), Flaps (open) Trim (to take off) Transponder (to stby if uncontrolled airport) and Cancel (IFR Cancellation).  The transponder is still there because of old habits, as many large airports now want it left on.  I usually skip it but old habits die slow.

Tom

[Mooneymite]

I don't  think anyone can dispute the value of checklists.  The military, the airlines, virtually any serious operators use checklists religiously.

Checklists work.

Having said that, checklists are not instructions on how to fly the airplane.  Long, detailed checklists are stupid, distracting and dangerous.

The jet I fly at work has a fairly long checklist prior to taxi, but just  three items on the taxi checklist and three items on the landing checklist.  That's  about the right balance.

How about:  "1.  Gear down....everything else is a detail"?  

Edited March 1, 2016 by Mooneymite

[PTK]

3 hours ago, M20F said:

3 hours ago, M20F said:

Perhaps my statement was a little aggressive to make a point, the point is it isn't bank angle that gets you.  Many use the 30 degree limit but then one day go a little bit further and then incident occurs.  Here is an article discussing a Mooney.  I am certainly not advocating 60 degree banks in the pattern but if like the SR22 pilot in the video Kevin linked somebody finds themselves going there, let go of the stick.  The nose will drop, you will lose altitude, but you are not going to fall out of the sky as happened to the SR22 pilot.

Yes in a 60 degree bank G's are increased approximately a factor of 2, a rough thumb provided by charts that predate calculators.  If you fly a 52 degree bank your G's are somewhere between @ 1.4 (45 degree) and @ 2G (60 degree).  The POH's are showing Vs / Vso in relation to bank angle as a rough thumb so you don't need to do square roots and cos math in your head.  It still doesn't change that it is wing loading increasing AOA, not bank angle that is causing the change in V speeds.

A high wing loading (SR22) makes it quick to respond to a turn input but won't sustain it as well as low wing loading (Mooney).  It takes a lot more to get the Mooney turning but it is better over the length of the turn (sustained performance).

 

It's so terribly important to understand this concept and not give the wrong impression to a student who happens to be reading this that bank doesn't matter! Especially in view of all the infamous base to final accelerated killer stalls.

It must be understood that an accelerated stall is a stall at a higher than straight, 0 bank stall speed.

It must also be clearly understood that: a. airspeed cannot be allowed to decay, b. cannot over-bank to compensate for any overshoot, and c. must stay coordinated. Otherwise the door is open for an accelerated stall.

 

 

[Bob]

10 hours ago, M20F said:

The Cirrus checklists are the same or shorter than a Mooney (mainly because you don't have to deal with the gear).  If you look at the other checklists they are verbose but none of the items are done in a critical portion of flight though certainly detailed especially the walk around which probably isn't a bad thing.  I really don't see how you come up with 80% checklists / 20% flying the plane for doing pattern work (or normal flight for that matter).

