No, it's not harder to control in alternate law (nor direct for that matter). It's simply a matter of the gaurdrails being stripped away. At it's most basic it becomes a conventional airplane.

The airplane can be stalled and crashed in ANY of its modes.



Don't compare promotional materiel's, compare the aircraft. Several here including T Spear have extensive experience in the Eclipse and have pointed out that this aircraft has some very undesirable and distracting failure/warning modes.

What you have not done is taken a demonstration flight in a G5 SR-22.

Both have the same promotional material - one of them has apparently actually achieved what their brochure claims.



If I am not mistaken he is using the latest iteration of the SR-22 as a baseline to estimate how the SF50 will operate.

Which doesn't mean the pilot can skip training for the failures.


Absolutely. But both systems increasing training effort. You have to train how to use the auto features, how to detect when the auto features fail, and then how to manually fly without the auto features.


After the Eclipse guys spent 2-3 weeks in ground school, they are either washed out or can handle the numerous failure modes. In this case, a VERY EXPERIENCED jet pilot, in OTHER jets, made some exceptionally quick and correct decisions that saved lives, and the aircraft automation systems made it harder, not easier.


That's nonsense. The Midway example was the engineers trying to make things simpler and they put in a cross dependency even they didn't realize was there.

It has never been the case that anything I do with my left engine affects my right. So that is total BS that every type suffers these invisible dependencies not even trained for.


Who said automation was less safe? No one. You are arguing the wrong point.

I'm saying automation increases training effort, not that it makes planes less safe. A pilot who has to manage more automation has to get more training.

Fundamentally, you CANNOT reduce pilot training and proficiency requirements by adding automation to an aircraft.


How do you know? No one outside Cirrus knows how it really flies.

Mike C.

Anyone else miss xtranormal?

Yes, I do.

It's a beautiful day here in Sunny Florida today..

84dF - Clear blue sky.

I wish I had an SF50!

The pilots were given an airplane with undesirable indications, flying characteristics, bad procedures, and a faulty pitot system. They were also a product of a flawed training process that left them unpracticed and unprepared to fly in these conditions.

Anybody who thinks AF447 was only pilot error is sweeping it under the rug.

Witness that Air France changed their training, Airbus got an AD to change the pitot system.

If was only pilot error, those would not have happened.


You do realize the "unreliable airspeed" procedure says to pull back on the stick to a given pitch attitude, right? Yes, the pilot went too far (but really not that much too far), but they NEVER practiced this at high cruise, only at low altitude.


You do realize the "unreliable airspeed" procedure says false stall warnings may be issued, right? Their training TOLD them to ignore stall warning with unreliable airspeed.


Clearly not, particularly is the "system" incorporates the entire training regiment.

AF447 is a great example of automation means the crew has to be more trained. Their training was inadequate in one particular case, and people died because of it.


Reference please. My understanding is that Boeing stall warning is muted on weight on wheels but will continue to blare all the way to zero airspeed if airborne.

Again, the AF447 stall warning system hurt the pilots, not helped. They got into a region where when they pushed FORWARD, the stall warning started, and pulled BACK, it stopped. Talk about automation being unhelpful!


They had AOA, they died.

AOA is not the "save all". It is simply a higher resolution stall warning. Pilots die all the time with their stall warning going off, AND with their AOA showing high angle if so equipped. The stall/spin accidents are NOT LACK OF INFORMATION. They are lack of proper action, which is ultimately lack of proper training.

Mike C.

We're in agreement it's a training issue. Not an airplane or automation issue foremost. The only thing that as wrong with this plane was that it had temporarily iced up pitots. That's it. That could happen to any aircraft, anywhere.

Because AOA info on a Boeing was "combined with other data and displayed as an integral part of flight deck displays" pure AOA information has never been available to the pilot, not on Boeing, nor on Airbus. Probably due to AF447, they're now changing that and starting to show straight AOA info.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_12/attack_story.html

You said "automation is more complex" which implies "less safe".

You avoid all my questions and respond with how "the avionics in an MU2 can be upgraded" but were not only taking about avionics. We're talking about the airplane as a whole. The designs coming from manufacturers today and light years safer than those of yesteryear.

If true, manufacturers wouldn't keep INCREASING automation in their designs and DECREASING complexity. Nowadays there a lots of pilotless airplanes flying and this number will increase every year.

You and Auburn need to go demo a new SR22 because I don't think either of you have ever flown an airplane built later than 1975. The 2 of you love to write how this airplane game is soooooo hard but I've done all of these things and I just started in 2008. Nobody ever told me it was as hard as you guys make it sound. If I had someone telling me what you guys are telling everyone here I probably wouldn't have started flying.

I'd bet that about 3 years down the road, auto throttles will cause more issues than anything. I wouldn't be surprised if they cause more accidents than if they were never installed.

The PC12 break up was pilot error. He flew into a storm. It had nothing specific to do with the airframe.

I have 3500 hours since 2008. Owned a Cirrus, Bonanza and now PC12. I've taken that PC12 coast to coast I don't know how many times and from Canada to Argentina and all points in between. I'll get a type rating when I buy a jet. I'm not scared. I'm not seeing how you're in a position to tell me "how it all works".

What's "operate an airplane on a schedule" mean?

You already backpedaled own your previous comments on type ratings. If "being a pilot" is your claim to fame you need to get out more. I own and operate a PC12 over 300 hours a year by myself for fun in my spare time. Folks get paid to do this? WHY?

Beechtalk is a better place than attacking one another. All this macho BS I'm better/smarter/more experienced is childish. A lot of pilots from all walks of life and experience levels have augured in due to helmet fire. Training only helps so much.

Having a bunch of hours monitoring the autopilot doesn't impress me. A 20K hour airline pilot managed to VMC roll his twin at a nearby airport last year on a clear Sunday afternoon.

As I often ask during interviews - " Do you have XX years of experience? or do you have one year of experience repeated XX number of times?"

Auburn and Mike one of your favorite MU2's bellied it in recently - you probably didn't read about it because the crane had it on its wheels and tucked away in a hangar before it drew much attention. Flown by owner who was doing recurrent training with instructor in right seat. Evidently pulling the gear warning circuit breaker while practicing single engine approaches isn't a very wise idea.

So much for training and experience.... Fat log books and fat checkbooks don't guarantee much in my book.

Peace,
Don

You said "automation is more complex" which implies "less safe".

You avoid all my questions and respond with how "the avionics in an MU2 can be upgraded" but were not only taking about avionics. We're talking about the airplane as a whole. The designs coming from manufacturers today and light years safer than those of yesteryear.

The PC12 break up was pilot error. He flew into a storm. It had nothing specific to do with the airframe.

I have 3500 hours since 2008. Owned a Cirrus, Bonanza and now PC12. I've taken that PC12 coast to coast I don't know how many times and from Canada to Argentina and all points in between. I'll get a type rating when I buy a jet. I'm not scared. I'm not seeing how you're in a position to tell me "how it all works".

What's "operate an airplane on a schedule" mean?

You already backpedaled own your previous comments on type ratings. If "being a pilot" is your claim to fame you need to get out more. I own and operate a PC12 over 300 hours a year by myself for fun in my spare time. Folks get paid to do this? WHY?

Why you comparing to a 182? Why not compare to a 1977 B55?

The guy who crashed the PC12 in Butte,MT was a professional had all the PC12 hrs and training in the world (iirc he came from the Indian health service).