13 Jan 2026, 10:37 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 12:18 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 21029 Post Likes: +26493 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Counter? Cirrus says they will deliver 220 SF50s by 12/31/2017, 3+ years from now. I say they don't deliver 110 SF50s by that date, half their promise. No ifs, ands, buts, "well I didn't mean...", etc. Either customers have 110 SF50s or they don't by that date. Money is not an appropriate wager. Let's wager something far more valuable. 1 year of forum participation. The loser doesn't post on BT for the entire year of 2018. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 12:21 |
|
 |

|

|
 |
Joined: 12/13/07 Posts: 20712 Post Likes: +10856 Location: Seeley Lake, MT (23S)
Aircraft: 1964 Bonanza S35
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I dont think so, it was considered operational necessity.
For the military that higher speed for operational necessity is preapproved by the administrator. You don't just say on the radio "operational necessity" and you are legal. ATC will approve it because it's not ATC's call. Just like if you wanted to shoot an approach when the weather is below mins. ATC will clear you for it.
_________________ Want to go here?: https://tinyurl.com/FlyMT1
tinyurl.com/35som8p
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 12:23 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 21029 Post Likes: +26493 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If a controller told you to maintain 270 to the marker and you did you would be in violation. Yes, I would since it violates an aircraft limitation (Vmo 250 KIAS). Quote: It is a well established fact that ATC is not the administrator. Interesting. Reference or just emphatic assertion? I have yet to commit aviation without violating a FAR (and I suspect everyone is in this category), and you may be right that complying with their instruction was a violation, but I did it. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 12:24 |
|
 |