Normal Takeoff

1. Brakes........................................................................... Release

2. Power Lever .........................................................Full Forward

3. Engine Parameters.......................................................... Check

4. Elevator Control .....................................Rotate at 70-73 KIAS

5. At 80 KIAS................................................................. Flaps Up

Climb

1. Climb Power.........................................................................Set

2. Flaps ......................................................................... Verify Up

3. Mixture ..........................................................Lean as Required

4. Engine Parameters.......................................................... Check

5. Fuel Pump ........................................................................... Off

Cruise

1. Fuel Pump ........................................................................... Off

2. Cruise Power ........................................................................Set

3. Mixture..........................................................Lean as Required

4. Engine Parameters........................................................Monitor

5. Fuel Flow and Balance.................................................Monitor

Descent

1. Altimeter ..............................................................................Set

2. Cabin Heat / Defrost .............................................As Required

3. Landing Light....................................................................... On

4. Fuel System.....................................................................Check

5. Mixture..................................................................As Required

6. Brake Pressure.................................................................Check

Before Landing

1. Seat Belts and Harnesses................................................Secure

2. Fuel Pump ........................................................................Boost

3. Mixture..................................................................As Required

4. Flaps ......................................................................As Required

5. Autopilot ...............................................................As Required

Normal Landing

1. Entry Power.................................................................. 15" MP

2. Entry Speed .............................................................. 120 KIAS

3. Abeam Power ............................................................... 11" MP

4. Abeam Flaps...................................................................... 50%

5. Abeam Speed............................................................ 100 KIAS

6. Base Speed ................................................................. 90 KIAS

7. Aproach Flaps ................................................................. 100%

8. Approach Speed ......................................................... 80 KIAS

M20F-Thanks for adding details to the checklist items. Not sure how the "The Cirrus checklists are the same or shorter than a Mooney".  I just looked quickly in my 231 POH so I could see a fair comparison and found that checklists are not included in my 231 POH.  I'll look at the checklist placards next time I fly my plane. Is your comparison using aftermarket checklists for the Mooney?

My point in my post was that I see the biggest problem as the combination of the checklist, MFD and the Cirrus training combined.  In the above list for normal takeoff, it's design has no consideration for pilot workload, since some items are not needed while other items take additional steps to complete, like "check engine parameters".  Does a pilot really need to be told to release the brakes? Power full forward, now check engine parameters.  Well that requires you to go to the MFD and turn to the engine screen, check parameters, then go back the Normal takeoff checklist screen, then check off #3, before getting to 70-73,etc.  A factory checklist & training that promotes flipping MFD screens while accelerating down the runway is beyond my comprehension!

If you take the Cirrus checklist add Cirrus training that demands the complete use of the checklists, add a MFD, now find the list in the PDF, then add the Cirrus training that demands checking off each & every item.  Now add touch & go's (they do instruct touch & go's in the Cirrus) and you end up with major unnecessary workload that takes away from flying the plane.

In the real world, you may "blast thru", shorten or do some by memory (example: GUMPS), but I don't think with a CFI instructing, like during this accident flight, you will be allowed to shorten the high workload process.

[Marauder]

I don't  think anyone can dispute the value of checklists.  The military, the airlines, virtually any serious operators use checklists religiously.

Checklists work.

Having said that, checklists are not instructions on how to fly the airplane.  Long, detailed checklists are stupid, distracting and dangerous.

The jet I fly at work has a fairly long checklist prior to taxi, but just  three items on the taxi checklist and three items on the landing checklist.  That's  about the right balance.

How about:  "1.  Gear down....everything else is a detail"?  

I've refined mine over the years to help alleviate SPTs (Stupid Pilot Tricks). I use the flow technique to set check everything prior to startup and then the startup checklist for the confirmation of critical items. The after takeoff list is just the confirmed SPTs like leaving the boost pump on.

I am a little more detailed on the approach checklist to backup the flow again and to make sure I brief the plate fully.

Could I fly without the checklist after 25 years of ownership. You betcha. Have I ever forgotten to shut the boost pump off after takeoff? Who me? Never!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[M20F]

8 minutes ago, PTK said:

It's so terribly important to understand this concept and not give the wrong impression to a student who happens to be reading this that bank doesn't matter! Especially in view of all the infamous base to final accelerated killer stalls.

Students (all pilots for that matter) need to understand what an accelerated stall is and the confluence of bank angle into the discussion gets people in the mindset that if I only bank 30 degrees I am not going to stall.  The article I linked in an early post does a good job on the topic.

12 minutes ago, Bob said:

Well that requires you to go to the MFD and turn to the engine screen, check parameters, then go back the Normal takeoff checklist screen, then check off #3, before getting to 70-73,etc. 

I don't use the MFD for a checklist, we just use the same normal printed out cards that you see in 172's, Mooney's, etc.  I really don't see how a checklist with 5-8 items is overly extensive so we just have to agree to disagree. 

