The chute does not substitute for all the other reasons the FAA requires an ATP in a turbojet even if it is SE baby turbojet.

Also, SP 135 turbojet approval is difficult to get from many FSDOs now. Operators who do it got their approval long ago.

And SP 135 turbojet insurance is expensive. It is cheaper to employ an SIC then pay the increased insurance. But carrying two crew will compromise the charter payload. The good news is the SIC only has to have a commercial rating and can be a time builder working for minimum wage.

Lots of issues with 135 in the SF50 that will drive costs up.

Se ATP regs haven't changed. 1500 hours still but no sim/class hoops.

Interesting. Forgot that.

Will flying an SF50 be more attractive to a Pro Pilot then flying a PC12 135?

Pro Pilot doesn't generally get to decide - it's Joe Owner who decides!

Has anyone ever been impressed being told, "I fly a prop"?

A new SR22 is $900K.

Pro Pilot doesn't generally get to decide - it's Joe Owner who decides!

Yeah, when it is a DC-3.

Here's how I look at it. I hope they sell a lot of them and attract new people to GA and depress prices on used planes I like. But Cirrus could have applied their marketing and chute and interior design prowess to a traditional two engine VLJ. It would have been a much more capable airplane. Instead, they took a hard look at the problem and decided on a deliberately handicapped single-engine design with all its known flaws and no real upside, presumably because they think it's necessary to attract their buyer.

If it turns out they're right about that, it'll just be ... a bit of a bummer. A step backwards in some sense. That's all.

A SE ATP can be gotten with the SF50 type rating if they meet the qualifications or already have an ATP. The type rating ride is the same as the ATP ride and both can be had on the same ride.

But you can get the type rating with less than 1500 hrs and IIRC, no ATP written.

Here's how I look at it. I hope they sell a lot of them and attract new people to GA and depress prices on used planes I like. But Cirrus could have applied their marketing and chute and interior design prowess to a traditional two engine VLJ. It would have been a much more capable airplane. Instead, they took a hard look at the problem and decided on a deliberately handicapped single-engine design with all its known flaws and no real upside, presumably because they think it's necessary to attract their buyer.

If it turns out they're right about that, it'll just be ... a bit of a bummer. A step backwards in some sense. That's all.

You can't decide to bet on a horse after it leaves the starting gate. Jason can be evasive until the time period expires and then accept or reject the bet with no risk.

Still no quote from me saying it can't be certified. The SF50 can be certified. In fact, it is by far the most reasonable of SEJs when it comes to certification requirements, being the only one which wasn't going for high ceiling. The low ceiling is what dooms the airplane to be slow and inefficient.

Mike C.

I've been told by Cirrus the gear will be up during a CAPS impact.


Chute is mounted in the nose.


One wonders. I expect it to be a fairly small envelope.


The fact none exists (and they would publicize them if they did) suggests certification is not imminent.

They have done drop tests (6000 lb weight tied to chute). But that's a whole different thing than a full airplane test.

Mike C.

The fatal accident rate in small jets is very small. Eclipse, Mustang, etc, have great safety records.

I bet when/if the SF50 gets as many fleet hours as Eclipse and Mustang combined, they will have many chute pulls, perhaps a dozen or more.

Now the question will be if those chute pulls are really people saved (in which case the SF50 is dramatically more likely to put people in fatal situations), or those people were not really saved (and thus the chute isn't actually saving anybody but creating hull losses instead).

Mike C.