The point is that you CAN mitigate the risk.

Pilots with chutes tend to mitigate the risk LESS, taking risk credit from having a chute.

The proof is in the safety record of the Cirrus. It started worse than average, and is much better very recently.

What changed?

Not the airplane, it is the same.

It isn't because the chute is being used more. There are less fatal+chute events now than before even though the fleet is larger every day.

The mindset of the pilots changed. That is where the true risk of a flight is controlled. Risk CAN be mitigated.

Mike C.

We have a 75 pound Golden Retriever and the only planes I looked at were planes with a large cargo door for her.

Kick in two kids in the back with Mom up front and the Cirrus was a non-starter for me.

Sooo.....what do you fly?

Sooo.....what do you fly?

I can see some maturation of the discussion here. Its no longer absolute Cirrus haters vs Cirrus lovers.
I went from a Warrior to a SR20 for transition training. Some one mentioned landings here. Most of my landings even after 50 hours in them were absolutely horrible. Once after such a landing at KBID, one of my friends on the ground commented, "Yes, I saw ALL of your landings" EMBARRASSING, to say the least.
My first try at a A36, nailed the landings, and have been nailing them ever since.
I have heard SRs described as "squirrely" or "slippery". Absolutely true. YOU HAVE TO STAY AHEAD OF THE Cirrus all the time, lest it gets away from you, despite the button pushing.
Absolutely love the "Speed brakes" on the Bo, AKA Landing gear.

I have a 125 lb Komondor and he stays home when I travel. Dogs do not dictate what I fly.

I have a 125 lb Komondor and he stays home when I travel. Dogs do not dictate what I fly.

Good comments. There are negatives to talk about with regard to Cirrus and people miss them and focus on things like CAPS.

I love speed brakes. The G5 upgrade to 150kn flap extension speed is nice. Bigger tires and no wheel fairings make a Bonanza much better on grass. Shock absorbers and larger tires make landings seem a lot better. The difference between a Bo and an SR22 is much like that of a Warrior vs. a 172. When I transitioned form a Warrior to a 172 my ladings were hoppity hoppity. Of course a trailing strut would be even better.

My first few landing in the Cirrus were not the best they are very sensitive to speed on landings. If you are to fast they will balloon or tend to float down the runway because of the long wings I assume. Even 5kts to fast over the numbers makes a difference, but once I got the speed correct it lands very nice and easy.

I have owned two Bo's ( Debonair and A36 ) and there is no question they are an easier plane to land, simply dial off the power and let them sit down. The Cirrus defiantly takes some practice, and as I mentioned before has much more of a sports car feel vs a suburban or SUV. I think that is one of the great things about a Bonanza is they fly with such harmony so please no one take the SUV statement as a knock because it is not.

Like learning to fly any new plane it just takes good training and practice.

Most performance for the dollar.


More expensive to buy and fly. Lack of propulsion redundancy.


Propulsion and system redundancy.

Mike C.

So, you're saying you have to be a better pilot to make great landings in a Cirrus? I'll buy that!

The Cirrus has a more critical wing than a Bonanza and the landing gear isn't as forgiving. Those are facts. BUT great landings are very achievable. You need to learn to control airspeed on approach and land at the stall. Basic airmanship.

There have been some pretty uninformed opinions about the flying characteristics in this thread. Par for the course. If you are seriously interested in a Cirrus do what Mark is doing. Go fly one. It's pretty easy to arrange. Until you've flown one yourself you have nothing to offer except ignorance.

Cirri aren't squirrely. They also don't have a slow roll rate or pitch rate as someone else said. They handle precisely and the roll rate "seems" relatively fast to me and faster than my two Bonanzas. Big F'ing deal. Neither are aerobatic airplanes. Yes they are slippery. They have a laminar flow wing. So, learn how to fly. I can fly 150 to 5 miles from the airport and be doing 100 on the downwind. I don't need speed brakes. Admittedly, I have a G5 with a higher flap speed. Earlier planes need a little more planning. Again, learn to fly.

Yes, you do have to stay ahead of a Cirrus. Is that some sort of unique issue? You need to stay ahead of every airplane. I find my Cirrus easier to fly than my Bonanzas but if you don't stay ahead of them they will kill you too.

For the OP. The Cirrus is a very comfortable airplane. It's very capable. It's easy to fly but it does demand a pilot. It's a great instrument platform. It is loaded with modern design and safety features (will they save your ass? not if you can't fly right Mike?). If you need more than 1100 lbs of useful load, want the loading flexibility of barn doors, just can't stand the thought of not hearing gear go up and down then get a Bonanza. Both are great planes. Anyone who doesn't see that just hasn't looked very hard or flown very much.

I don't intend any of this as disrespectful and I realize this is a Beech fanatic website (I've a Beech fanatic btw) but for the love of Mike some of the bovine fecal product you read here is ridiculous.

But as Don always says BWTHDIK?

My comments were not meant to be disrespectful of Cirrus in any way. I loved flying it, its just the landings I suffered, but thats just me perhaps.
They are both great planes, you got to go with what your mission demands. The comments here are right on the money, you got to stay ahead of the plane, any plane.
As I think about it, perhaps the difference was the training I received. I was in a Cirrus approved transition program. Then I received the BPPP when I bought the Bo. The instructors were definitely more mature and patient in BPPP.
I do belong to COPA as well. The sense of camaraderie is equal here and on Cirruspilots.org. And their statistics speak for themselves, members of COPA have less accidents. Keep your head in the game and you will fly safe.

My CFI says "its a plane where you have to fly the #'s, to fast and it will not land, but then again the #'s are there on every plane so what's the difference?"

I have watched some sloppy flying of people in lots of different planes. I've come to the conclusion that the plane doesn't make you, nor make you look like, an idiot, some people are just idiots in a plane and the plane isn't going to change that.

I'll grant that there is NO easier plane (that I've flown) easier to land smoothly than a Bo.

But I have just as smooth landings, just as often, in the SR. I don't get why some think they are hard.

Now, if you change it to being a difference getting in to a short field, I'm with you. I'd much rather land a Bo on a 2k' strip. But the average runway? Either of them are just as easy.

Speed has nothing to do with ability to touch down smoothly. It has everything to do with touching down at an accurate target; therefore extremely important at a short field. And, just good practice at all times.

Look at the end of the runway. Hold off until the tires squeak. It's not hard. Look at the spot you're plan on touching down, however, and you're more likely to land hard in either. The result may be worse in the SR.

I would say the SR is much easier to land smoothly than a 172, 182, or warrior, but I suspect my skills have improved enough since I've flown one of those to make the comparison invalid.

As much as this topic is kicked around here I still come away confused. I don't buy the anti Cirrus propaganda. However, the only input I have received from a person who I know very well and was probably one of the most experienced commercial pilots/CFII and MEII in light GA airplanes (he is now deceased), told me that the Cirrus is a nice airplane but it needs a full time autopilot to safely fly IFR. He operated these aircraft as a company pilot. He felt like it was too light on the controls. I don't know what model he flew.

This guy had way in the north of 30,000 all in singles and piston twins. He also flew light jets and turboprops as well so his opinion carried weight. I think the chute is a huge selling point and a very desirable safety feature. I think the cirrus designers are to be applauded, they succeed and delivered in an industry full of failure and BS.

Maybe I can get some stick time in one one day.