[Shadrach]

18 hours ago, gsengle said:

I still don't believe all airframes are equal. Some are docile and some will bite. I still don't know from this whether the remedial training addressed airframe or pilot deficiencies.

I'm not saying Mooneys are faultless but there is reason to be concerned about Cirrus.

I also think the bungee trim system doesn't help control feel (aerodynamic loads)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IIRC, the Cirrus did go through JAA spin testing. I know someone who has intentionally spun both Cirrus and Mooney airframes at altitude.  In his experience the Cirrus recovered faster with less altitude loss.  If they have a poorer record with regard to stall spin (and I'm not saying they do, because I don't have the data). I don't think it has anything to do with the airframe.  It's likely due more to the fact that these aircraft are attractive to low time pilots.  I look at it the same way I look at the Subaru WRX. It's a fine car, but it seems to attract a greater market share of a "certain type" of motorist. 

[Bob]

1 hour ago, M20F said:

I don't use the MFD for a checklist, we just use the same normal printed out cards that you see in 172's, Mooney's, etc.  I really don't see how a checklist with 5-8 items is overly extensive so we just have to agree to disagree. 

I saw and accepted that we do had 2 different opinions many posts ago, but was hoping to see your view, in an attempt to improve learning.  Just curious why you chose not to use the MFD checklists.  And also what MFD screen you have on while accelerating down the runway? 

Some of your posts here have challenged while some have added greatly to this thread IMO.  It is good that pilots with 200hrs or any Cirrus time at all, have some experience that has contributed to this thread.

[PTK]

55 minutes ago, M20F said:

Students (all pilots for that matter) need to understand what an accelerated stall is and the confluence of bank angle into the discussion gets people in the mindset that if I only bank 30 degrees I am not going to stall.  The article I linked in an early post does a good job on the topic.

I don't use the MFD for a checklist, we just use the same normal printed out cards that you see in 172's, Mooney's, etc.  I really don't see how a checklist with 5-8 items is overly extensive so we just have to agree to disagree. 

No one is advocating this "mindset." Certainly not I. However by the same argument you can't say bank doesn't matter! And yes staying within a conservative 30 degrees of bank in a base to final for example is not bad advice.

[M20F]

1 hour ago, Bob said:

Just curious why you chose not to use the MFD checklists.  And also what MFD screen you have on while accelerating down the runway?

Because it isn't particularly efficient or user friendly in my view.  I have the option for digital checklists on my MVP-50 in the Mooney and don't use those either.  A laminated flip checklist I find is easy to use in all operations and least distracting.  Like Tom and I am guessing many others I use the checklist in hand for items prior to  flight operation (pre-flight, prior start, start, taxi, and prior to take off).  In flight operations I use memory/flow and then follow up when in a safe configuration with the physical checklist to verify I completed the steps.  On final I only use GUMPS which I do either on base leg or shortly prior to FAF with no reference to the checklist.    

For take off and landing PFD/MFD split on the left screen (instruments top / engine cluster bottom) and the MAP up on the right.  

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, PTK said:

No one is advocating this mindset. Certainly not I. However by the same argument you can't say bank doesn't matter! And yes staying within a conservative 30 degrees of bank is not bad advice.

Staying on the ground is not bad advice either.  Pilot's need to strive to become acquainted with the performance of their aircraft. Limiting bank to 30˚ in the pattern is only being conservative if you are operating well under the threshold of your skill-set... If you've never done an accelerated stall, never spun an aircraft or have never become proficient making low speed maneuvers, then operating at 30˚ of bank is just staying with in the very narrow confines of your self-imposed envelope, it's not really being conservative. I'm perfectly comfortable making 60˚ (or more) descending turns at 80MIAS, so doing 30˚ descending turns at 80MIAS is conservative.

[rbridges]

On 2/29/2016 at 0:41 PM, M20F said:

We often cross control for slips to bleed of excess speed/altitude and in cross  winds.  Many of us make 30+ degree turns base to final because we fly close and tight. 

