Which are all theoretical advantages unless someone has a mission were max range or that extra 10min of flight time matter. For Fargo to Omaha or Manassas to Peachtree none of this matters.

I'm glad you are not David as that would be quite upsetting. I sold my Bonanza about 6 months before I took delivery of the Cirrus and arrived in Duluth quite rusty on IFR procedures as a consequence. While I made good progress during the week I did not satisfactorily nail all of the procedures to the standard I have previously described for you. In my exit conference we reviewed that and I was not signed off. Instead, I went home and completed those items the following week with my CSIP.

I have made no representations that I am aware of of anything that was not actually expected of me. I have no knowledge of whether others have had more or less expected of them for a sign off but I can hardly imagine that it is different.

I don't know for certain, but I expect that Tim is reflecting his personal experience, and perhaps the experience of me and others he knows, when making comments about the training.

I do think it is quite obvious that some who have commented in this thread seem to think that many, if not most, of the SR pilots who will be attempting to take the rigorous required training, and pass the demanding examinations required to fly this aircraft, will not be capable. Their is a further implication that Cirrus has not been forthright in representing the challenge of the exercise to those whom they have sold positions. Again, this has not been my experience. Their is an additional implication that Cirrus is perhaps not going to be prepared to deliver training that accomplishes the goal of developing fully qualified pilots for their aircraft (for example read the responses to a recent post I made about a small portion of the course work they are preparing) and I think this is borne of something other than actual knowledge of how the company operates.

So, do SR pilots have to be ATP qualified to be signed off to fly their airplanes? No, and no one ever said they did. Do they have to fly to ATP and/or CP standards to get a sign off from a Cirrus factory instructor? I can, and have, only told you my experience which you are welcome to accept or disbelieve as you see fit.

Finally, I have talked extensively with Cirrus about the SF50 including engineers, sales people, their CEO AND their training people. I think they'd like me to buy one of their earlier serial numbers that they control...I am more than likely going to buy something else for a variety of reasons that don't have much to do with anything discussed in this thread so far. But I haven't made a final decision. One thing that is strongly in Cirrus' favor, as far as I am concerned, is my expectation of how they would train me to be a jet pilot compared to the other options out there (having never done a type initial at a sim school, or an in airplane type either I have, nevertheless done a great deal of research on the matter including review the relevant course materials). Frankly, I think that Cirrus is planning to do a much better job using the experience of others to build a better way. I realize that remains to be seen but based on my past training experiences I have a lot of confidence in them.

So is the drop in accidents due to it.

Proves once again the machine cannot protect the pilot no matter how easy it is to fly or how many safety devices it has.

Training the pilot is and has always been the key to safety.

A type rating is a mandated high standard of training, both initial and recurrent. No matter how hard the Cirrus piston folks think their program is, the type rating will be much harder and last much longer.

Mike C.

Agreed.

I think it was the fatality rate (and a portion, possibly due to being a new frame). The chute pull rate has gone up in recent years, but fatals have gone down a lot.

Tom will likely know, but I think virtually all pulls are still written off. However, a few have been purchased and rebuilt.

Hi Nate-
I think Tracy might be a better resource for that opinion but from what I have been told by various adjusters in the industry a chute pull generally results in a 'total loss' scenario. That said our firm (knock on wood) has been fortunate over the last 15 or so years in not having a basis for opinion based on a customer claim with a chute pull.

Sure it is when the LRC of an Eclipse is FASTER than the MCT cruise of the SF50.

That alone tells us something...

Mike C.

About 20% of SR series post chute have been repaired, implying that 80% are total losses.

Data:

https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safet ... story.aspx

Mike C.

All repairs within the first third of saves, which suggests to me the now current rate of total loss is more like the previously suggested 'virtually all'

That line of reasoning can apologize for any slow, limited, fuel thirsty airplane. Take it far enough, then they should fly an SR22, after all, for short range flights, the jet will save only minutes.

Cirrus will definitely achieve their goal of making a jet with lame performance. Will the market overlook that? Not in the long run, IMO.

Fundamentally, had Cirrus put two engines on it, I would be considering it for my next airplane. Now that they crippled it with one, no chance I would buy a jet which does less than what I got now. I am not alone in this assessment.

Mike C.

Look again.

74 CAPS events, repaired ones are:

First third:
1, 2, 3, 4, 17, 20, 24

Remainder:
25, 27, 35, 36, 37, 50, 55

So half are in remainder. The rate is definitely less, I guess after the first four were repaired, the insurance companies got wise and looked at this with a more careful eye to what can and cannot be repaired.

I would say the last third is almost none, though the disposition of some recent events are probably not decided yet.

Mike C.

The only two that openly talk about it on COPA bought the remains and had them fixed.

They are worth much less, but a bargain way to own a nice plane. A really nice plane of the ones I've seen.

On a thread a while back, nobody knew of anyone that the insurance did not pay a total loss on a pull.

But, not every Cirrus owner is a member of COPA, and much less that are active.

It's a real reason not to overinsured your plane!

Tony,

Thanks for the explanation. I never meant to suggest that Cirrus owners are not capable pilots. I think you need to be to fly that plane (or any high performance plane) safely. I also believe Cirrus knows what kind of training they will have to offer in order to grant a type rating and I don't think they are underestimating it at all.

In looking back at how the thread got to this point, I think it was the statement made by some (not you) that the SF50 would be an easier plane to get certified (i.e., type rated in) than a twin jet because it was a single and a simpler airplane. As I think you and I agree, that is not likely to be the case. A jet is a jet is a jet.

One thing that will help the SF50 have a good safety record is that it will require a type rating. So the option of buying a plane and then flying it regardless of training (or skipping the training) doesn't exist.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on why you are leaning towards a different jet since you are clearly their market and you indicated none of the reasons posited in the thread applied to you.

