BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Nov 2016, 22:18

Username Protected wrote:

Seems to me the higher I go on the equipment ladder the easier things get.

Is it possible you are attributing easier to being up high and getting a break during cruise? Upon descent, it is shake and bake time but you have been bored so it all seems easy?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Nov 2016, 22:32

Username Protected wrote:

Them: "Cirrus xyz cross Annie intersection at and maintain 6000, expect Cirrus 4 arrival for the ILS 14L, 200kts or greater for now please."

Me: "Ok, I got the Cirrus xyz part, please repeat everything thereafter."

So ATC now provides one new instruction and suddenly the world comes to an end?
What happens when pilots upgrade from an A36 to a KA90? You learn!

Having what is likely a more significant jump from an SR20 to an Aerostar 700 which actually carries more, runs faster, has many more knobs/switches/systems and lands hotter then the SF50 I can likely predict what the kind of changes pilots should expect. And guess what, they really are not that difficult.

In fact in the SF50, many tasks are a lot easier then in the Aerostar. Starting with power management! The SF50 has how many power levers that are used in flight? Compared to adjusting how many for a piston twin?

Here are the real issues I ran into:

Learn that ATC will give you SIDS/STARS now. So you need to learn to read them and load them in the FMS. They load a heck of lot easier in the newer Cirrus systems then in the old GNS430/530 I was using.
That you can actually go fast enough to go around some systems/lines. Weather becomes much more strategic then tactical in planning. Downside, you waste a lot of time/gas figuring this one out.
ATC likes to give you crossing restrictions, especially when they figure out you can descend fast. You need to learn to be more "proactive" with altitude management with ATC. Downside, you pop a few ears and/or waste some fuel.
Pressurization is one more thing to check/watch for when flying, and can take you by surprise (I had a pressurization loss at 14K which makes your eyes pop open ).
You can no longer hand fly, in the FL you need to be on auto pilot
Useful load versus fuel carried calculations is more complex. 15 minutes of flying now means carrying one passenger, it used to mean lunch.
Approach speed. This one was a big one for me. However the stall speed of the SF50 is 61; the Aerostar was 73 with full flaps and 81 no flaps. Since the flaps produced a lot more drag then lift in the Aerostar, you generally flew IFR with no flaps giving you an approach speed ~120 KIAS or higher until the field is made. In my old SR20 I recall the final approach speed to be around ~80 KIAS. Guess what the difference in speed between the SR22 and the SF50... Not much

The SF50 was designed and marketed as a step up in capability above the SR22. It was not designed/marketed as a jump up in capability.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Nov 2016, 23:07

Username Protected wrote:

How many Piper M500's owner/pilots are out there flying 100ish hours a year? IMO, a lot more than we think. But, I agree, even though the single engine turbo prop and SF50 are quoted as being, "easy to fly" they are going to be flying around in high workload environments.

I am fascinated by the SF50 and look forward to watching it roll out to see how it gets flown. I know this, it seems like every fourth plane I hear on ATC is a Cirrus these days.

I suspect there will be a lot of overlap between the groups of M500 / TBM owners and SF50 owners.

Quote:

A random (possibly irrelevant) sample: About 2.5 times more SR22's showing up on Flightaware right now than A36's.

That ratio has been holding up for a number of years now.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Nov 2016, 07:52

Username Protected wrote:

Seems to me the higher I go on the equipment ladder the easier things get.

I totally agree and I'm glad you said it and I didn't have to.

The ONLY time things ever get hectic for me is in and out of Teterboro and even then it's only because ATC gives you 7 reroutes in 1 hour that don't actually change the path you're flying on. So it's "faux" hectic.

Ascension Air also has pilot that will fly with you which I think most guys are still doing right now that don't fly much.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Nov 2016, 09:22

Username Protected wrote:

Seems to me the higher I go on the equipment ladder the easier things get.

I totally agree and I'm glad you said it and I didn't have to.

The ONLY time things ever get hectic for me is in and out of Teterboro and even then it's only because ATC gives you 7 reroutes in 1 hour that don't actually change the path you're flying on. So it's "faux" hectic.

Ascension Air also has pilot that will fly with you which I think most guys are still doing right now that don't fly much.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Nov 2016, 09:24

Username Protected wrote:

Yes and no. I think the answer is it depends

With avionics, generally easier. With power, turbine is much easier then piston. But twins are harder then single engine...

However, when the SHTF, from a systems perspective the failure analysis and possible options can become more complex the higher you go in airplane capability. Further, it often happens at a much faster pace, which can drastically increase the pilot load.

Lastly, the more capable the plane, the more likely there is the possibility of an insidious failure. For example a slow from, the exhaust side of the turbo charger into the cabin air providing pressurization causing LOC due to CO poisoning.

Tim

I thought we were talking about flying an Eclipse? .... Or an SF50?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Nov 2016, 13:06

Username Protected wrote:

I thought we were talking about flying an Eclipse? .... Or an SF50?

Just the generic assertion you and Adam S. made about moving up the capability ladder makes things easier. I was quibbled, and said it depends. Tom D. disagreed.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Nov 2016, 13:51

Username Protected wrote:

Upon descent, it is shake and bake time but you have been bored so it all seems easy?

I've found the arrivals from the flight levels a lot more organized by ATC than when ATC was giving me instructions in the Baron.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Nov 2016, 13:56

Username Protected wrote:

Just the generic assertion you and Adam S. made about moving up the capability ladder makes things easier. I was quibbled, and said it depends. Tom D. disagreed.

Tim

What kind of airplane gets turbo charger leak and pumps CO into the cabin?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Nov 2016, 14:01

Username Protected wrote:

Just the generic assertion you and Adam S. made about moving up the capability ladder makes things easier. I was quibbled, and said it depends. Tom D. disagreed.

Tim

What kind of airplane gets turbo charger leak and pumps CO into the cabin?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Nov 2016, 14:09

Username Protected wrote:

Any piston powered pressurized plane. Aerostar, 58P, Piper Chieftan...

Tim

I don't think anyone flying an SF50 has to worry about such things. Not sure your analogy applies.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Nov 2016, 14:32

No the SF 50 pilot just needs to worry about engine failure!

Then he gets to be a crash test dummy and be the first to try the chute.

I thought there was a video of chute deployment?

Still very little data on this thing. I don't need links to the cirrus marketing site.

What I see on flight aware is underwhelming. Is it even FIKI?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Nov 2016, 14:34

so much cirrus hate. Reminds me of the "never trump" crowd. And just as out of touch and wrong about the results.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Nov 2016, 14:52

Username Protected wrote:

No the SF 50 pilot just needs to worry about engine failure!

Then he gets to be a crash test dummy and be the first to try the chute.

I thought there was a video of chute deployment?

Still very little data on this thing. I don't need links to the cirrus marketing site.

What I see on flight aware is underwhelming. Is it even FIKI?

Yeah yeah yeah. SETP's falling from the sky every day.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Nov 2016, 21:37

Username Protected wrote:

No the SF 50 pilot just needs to worry about engine failure!

Then he gets to be a crash test dummy and be the first to try the chute.

I thought there was a video of chute deployment?

Still very little data on this thing. I don't need links to the cirrus marketing site.

What I see on flight aware is underwhelming. Is it even FIKI?

Yeah yeah yeah. SETP's falling from the sky every day.

Cirrus SF50