Making a shallow turn and then pulling back on the stick to tighten the turn (coupled with a little crush of the rudder) because you are over shooting is how a lot of these unfortunate situations come about.  Accelerated stalls and simple better understanding of them coupled with the knowledge that if you don't load up the wings you can bank 90 degrees, mash the rudder, etc. and not worry about stall/spins would help the piloting world quite a bit.  Don't be afraid to bank big, just don't pull back on the stick when you do.

my cfii went over that with circle to lands.  Much tighter turns than I was used to doing in the pattern.  I know it's oversimplified, but he stated that it was very hard to stall as long as you have the nose pointed down which is in line with your comment about not pulling back on the yoke.

[mike20papa]

Considering how well the AC remain intact, no doubt the NTSB will be able to recover enough data from the glass cockpit to reconstruct the accident with amazing detail.  Like the infamous Cirrus accident presented on AVWEB a few years back.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/exclusivevids/ExclusiveVideo_AviationSafety_Cirrus_StallAccident_Dissected_201722-1.html

What's most amazing is that an instructor pilot was on board BOTH AC.  The "piloting" of the Cirrus in the accident in Oklahoma is unbelievable!

[bonal]

6 minutes ago, rbridges said:

my cfii went over that with circle to lands.  Much tighter turns than I was used to doing in the pattern.  I know it's oversimplified, but he stated that it was very hard to stall as long as you have the nose pointed down which is in line with your comment about not pulling back on the yoke.

Interesting comments about the different types and how wing loading plays such a factor. during my training my CFI really stressed about airspeed angle of attack and really knowing the difference between a slipping turn and the much more dangerous skidding turn.  he also spent a lot of time making sure my instinct was drilled into pushing rather than pulling with regards to pattern work.  there are many instances where a tight steep pattern is needed and for those that don't train for this the steeper banking can be very intimidating its all about spatial awareness knowing and trusting your airspeed rate of descent and how much rate of turn is needed.  I wonder how much the side stick on the Cirrus takes away from the feel and the amount of effort one has to apply to increase AOA or pitch.  I know that with mine you really have to make very deliberate inputs to the yoke to effect change its like when you drive a car without power steering and brakes and then switch to one that has it you are very un smooth until you get acclimated. anyway very sad for the folks involved you wish these accidents would just stop happening. as long as we continue to travel faster than 18 to 20 miles an hour (our human Vne) we will have these discussions.  God Speed

[PTK]

4 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Staying on the ground is not bad advice either.  Pilot's need to strive to become acquainted with the performance of their aircraft. Limiting bank to 30˚ in the pattern is only being conservative if you are operating well under the threshold of your skill-set... If you've never done an accelerated stall, never spun an aircraft or have never become proficient making low speed maneuvers, then operating at 30˚ of bank is just staying with in the very narrow confines of your self-imposed envelope, it's not really being conservative. I'm perfectly comfortable making 60˚ (or more) descending turns at 80MIAS, so doing 30˚ descending turns at 80MIAS is conservative.

No disagreement there! 

But I'd go around before I bank it 60 deg or more any where in the pattern!

But that's just me! 

 

[ArtVandelay]

If you have to make 30+  banked degree turn in the pattern, short of some emergency like collision avoidance or engine failure, I would say you already showed poor judgement or skills and trying to save a landing by doing a steep turn is a bad idea.

whats the saying about using superior judgement to avoid having to use superior skills?

[bonal]

27 minutes ago, teejayevans said:

If you have to make 30+  banked degree turn in the pattern, short of some emergency like collision avoidance or engine failure, I would say you already showed poor judgement or skills and trying to save a landing by doing a steep turn is a bad idea.

whats the saying about using superior judgement to avoid having to use superior skills?

in most cases I would absolutely agree and perhaps living in the great state of Florida makes for a more gentle approach / pattern however living amongst the sierras and cascades and coastal ranges we have some fields that if you want to fly a big stable pattern you will be eating trees with your front mounted  weed trimmer. personally I am thankful that my instructor really emphasized learning how to fly an unstable approach and yes very useful in maintaining control when your engine drops a cylinder and you have no choice to get to an acceptable landing location . better to know it and not need it than the other way round.

