I believe this. the first systems-intensive type rating I got was the AN24. Coming from a B200 I thought no sweat, it's just a bigger version of the same thing with a little language barrier thrown in. I was humbled pretty quickly, i probably killed us all (in the sim) 7 or 8 times over that couple weeks.

BUT that is not what the SF50 is. I just don't see the cirrus jet as any different than a TBM. If it was a SETP there would be no discussion. Some people are simply getting hung up on it being a "jet" in terms of what their perception of a "jet" is supposed to be.

Forget it's a jet. Call it a tbm that will have less drag on landing. So basically you need to train as per a tbm with a little extra focus on approach, landing distances, and braking. I just can't see the big deal about that.

Probably all TP's should require a type rating. Just look at the accident rates in most TP's compared to what it should be with all that capability and reliability that they offer. I, personally, am glad that I don't need a type rating. Makes my life simpler, and training is a little less stressful, because I know that even if I have a bad day, I am not booking airline fare back home. I do train about as close to a type as I can, to ATP standards, and twice a year but on my own schedule, and way cheaper. The SF50 will have a better safety record than the SETP's, not because the plane is intrinsically safer, but the type rating will weed those out that know they don't have the right stuff, and the remaining pilots will all be mandated to demonstrate a high level of proficiency each year.

As far as the automation, Cirrus has proven themselves capable with the piston, and most of the electronics are Garmin which has an almost bulletproof design.

I'd love to look at this data. Where is it?

Again, you are looking at one specific system and not the design as a whole. All the systems together. Even the shape of the airplane and the fact that it has 1 engine instead of 2 and a failure does not mean certain death unless the pilot steps in to save the day.

You need only look at todays market. The flying machines that sell vs. those that aren't even made anymore. Are the new designs simpler than yesteryear or more complex? IMO they are outrageously simpler.

You can say "They're more complex" and you are right...... They are more complex for your mechanic. But they are less complex for the pilot. Your mechanic isn't going to crash your airplane.

Your imagination is thinking this is way tougher then it really is.

No one fails a PT91 61.58 check unless you have early onset of Alzheimer's and should be retiring your ticket. 61.58 checks are done progressively. You practice a maneuver until you do it successfully and then it is cheeked off as complete and you move on. If you mess something up then you do it again until you show you have it correct.

There is no pink slip for a 61.58 check. You can walk out without a signoff and continue to fly until your current 61.58 expires.

You are confusing the complexity of engineering an automated system with complexity for the user. Automated system will almost always be more complex from engineering standpoint, but can certainly be simpler for the user. That includes failure modes IF the designer chooses to rely on additional levels of automation (e.g. redundancy) to deal with potential failures instead of giving the user manual control as a fallback.

I concur.

The MU2 SFAR, basically a type rating except in name, had a huge impact on accident rates. The King Air 300/350, with type rating, has a far lower accident rate than the 90/100/200. The evidence is there and it isn't subtle.


If you can't pass a type check ride, you should not feel enabled to fly just because you don't need it.

The stress of the type check ride is nothing to an actual emergency. If you can't handle the check ride, you can't handle a real emergency.

The training providers are not out for blood, they are there to make you a better pilot. It is quite rare for pilots to outright fail on a recurrent. Usually, an extra day resolves the problem and now your are a better pilot.


Schedule is not a problem, you get a 3 month window to train, your base month, month before, month after. If you train every 6 months, then you are constantly resetting your base month. This means you can schedule any time from 6 to 13 months after your last session. I would find it strange if you can't work with that schedule.

A recurrent costs me about $3K/year, for a Citation in a sim, about $6K. If that cost is too high for you, then owning a turbine airplane is not indicated.


This will help.

It remains to be seen if the pilot demographics are a negative, mainly SR piston pilots stepping up, thus with limited turbine and high altitude experience.

The Eclipse experience is encouraging. Their pilot demographics were perhaps similar to Cirrus. But they did wash out quite a number of pilots in the initial type rating course. Also, Eclipse had the benefit of a second engine. I believe there have been a number of Eclipse engine shutdowns (~10?), but they don't generate news because the second engine allows them to land uneventfully. Engine failures in SF50 are far more likely to be news.

Mike C.

Except I sure hope the training, and the results, will be superior to that of the TBM. It's safety record is, by jet standards, atrocious.

Not simpler in training. More complex to learn how it works, how it fails, and how to take over manually.

In routine operations, simpler for pilot, but more complex machine, so failures can be more difficult.


He certainly can if he makes a mistake. There are well documented examples.

Mike C.

25 minutes prior to AP disconnect, the crew dimmed the lights in an effort to visually see the weather up ahead, so they were aware of it at least as early as this stage.

2 minutes, about 15 nm at cruise speeds, before the AP disconnect, the crew discussed weather and made a deviation, a left turn, in heading mode. It is logical this turn was prompted by what their radar showed for weather ahead.

The crew was not oblivious to the weather, even if they didn't actually avoid it in the end.

The report is ambiguous about whether they entered a storm or not, or simply clouds at high altitude. Their weather radar returns are not recorded by the FDR, and there is limited weather information for storms in middle of the Atlantic.

The report never says they encountered significant turbulence, only that they encountered slight turbulence, and then it increased slightly. If there were truly in the top of a real storm, that would have been different. The BEA report on page 58 says they never exceeded the definition of "light" turbulence (defined as 0.5 G peak to peak amplitude, or 0.75 G to 1.25 G assuming an average 1.0 G flight condition, not really that bad).

I do not believe the crew flew into the top of a real thunderstorm on this flight, just some convective clouds with icing in them.


It shares part of the blame. It was part of the accident chain. Blaming the entire accident on one link of that chain, such a pilot error, is simplistic and misses the real lessons here.

Mike C.

Jeff,

I agree that the SF50 is basically a TBM without a propeller (size, weight, performance, etc.). However, the FAA treats these very similar-performing aircraft very differently (jet vs. <12.5 TP... except MU2). Part of that difference is dramatically higher level of required training.

My only point is that the TBM safety record is atrocious and I hope that the jet training standard (type rating) requirement to which SF50 pilots will be held will result in much better safety results.

M

I would expect improvements in fatals similar to what we are seeing with the Cirrus vs the Bonanza. When they get themselves iced up, or pull a flight control off, trim stall, etc -they may still have a chance at living with the CAPS where the current SETPs would not.

In price, capability, speed, flight profile, owner profile...I agree this plane is a TP competitor....and it fits in your Thangar!

A couple of well publicized chute saves in a "Jet" and this plane will go lights out on sales.

....and, THAT thread on BeechTalk will exceed 300 pages...