I imagine each new owner will try it at least once. They paid for it, they want to see it work. Then they will want to show it off.

They need a "demo" mode so owners can play with their toy and not cause panic.

We don't need a bunch of robotic unpiloted Cirri screwing everybody up by bombing into patterns and towered fields. That's not on the plus side of the safety ledger.

I expect the FAA will issue some opinion or rule about this, maybe as simple as using it is considered "reckless" under that catch all.

I'll make a prediction that someone will die due to autoland before it saves someone.

So, how do you test that it is fully working? Would you know if it isn't available or broken in some way?

Mike C.

$1.3M will get you a mid-time Avidyne Meridian, or a mid-time Meggit Meridian that has been upgraded to a full Garmin panel. Closer to $1.5M for a G1000 Meridian.

Answering a few questions:

1. Cost $75k over the previous G7. Not an option, included in all versions, SR20, SR22, and SR22T.
2. Weight - Adds 9lbs
3. Runway criteria - 4500’ x 75’ with a GPS RNAV Approach
4. Auto braking, mixture and throttle.
5. Has a radar altimeter.
6. Includes auto pitot heat. No switch on the dashboard.
7. Cirrus board has brought up a few use cases where it could have been used. I believe there have been 2 pilot incapacitations of which one resulted in a CAPS pull to into a lake/pond (and associated risk of drowning). One other one was a bird strike through the window. In that case I believe it hit the passenger side instead of the pilot. Lastly it has hypoxia integration. If a pilot becomes hypoxic and is unresponsive, my understanding is that it will activate.

From what I have been told a new Piper M350 with the typical options is about 2.1 mill these days which IMO is absolutely nuts. For that kind of dough it should include auto land.

Correction: Radar altimeter: YES

That's gonna be hard to know, especially in the absence of close monitoring (a lot closer than reading accident reports and etc.) but you may be missing the point. The point is...it'll sell airplanes. When it comes to selling piston GA airplanes, Cirrus knows that better than anyone.

And you bring up a good point: If it was a Mike C. equivalent flying, and a non-pilot Mike C. equivalent in the right seat, sure, it'll add safety, and both of them will be annoyed at the weight and performance given up for the trivial safety increase.

I can think of several more. The system can be used any time the pilot has a loss of command or a loss of control. There have been pilots instrument and non-instrument rated that found themselves in over their head in IMC, and were faced with the decision try to retain or get back control, or crash the plane under parachute, have delayed and killed all onboard. Having a third option, as long as it is ingrained in the pilot, lose command, lose control, give it to the automation. Who would not rather land on a runway without injuries, and without a damaged plane, versus pulling a chute which may not work (been several of those) may result in injury (several of those), and could cause death (written in Cirrus's POH) if you land in the wrong position or wrong place.

Getting really hard to find a reason not to admire Cirrus innovation.

That's gonna be hard to know, especially in the absence of close monitoring....

Breadcrumbs will not tell us how the decision making process occurred. How does the presence of autoland (and the chute) change pilot/ex-passenger-turned-pilot decision making? And I think that was Mike's point. A cockpit voice recorder oughta do it.

That would seem to be a very easy feature to add. Maybe worthy of its own thread, but has anyone come out with a non-certified CVR for GA? If you forgo extensive fire protection, it should be pretty cheap and easy.

The late Pascal Gosselin's company developed a CVR called Wi-Flight. However, after his death I don't think it continued to be available.

Those pilots should not be PIC.

All that Cirrus is doing with these systems that _should not be necessary given a competent pilot (and if we ignore the tiny number of cases of pilot incapacitation where it would have made a difference)_ is creating more incompetent pilots. Even the training is, indirectly, creating a class of pilots who should not be PIC.

Those pilots should not be PIC.

All that Cirrus is doing with these systems that _should not be necessary given a competent pilot (and if we ignore the tiny number of cases of pilot incapacitation where it would have made a difference)_ is creating more incompetent pilots. Even the training is, indirectly, creating a class of pilots who should not be PIC.

I get your point, but plenty of competent pilots have lost it to spatial disorientation in IMC. All it takes it a cold coming on and a few seconds of attention elsewhere to get into real trouble.

No arguments from me there, just pointing out that these systems can and do improve safety so long as the pilot is competent to start with. Same with the chute, I think we can all agree that having a parachute can save lives so long as it doesn't get people into more dangerous situations to start with.

No different (just better and more extensive) than the "Level" button on the new Garmin autopilots. I don't see people arguing that that makes pilots bolder and gets people killed, it's just a nice to have safety feature if you ever find yourself in a position to need it.