|

|
 |
Joined: 12/13/07 Posts: 20712 Post Likes: +10856 Location: Seeley Lake, MT (23S)
Aircraft: 1964 Bonanza S35
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If a controller told you to maintain 270 to the marker and you did you would be in violation. Yes, I would since it violates an aircraft limitation (Vmo 250 KIAS).
Then that's two rules you would break.
_________________ Want to go here?: https://tinyurl.com/FlyMT1
tinyurl.com/35som8p
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 12:28 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/01/12 Posts: 513 Post Likes: +409 Company: Minnesota Flight
Aircraft: M20M,PA28,PA18,CE500
|
|
|
91.117 (d) If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed.
Zero flap speed on a heavy can be 265+ No waiver needed.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 12:40 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/01/12 Posts: 513 Post Likes: +409 Company: Minnesota Flight
Aircraft: M20M,PA28,PA18,CE500
|
|
|
Reference ATC, is not the Administrator.
Volume 58, No. 157; Tuesday, August 17, 1993; Page 43553 14 CFR Part 91
[Docket No. 24456; Amendment No. 91-233] The Airspace Reclassification Rule inadvertently assigned the authority to air traffic controllers to allow aircraft operators to deviate from the maximum airspeed restriction below 10,000 feet. The authority to approve deviation from the speed limits contained in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) rests with the Administrator, and the FAA did not intend to amend the approving authority. This action reestablishes the Administrator as the proper authority to permit waivers of aircraft speed. This action also corrects the inadvertent inclusion of Class B airspace in the maximum airspeed restriction effected by the Airspace Reclassification Final Rule.
It remover the inadvertent authorization of controllers to allow deviations of speed and returns it to the administrator. Hence showing the controller is not the administrator.
I agree we all break regs now and then. They can get tricky in some places. This is one. It gets a lot of people. Atlanta will tell you to maintain 250 then drop you below the class B. And it's almost impossible to know where you are without airspace overlay on a moving map. They are supposed to tell you when you are going to be below class B ( it's spelled out in the 7110) but they don't always. Then they seem "surprised" you are going so fast. I've heard them give the dreaded phone number to a few pilots heading into PDK. I swear they do it for sport sometimes.
Last edited on 16 Dec 2014, 12:54, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 12:44 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 11/09/13 Posts: 1910 Post Likes: +927 Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 91.117 (d) If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed.
Zero flap speed on a heavy can be 265+ No waiver needed. Thanks that is what I was trying to remember.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 12:55 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 11/21/09 Posts: 12554 Post Likes: +17321 Location: Albany, TX
Aircraft: Prior SR22T,V35B,182
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Money is not an appropriate wager. Let's wager something far more valuable. 1 year of forum participation. The loser doesn't post on BT for the entire year of 2018.
If you won that bet, I'd have to take up reading books, again.... 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 12:56 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 08/05/11 Posts: 5248 Post Likes: +2426
Aircraft: BE-55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: A three bedroom two bath 2000 sq ft apartment in my neighborhood just sold for 7 m. It isnt even a comp. Another apartment a block away sold for 55 m, within days. Townhouses in Manhattan valued at five million in 2007 are worth 15. In brooklyn they are going for 4-5 m and there are thousands. Those people are just greedy. If they weren't greedy they'd sell their homes at a price everyone could afford. 
yeah, I admit it; I'm far out. in my day that would have been quite the compliment. Maybe greedy isn't the right word. But I think you know what I mean. Take the likes of DuPont polluting the rivers: this brings regulation. There are numerous other examples. Hell, buy something made of pig iron from China. Buy a Kohler toilet. It's not greed: it's the balance sheet.
And those people with all the money fly net jets. I know them well. Or they have their own corp pilots for sake of liabilities.
But really there's no reason planes, other than the training to fly them, shouldn't be as abundant as other means of personal transport. Our system, regulated by government, that is controlled by insurance agents, that are symbiotic with the legal system is crazy crazy inefficient. It stymies competition, which kills innovation.
I think the SF50 is a cool idea: a personal jet with a parachute. It's awesome. But I have a cheap baron that will perform pretty much the same mission up to 250 miles. Then I need to go higher and faster. I watched a guy piss away $500,000 in a year flying once a week to see Mom 200 miles away in a Meridian. That's nuts.
_________________ “ Embrace the Suck”
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 13:02 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 21029 Post Likes: +26493 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I watched a guy piss away $500,000 in a year flying once a week to see Mom 200 miles away in a Meridian. That's nuts. A 200 mile round trip flight costs $10K in a Meridian? Wow. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 13:06 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 11/03/12 Posts: 2154 Post Likes: +561
|
|
It has been a while and my memory on the subject is a little fuzzy, but I believe that exceptions must be approved by the Administrator and the PIC has no authority to do so, emergencies excepted. If pilots are operating a heavy in excess of 250 KIAS below 10,000 routinely there is very likely an exception somewhere in the op specs that has been approved by the Administrator. Username Protected wrote: 91.117 (d) If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed.
Zero flap speed on a heavy can be 265+ No waiver needed. Thanks that is what I was trying to remember.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 13:11 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 08/05/11 Posts: 5248 Post Likes: +2426
Aircraft: BE-55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I watched a guy piss away $500,000 in a year flying once a week to see Mom 200 miles away in a Meridian. That's nuts. A 200 mile round trip flight costs $10K in a Meridian? Wow. Mike C.
Includes depreciation
_________________ “ Embrace the Suck”
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 13:11 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 21029 Post Likes: +26493 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If you won that bet, I'd have to take up reading books, again.... ;) Maybe Crandall can write a book for you to read, something like "Zen and the art of single engine jet maintenance". I'd look for it in the fiction section. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 13:13 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 21029 Post Likes: +26493 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Includes depreciation Good thing his mother didn't live in the same town, then he'd be spending ~$400K to go no where. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cirrus SF50 Posted: 16 Dec 2014, 13:32 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 05/10/09 Posts: 3868 Post Likes: +2986 Company: On the wagon Location: Overland Park, KS (KLXT)
Aircraft: Planeless
|
|
Username Protected wrote: If you won that bet, I'd have to take up reading books, again....  Maybe Crandall can write a book for you to read, something like "Zen and the art of single engine jet maintenance".
I'm ghost writing it for him.
_________________ Stop in flyover country and have some BBQ!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2026
|
|
|
|