BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2009, 10:05

Username Protected wrote:

If the FAA certifies it using the same process as any other FIKI-certified airplane, why would it be any more dangerous? How much Cirrus time do you have (including time accumulating ice, etc)?

-Neal

It has nothing to do with Cirrus vs anything. It has to do with the sensibility of flying a piston engine airplane into ice. Yes, if your airplane is FIKI you can legally fly into icing conditions. However some think...at least I think...that ice needs a turbine. You just don't have the same capabilities in a piston airplane.

Now, if you want to be specific toward a Cirrus, I am interested how they are going to deal with those big ice catchers hanging down under the airplane. :ohno:

Jim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2009, 13:01

Username Protected wrote:

I just spoke with one of my friends who works at Cirrus. They have received FIKI certification for their new SR22's. Pretty cool stuff. Supposedly there was a lot of changes to their TKS system in order to make it happen. Announcement to come out officially on Monday.

-Neal

Neal -- I hope that one of the changes is to about double the fluid capacity of the system.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2009, 13:05

Jim and Jeff,

I agree with you guys 100% that pistons and ice don't necessarily mix. I originally thought that Jeff was making a slam towards the Cirrus product. I guess I get a little put off on here sometimes when I see anti-Cirrus posts with little qualitative or quantitative evidence for back-up. Bonanzas and Cirrus' are both good airplanes with very different R&D and marketing departments for sure. Different corporate cultures as well. That said, they are both good products. Believe me that I don't think having FIKI certification in any piston (even a P-Baron) is license to go blast off into a winter storm. I've flown around in jets in that crap for long enough now to know just how serious and dangerous mother nature can be and I've often thought, "jeez I'm glad I'm in a jet and not a piston right now." But I also know that Cirrus has made a lot of changes to its TKS system in order to get this certification and that this will improve things considerably for those who get trapped in the cold wet stuff. Of course, as others have said, it may give some pilots a false sense of security and make them think that they can go into anything. I really hope it doesn't do that but I think we all know it will.

PS - I've flown the SR22 and gotten stuck in some icing conditions out in Wyoming and it handled just fine. We were close to max gross weight as well. It was just light rime but the airplane definitely didn't display any abnormal characteristics that would make it fly differently from any other piston I've flown accidently in ice before.

-Neal

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2009, 13:36

Username Protected wrote:

Neal -- I hope that one of the changes is to about double the fluid capacity of the system.

Just spoke to my friend - doubled to 8 gallons with a minimum of 5 for dispatch.

-Neal

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2009, 14:06

Username Protected wrote:

I originally thought that Jeff was making a slam towards the Cirrus product. I guess I get a little put off on here sometimes when I see anti-Cirrus posts with little qualitative or quantitative evidence for back-up.

Hey Neal, just for the record, I like Cirri (or Cirruseses). Don't tell anyone, but a few months ago, I strongly considered getting in to the Cirrus AirShares program. I have nothing again Cirrus and appreciate their presence in the marketplace--it has certainly forced other manufactures (especially Cessna and some of the other upstarts) to refocus. That is great for all of us. They are one of the few manufacturers still pushing for new products, new certifications, etc.

As I mentioned above, I think having the FIKI certification will certainly help them attract new buyers. But, like I mentioned above, I am getting more and more nervous about dealing with ice in a piston plane. Our Baron is de-iced, which in a way is a good thing--it's an extra tool to help me get out of unforecasted icing, but doesn't give me any false hope to launch into it.

My comments are really just personal risk level thresholds and not a commentary on Cirrus' product line/quality.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2009, 14:27

Username Protected wrote:

Hey Neal, just for the record, I like Cirri (or Cirruseses). Don't tell anyone, but a few months ago, I strongly considered getting in to the Cirrus AirShares program. I have nothing again Cirrus and appreciate their presence in the marketplace--it has certainly forced other manufactures (especially Cessna and some of the other upstarts) to refocus. That is great for all of us. They are one of the few manufacturers still pushing for new products, new certifications, etc.