[takair]

One thing that bothers me about the way we teach about stalls is the fact that, with the stall horn blaring, the instructor prods the student to "keep pulling" so they can experience the buffet and perform a recovery.  It seems to me, that this reinforces Poor behavior for the easily influenced student.  In an ideal world, I would think that we should teach "push" at the moment the horn comes on.  So how would we teach the onset of a stall and stall recovery?  Perhaps the flight instructor would have the ability to override the horn with a foolproof arrangement similar to a "dead man" switch, such that is is very deliberate.  It would need to be dual channel or have a test feature so there would be no way to leave the aircraft unprotected.  In this way, we teach push when you hear the horn, but the student still recognizes stall buffet and actual stall in the absence of a horn.  The only time the student would hear the horn in real life would be at touchdown..all other times instinct would be to push.  I am in no way suggesting that this would have changed the outcome of this accident, just commenting about stall training.  I'm also not sure if this helps with accelerated stalls.  They are best avoided altogether when down low, since they can happen almost simultaneously with the horn.  Recovery is still the same, so perhaps this would help in that case too.  In summary, the student...or instructor...should NEVER associate the stall horn with the word "pull".  Ok, going to put on my thick skin for the responses...

[M20F]

3 minutes ago, takair said:

One thing that bothers me about the way we teach about stalls is the fact that, with the stall horn blaring, the instructor prods the student to "keep pulling" so they can experience the buffet and perform a recovery.  It seems to me, that this reinforces Poor behavior for the easily influenced student.  

The concept is to use building blocks of learning that lead to correlation.  We don't want pilots who are robots, we want pilots who are correlative thinkers that can figure their way out of a problem.  Thus experiencing the buffet of an impending stall followed by the break of actual stall is an important step in achieving that.  Many add onto this with spin/unusual attitude training so you know what you are into when it happens by accident and because you have seen it before you know the steps and have the confidence to rectify it.

Understanding the aerodynamics is important to the mix well, while we spend a lot of time with push down with a stalled wing recovery, a tail stall works opposite and you pull the stick back.  

The more you know the moving pieces and how they actually work the better off you are.  If all you have to go by is just rote memory that is just going to serve you up to a point.

[Yetti]

I still don't like doing stall practice.  Growing up racing small sail boats when going up wind you are looking for the edge of the buffet.  it is the fastest path up wind, spent hours doing it.   So I can feel the pre buffet edge, so you don't even need to go to buffet to teach the time to push down.    I doubt anyone is calculating their Vx * 1.3 when the wing is starting to stall on base turn nor thinking about wing loading theory
.

[takair]

6 minutes ago, M20F said:

The concept is to use building blocks of learning that lead to correlation.  We don't want pilots who are robots, we want pilots who are correlative thinkers that can figure their way out of a problem.  Thus experiencing the buffet of an impending stall followed by the break of actual stall is an important step in achieving that.  Many add onto this with spin/unusual attitude training so you know what you are into when it happens by accident and because you have seen it before you know the steps and have the confidence to rectify it.

Understanding the aerodynamics is important to the mix well, while we spend a lot of time with push down with a stalled wing recovery, a tail stall works opposite and you pull the stick back.  

The more you know the moving pieces and how they actually work the better off you are.  If all you have to go by is just rote memory that is just going to serve you up to a point.

Perhaps a compromise of sorts.  You are right, we want folks to know what the horn is and what happens from there, but you don't want them thinking too much about it in the pattern.  Regarding tail stall, I would argue that the stall vane is looking at the wing, not the tail, so the horn indicates a wing stall. 

Perhaps the jet pilots can comment on this.  If I recall, the type training has you push at the shaker. I think they only demonstrate the pusher so you know when it follows the shaker...if you don't push first.