I'm all for pilots moving up in the traditional fashion as I think it makes you a more well rounded pilot. A pilot (let's call him pilot A) that goes from J-3 Cub to 150 to 172 to 182 to Bonanza to Baron to Malibu to Meridian to Eclipse Jet is going to be a lot better off than the guy that went from Cirrus to Eclipse Jet (Pilot B). At the end of the day, both pilots are probably equally safe flying an Eclipse after 500 hours in the type but pilot B (the Cirrus guy) is really missing out on something I can't quite put my finger on. I feel like Pilot A could be tossed the keys to pretty much any single or multi engine airplane and figure out how to work the KX170Bs and Century III autopilot whereas Pilot B isn't going to even know how to start the airplane. Maybe that's the difference between the two pilots, Pilot A is an Aviator and Pilot B is a pilot.

I'd rather be pilot A than B but I respect that's not for everyone if your goal is simply to fly rather than to be an aviator. I like airplanes and the piloting part is simply a by product of my love of aircraft.

Back to the Cirrus thread, the Cirrus Jet appeals much more greatly to the Pilot B sort of person and that's what many are missing in this thread. It's going to sell like crazy to Pilot Bs but be criticized sharply by Pilot As..

Michael,

I agree with you on your essential point about pilot A and B. I'm an A but I understand that there are a lot of B's and I wonder if there were more encouragement of them whether the future of GA wouldn't look more encouraging. I also hold out hope that B's might see the beauty in an old airplane on the ramp, wonder what it's all about and find themselves addicted as most A's are.

As an aside, I keep checking on this thread to see if there's anything new. There hasn't been in a long time. Someone just keeps spinning the merry go round. The conversation is sort of like it is at the coffee shop at the airport. People come and go and recycle the conversation. A few stalwarts, with nothing particularly better to do than drink their coffee and waste their time, continue to hang out and provoke the newly arrived or hope that something, somehow, will be gleaned from repetition that wasn't the first few dozen times. I'm glad to see aimless, pointless, inaccurate, biased, fruitless, redundant and interesting conversation continues into the 21st century in its timeless way.

why would they care ?

I was that guy, I solo'd in a C337, then a couple hundred hours in C310/aztec then the next couple thousand hours B200, AN24, AN12, all turbine. After a few years I came back to the US and decided I'd like to get an FAA license. I couldn't validate so had to do 40 hours for a PPL. I rented a C-150. It was the hardest thing to fly that I'd ever experienced. But why is your proposed jet pilot going to need or want to do that ? I was poor and a piston single was all I was going to be able to fly. Your SF50 buyer obviously is not.

That's outrageously onerous.

We're all going about the same speed in the pattern. What benefit is the "step up"?

I bought my TN Bonanza as a 150 hour pilot. It felt no different in the pattern than the Archer I learned to fly in. Then I got my Pilatus..... same thing.

Satellite weather was the game changer IMO. Fly away from the red stuff. You can avoid weather "on the fly" every flight if you want too.

I believe I could love aviation just as much today if someone would have funded me getting my private pilot license and instrument rating in a Lear......instead of that step-by-step up the airplane chain route that I took (and of course I never got to a jet).

Besides losing a lot more money each time Pilot A changes planes, and exposed to many more out of date technologies, how is Pilot A going to be better? Especially, when you consider the available cash. Pilot B will have many more hours in the Cirrus and Eclipse then Pilot A could ever consider.

Further, when you start getting to the Baron (maybe Bonanza if an endurance athlete with bladder control) you are really getting into traveling aircraft which cross weather systems. With a large percentage of accidents weather and ADM related, how do these old and slow planes help the Eclipse pilot?
Next consider that European airline pilots seem to be just as proficient and safe and US airline pilots, yet they do not spend nearly as long flying little piston planes. In fact, when you read about airline pilots getting back in GA, a lot state that to be safe they must basically start over and re-learn little planes. When you go and read Freakonomics, you find that to become an "expert" you need over 10K hours. To build a memory of how the cub flies that will last a lifetime, you will need 2K (assuming my memory is accurate).
Then when you consider such articles as: https://hbr.org/2007/07/the-making-of-an-expert
You find that recent currency and performance are critical. As a result, the pilot who progressed from plane to plane, likely never builds the actual skills in any aircraft to the point that he/she is better then average; and then forgets all the knowledge gained when progressing onto the next plane. Now can Pilot A at the end of his career learn to fly a cub faster then Pilot B, sure. That just shows relearning a skill is faster then learning it the first time.

At the end of the day, this whole progression stuff is mostly crap; especially when you consider the primary causes of accidents. Fuel exhaustion, CFIT, failure to maintain control, VFR into IMC....

Tim

If your goal is simply to learn how to fly a turbine aircraft from point A to point B then I totally agree on skipping the steps. If your goal is to enjoy the aviation journey and make yourself a well rounded aviator then you are really missing out on a lot of the fun and excitement of working your way through the various steps!

FIFY

Guys, how many years and how many more airplanes to do you think you have left in you?
Once that first digit becomes a 6, many, many things change.
For the me answer is 10, I hope and one, I hope. Health and funds become the limit No factors.
Consider this as mere mortals who fall in the middle to right side of the bell curve from a net worth and earning potential point of view and have to use their own, tax paid, money to make said acquisition and keep the thing flying.

If you only had 10 more years to fly say, and one more plane you could buy, and your budget is 1 million-ish, what would you guys buy? Pretty simple choice really. I'm not going coast to coast, or haul 6 people or all these other outlying missions....

Many are way overthinking this.
Cirrus is looking at this as a commercial decision. I'm thinking they've hit one out of the park.

How does it make you "well rounded"? Normally I consider a steak and potatoes dinner a good way to become "well rounded".

Tim

Many of the folks up front in a CRJ or ERJ have never flown anything beyond a 172 and a Seneca.

but, but, they made such poor engineering choices in trying to beat the regulations. They applied piston think! How is one turbine engine easier then two?

(Sorry Mike C. I could not resist; I agree with Luc, Cirrus likely has a winner, when you ignore the type of propulsion and just focus on mission and plane)

Tim

If I had a mil, it would probably be a Meridian. I would just have to do what 90% of aircraft owners do and fit the mission to the plane (if it was the other way around, we would all fly a Citation V or one of its derivatives).

If I had the coin and business mission for a SF50, I could probably afford the rest of my 'dream hangar' (a floatplane and an Extra) without thinking twice about the checks that need writing.

Many of the folks up front in a CRJ or ERJ have never flown anything beyond a 172 and a Seneca.