As I mentioned above, I think having the FIKI certification will certainly help them attract new buyers. But, like I mentioned above, I am getting more and more nervous about dealing with ice in a piston plane. Our Baron is de-iced, which in a way is a good thing--it's an extra tool to help me get out of unforecasted icing, but doesn't give me any false hope to launch into it.

My comments are really just personal risk level thresholds and not a commentary on Cirrus' product line/quality.

Thank you for the clarification and I agree with you on all of your points (I generally do agree with your posts). You and I have the same approach to ice in pistons. I am just glad that the only ice I really deal with is in equipment that can handle it. We are overly paranoid about the stuff frankly.

-Neal

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2009, 15:36

Username Protected wrote:

Hey Neal, just for the record, I like Cirri (or Cirruseses). Don't tell anyone, but a few months ago, I strongly considered getting in to the Cirrus AirShares program. I have nothing again Cirrus and appreciate their presence in the marketplace--it has certainly forced other manufactures (especially Cessna and some of the other upstarts) to refocus. That is great for all of us. They are one of the few manufacturers still pushing for new products, new certifications, etc.

As I mentioned above, I think having the FIKI certification will certainly help them attract new buyers. But, like I mentioned above, I am getting more and more nervous about dealing with ice in a piston plane. Our Baron is de-iced, which in a way is a good thing--it's an extra tool to help me get out of unforecasted icing, but doesn't give me any false hope to launch into it.

My comments are really just personal risk level thresholds and not a commentary on Cirrus' product line/quality.

Thank you for the clarification and I agree with you on all of your points (I generally do agree with your posts). You and I have the same approach to ice in pistons. I am just glad that the only ice I really deal with is in equipment that can handle it. We are overly paranoid about the stuff frankly.

-Neal

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2009, 16:33

Username Protected wrote:

Neal: just to add to the love-fest

I too was seduced heavily by the Cirrus product. I took a good hard look at a TN SR 22 G3 when I was getting ready to spend the big bucks on my F 33. And I'm telling you, the level of fit and finish and the air conditioning was enough to tip me and SWMBO over the top and drop the big bux on one. We got in with the demo pilot and (middle of the summer...was 90 and Alabama humid) sitting in there with the AC running, comfortable as hell...and now, remember, just me, wifey and the demo guy who couldn't have weighed more'n 150 or so...we blasted off and the demo guy said: "It's climbing a little sluggishly because, since we nearly have full fuel, we're over gross..."

! Huh?! I further pushed on him and he said, and I swear this is true: "Well, sometimes you just need to make a mistake in the calculations..." Well, we finished the flight, and the airplane is lovely and all, but I can put full fuel, me, 3 other 200 pounders and 100 pounds of luggage and full fuel in my Deb (goodness I do love my TAT turbo and its gross-up)...and I couldn't carry more than my wife, me and luggage with full fuel in the Cirrus. I admit that we're talking AC and weeping wings (neither of which I have in the Deb, and both of which add significant weight), but that was a deal killer.

And of course the attitude demonstrated by the demo guy may have something to do with the Cirrus culture of being a bit less risk-adverse than I am. I met the guy who porpoised on landing, curled his prop blades, and just "straightened out the blades" on his prop (using a channel-lock, I think)...and flew home.

So one wonders what some of these (and I stress...some of these...) Cirrus drivers are gonna do with a fresh FIKI certification in hand. It makes one wonder what's that gonna do to our insurance.

Edit: And that's from a doctor that flys a bonanza! :bugeye:

Jim

Jim,

That's an odd story. Do you remember who it was that took you flying? His behavior and professionalism is suspect obviously and very unlike the attitudes of the many Cirrus employees I've met. Sadly, they do have one blemish on their record when their NorCal sales guy augered in last year doing low level maneuvers that he shouldn't have been doing. I'm going to de-identify your story if its okay and send it to my friend at Cirrus, who is fairly high up the food chain (reports directly to the CEO) because if that is how their demo pilots are handling their flights, then they need a swift change of attitude in a fast way. I'm not even sure his numbers are correct frankly. I'll let you know.

-Neal

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2009, 16:54

Username Protected wrote:

And of course the attitude demonstrated by the demo guy may have something to do with the Cirrus culture of being a bit less risk-adverse than I am. I met the guy who porpoised on landing, curled his prop blades, and just "straightened out the blades" on his prop (using a channel-lock, I think)...and flew home.