From my perspective, if I was going to drop ~$2M on a jet, I'd be looking at a citation or looking to get a partner in and get a new Phenom, but that's because I want (a) a bigger cabin, (b) faster, (c) twin engine redundancy, and (d) the ability to get above weather that I can't get above in an MU-2. That's just the factors that matter to me and clearly everyone has a different set of criteria.

best,
Dave

That line of reasoning can apologize for any slow, limited, fuel thirsty airplane. Take it far enough, then they should fly an SR22, after all, for short range flights, the jet will save only minutes.

Cirrus will definitely achieve their goal of making a jet with lame performance. Will the market overlook that? Not in the long run, IMO.

Fundamentally, had Cirrus put two engines on it, I would be considering it for my next airplane. Now that they crippled it with one, no chance I would buy a jet which does less than what I got now. I am not alone in this assessment.

Mike C.

My airplane is primarily a business tool. Economically, the SR22T is a nearly perfect tool for me for the many 150-250 mile trips I fly. Flying first class on trips longer than that combined with the costs of my current plane, not considering my time, is cheaper. Even considering the additional inconvenience and time of flying commercially, as opposed to a private jet, commercial is cheaper because the training time required more than balances the time saved in private jet travel.

But, life is short and I'd like to consider moving up.

The things I think about are:

1. The biggest expense for a low utilization operator are economic depreciation and carrying cost. So, what the airplane costs is a big deal, and what it's depreciation is matters a lot. The Cirrus, for someone who isn't a low number holder is going to cost $2.1-$2.2 million. As you point out a fairly new CJ1, Phenom 100, Mustang and Eclipse can all be had in that price range.
Money is money and I don't have to have a new airplane so the Cirrus is certainly not the cheapest option. Plus, all of the other options, to one degree or another, are available with reasonably low hours for far less than $2.1-$2.2 million. That money is in turn not subject to depreciation and carrying cost.

2. While I mostly fly myself or one or two others flexibility and ability to carry more is a nice thing to have for that kind of money. There are more flexible options. The Cessna and Embraer choices offer more here.

3. My plane is flown some by contract pilots flying employees. Also, I will need to fly for quite a while with a mentor pilot. Pilots with type ratings in Cessnas, particularly the 525 are much more readily available. This reduces cost and increases flexibility compared to the Cirrus, Eclipse and Phenom.

4. Having to travel for service is a PITA. Even having to fly 90 miles, as I have done for two years, to get to a service center is a big hassle. Cessna rises to the top here. Cirrus is at the bottom with only one place to get service initially.

5. The Cirrus will have a potty option that no one will ever use except possibly my wife when she is the only other person on board. The Eclipse has none. The others varying degrees of increased privacy and utility. The potty is a big deal to passengers even if they don't use it.

6. Pilot comfort matters to me since its my money and I'm at least one of the pilots. The CJ's are damned uncomfortable in my experience and I'm hoping the Mustang is better (I will find out next week). The Eclipse is pretty good actually but I haven't flown it yet despite Andy Boniface's efforts. The Cirrus, so far, is the most comfortable.

7. Operating costs are pretty important and are also pretty well known for the Cessna's and Embraer. Eclipse is a much bigger crapshoot in my opinion despite the low numbers a lot of owners have experienced (some haven't been so lucky). I think that, while new under warranty, the Cirrus may be less than some others but not enough to make a difference to me or to balance the bigger capital cost and depreciate expense.

8. When I bought the SR22T it was after a lot of careful thought about the relative safety of a twin or chute. I picked the chute and have been well satisfied with that decision. I think there "may" be an equivalent level of safety in the SF50 from death due to engine failure. But I'd prefer the option of continuing to fly (on the 2nd engine) as to the option of floating to earth. So, I could "live" with a single engine jet but my preference is for two. And, looking at the cost of the engine programs the Cirrus isn't much, if anything, cheaper for one than others are for two.

9. Management time. I don't have time, or desire, to screw around with an airplane that needs to be fixed all the time. New is appealing. But so is Cessna's mobile service. Newer is better as there is less to break due to wear.

10. Avionics familiarity. I have talked to some pretty experienced pilots who have convinced me that, once you have acclimated you can fly anything. But, I don't want to go back to scattered, disorganized, non integrated avionics. The Cirrus has a lot of appeal for that. But the Pro Line seems relatively straightforward, older CJ's can have a G1000 installed like Alex's, P100 has G1000 and I'm impressed with the Eclipse system despite its only child status.

11. Availability. Everything is available now except the Cirrus. A low serial number Cirrus might be available in 2017. And that might work out for me but I have planned for 2016 to be the year I move up if I can.

12. My wife loves the parachute. Especially when thinking about me being the sole pilot. I know what every pilot hear knows about the likelihood of a pilot incapacitation issue. But that doesn't matter to her and a lot of other people.

I could happily buy any of these planes I think. For cheapest, with a roll of the dice and held breath, a $1.2 million Eclipse looks terrific. That's $900k to $1 million less than Cirrus which pays for a lot of things that break. For $1.5 to $1.7 you can have a nice CJ or CJ1 with great avionics, P&I, engine program and world class service. For $2 or so, P100's have the best cabin, and maybe a bit more speed with great owner service, good depreciation performance and great ramp presence. The Cirrus is the only one with a chute.

We haven't talked about the Premier! I love that plane!

I haven't decided. Its fun to look. I'm not in a hurry. I know the day I pull the trigger I have to face SimCom or FlightSafety and that prospect isn't fun to think about. But I do. These are the things I think about and Cirrus doesn't really make it to the top of the heap. It will for a lot of people, and something could change my analysis, but that's why I am where I am today.