Jim

I saw an SR-22 with badly curled blades at the airport where I am based. I asked a mechanic who was working on it what had happened. The pilot had porpoised at an airport about 50 miles away and curled the blades. After examining the damage, he got back in and flew home with the bent prop.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2009, 17:19

Username Protected wrote:

That's an odd story. Do you remember who it was that took you flying? His behavior and professionalism is suspect obviously and very unlike the attitudes of the many Cirrus employees I've met. Sadly, they do have one blemish on their record when their NorCal sales guy augered in last year doing low level maneuvers that he shouldn't have been doing. I'm going to de-identify your story if its okay and send it to my friend at Cirrus, who is fairly high up the food chain (reports directly to the CEO) because if that is how their demo pilots are handling their flights, then they need a swift change of attitude in a fast way. I'm not even sure his numbers are correct frankly. I'll let you know.

-Neal

Feel free to identify me. Drop me a PM and I'll send you my contact stuff if you so desire. I don't remember the guy's name, but I do remember where and when, and I suspect they can reconstruct it.

I am pretty comfortable with the accuracy of his numbers. Looking at the Cirrus site, the useful load of an AC'd Cirrus is 935 pounds...a Bo's worth of fuel leaves us with 491 pounds. In the terminology of one of my favorite comics, I am a big old boy, and I would only leave 215 pounds worth of load to carry. Add TKS fluid and my 150 pound wife...You do the math.

My Deb has a useful load of 1372 pounds. Add fuel and me and I still can carry another 653 pounds. It was a no-brainer.

Although that AC surely was nice!

Jim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2009, 18:19

Regarding the Cirrus rep who augered in . . .

I had flown with him several times. Flew formation with him, from the photo plane, and also sitting right seat in the Cirrus.

He checked me out in the Cirrus.

Very much a hot dog. Heck of a good stick. I interviewed him on the first shoot for WTA.

As many, many pilots have shown, though, being a good stick doesn't trump bad judgement.

You can not beat the world record for low level flight. You can only tie.

Thom was a lot of fun, though. I sure hated that he died that way.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2009, 18:22

Username Protected wrote:

Although that AC surely was nice!

Jim

For the money you saved by not buying the Cirrus, you could install A/C in your Deb? I thought somebody had an aftermarket STC for 25 AMU or so.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2009, 19:05

Just to tack onto this thread, and while talking about highly-skilled pilots making errors in judgement, we watched another company test pilot crash and die only five minutes after he said that his plane was designed so that it was impossible for it to stall.

He was wrong. Stall-spin from about 400 feet, onto the airport grounds.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2009, 19:11

Username Protected wrote:

Just to tack onto this thread, and while talking about highly-skilled pilots making errors in judgement, we watched another company test pilot crash and die only five minutes after he said that his plane was designed so that it was impossible for it to stall.

Yuk, I didn't need that - I know too many people I have respected who are no longer here due to screw ups or in some cases just plain bad luck. "But for the grace of God...." :doh:

But, I guess, thanks for the reminder - keep it real, keep it humble, keep it blue side up.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2009, 19:42

Username Protected wrote:

Regarding the Cirrus rep who augered in . . .

I had flown with him several times. Flew formation with him, from the photo plane, and also sitting right seat in the Cirrus.

He checked me out in the Cirrus.

Very much a hot dog. Heck of a good stick. I interviewed him on the first shoot for WTA.

As many, many pilots have shown, though, being a good stick doesn't trump bad judgement.

You can not beat the world record for low level flight. You can only tie.

Thom was a lot of fun, though. I sure hated that he died that way.

Yes, I've met Thom as well. He reported directly to my friend. Very sad (but avoidable) story. My friend told me of a video shoots and photo shoots and Thom was always the one who got them. Small world that you were involved. My friend said the same thing you did....good stick, bad judgement, good guy. Sad story. But another classic example of "The Rogue Aviator" as defined by Tony Kern in his books/studies.

-Neal

Cirrus to offer FIKI on its new planes