The Duluth, Minnesota-based company said it is updating its brand identity to further emphasize its particular approach to private aviation, called “Everything in Reach.” The recent changes are part of a broad strategy to grow the aviation industry and move toward a new era in personal aviation. Cirrus manufactures and sells the SR series of piston singles and the Vision Jet.

• READ MORE: The Big Reveal: Cirrus Shows Off the SR G7

“Since [being founded in] 1984, Cirrus’ legacy of innovating, transforming, and defining the ‘personal aviation’ category has changed the way people experience aviation,” said Todd Simmons, Cirrus’ president of customer experience. “Now, in addition to its state-of-the-art aircraft, Cirrus provides a comprehensive ownership experience for world-class flight training, product services and support, aircraft management, upgrades and accessories, sales, finance, insurance, and more.” 

According to Cirrus, personal aviation serves pilots and nonpilots by offering a path of entry into the aviation community for seasoned pilots, people interested in flight training, and those who wish to own and operate a Cirrus aircraft with a professional pilot.

“Cirrus continues its legacy of delivering innovative products and services that make aircraft ownership easy and synonymous with premium car ownership,” said Zean Nielsen, CEO of Cirrus. “The new brand identity honors Cirrus’ history while positioning itself for the future where the company will leverage its intelligent aircraft and connected digital ecosystem.”   

Cirrus is known for a number of innovations in aircraft design, including the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS), which was the first FAA-certified, whole-airframe parachute safety apparatus installed as standard equipment on an aircraft. The company said its worldwide fleet has accumulated more than 17 million hours and 250 people have “returned home safely to their families as a result of the inclusion of CAPS as a standard feature on all Cirrus aircraft.”

The post Cirrus Revises Logo to Signal ‘Next Era’ of Personal Aviation appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Today’s Top Pick is a 2017 Cirrus SR22T.

After 25 years the Cirrus SR-series aircraft still look modern and fresh, thanks in part to continuous development. Regular avionics upgrades have resulted in recently released SR panels that bear little resemblance to those in earlier models. Pilots will also notice numerous small changes in design and materials to reduce weight, improve handling, increase useful load, and boost performance. Top SR models like the SR22T for sale here offer a combination of climb rate, cruise speed, handling, and comfort that make them delightful to fly.

While Cirrus aircraft are renowned for benignly pleasing flight characteristics, they probably are better known for their novel airframe parachutes. This feature, which many regard as a breakthrough in aviation safety, attracted a new audience to general aviation.  

Decades of Cirrus production have translated to a healthy supply of SR22s and SR20s on the used market. These aircraft are available at an increasingly broad range of prices and have gradually begun to attract a larger group of prospective buyers.

This Cirrus SR22T has 1,100 hours since new on the airframe and on its 315 hp TCM TSIO-550-K engine. The panel features the Cirrus Perspective+ by Garmin avionics suite, including Garmin G1000NXi with dual AHRS and air data computers, 12-inch LCD displays, GMA 350c audio panel, GFC 700 autopilot, engine monitoring, and synthetic vision. The aircraft is also equipped with air conditioning, ice protection, and a 77-cubic foot oxygen system.

Pilots looking for a modern high-performance, four-place traveling aircraft with composite construction and integrated Garmin avionics should consider this 2017 Cirrus SR22T, which is available for $775,000 on AircraftForSale.

You can arrange financing of the aircraft through FLYING Finance. For more information, email info@flyingfinance.com.

• FLYING Magazine: We Fly: Cirrus SR22T 8000
• FLYING Magazine: We Fly: 2016 Cirrus SR22T
• FLYING Magazine: Emirates Selects Cirrus SR22 for Pilot Training
• Plane & Pilot: Cirrus Launches Innovation Center
• Plane & Pilot: Cirrus Talks New Airplanes, Core Priorities
• The Aviation Consumer: Used Aircraft Guide: Cirrus SR22

AvWeb: 2020 Cirrus SR22T Flight Trial

The post This 2017 Cirrus SR22T Is a High-Performance, Parachute-Protected ‘AircraftForSale’ Top Pick appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The AD encapsulated a previous service bulletin issued by Cirrus Aircraft Company on January 20, SB5X-90-14R1, following an inflight event in which the autopilot system improperly engaged as a part of an automated process that precedes a deployment of the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS). 

The CAPS was not improperly actuated in any of the events noted by the company or the agency. In one instance, the pilot deployed CAPS following the departure from controlled flight.

According to the text of the AD, “The FAA received a report that a Cirrus Model SF50 airplane was involved in an accident in which multiple flight control issues occurred after takeoff, causing the pilot to manually deploy the CAPS parachute. The FAA has no data showing the pilot received any crew alert system (CAS) messages indicating a CAPS autopilot malfunction. It was determined that the uncommanded activation of the CAPS autopilot mode contributed to the accident. 

“It was also determined that corrosion in the CAPS power timer circuit (part of the CAPS autopilot control mode circuit) may have provided an erroneous signal to the CAPS control box, inadvertently activating the CAPS autopilot mode. The FAA received several additional reports of corrosion on the CAPS power timer circuits on Cirrus Model SF50 airplanes.”

The AD provides for implementing the SB instructions along with a process for the pilot/owner to update the aircraft flight manual and placards accordingly. Those SB procedures include “booting the avionics in configuration mode, inhibiting the CAPS autopilot, fabricating and installing information placards, and revising the AFM. For certain airplanes, the service information also provides procedures for modifying the wiring to remove the CAPS power timer functionality.”

The CAPS Sequence in the Vision Jet

FLYING spoke with Cirrus SF50 program manager Matt Bergwall to understand what was happening, and he reviewed the procedure for initiating a CAPS deployment in the Vision Jet—which differs from that deployment in the SR series because the jet may be traveling at a much faster speed when the pilot pulls the trigger on the system.

Therefore, in the jet, if you pull the handle, the autopilot takes over at first, slowing the airplane to 130 knots before deploying the chute. Also, said Bergwall, there is a timer box that’s associated with the CAPS that keeps a little bit of power on standby in case the pilot turns off the aircraft battery system during the emergency.

According to Cirrus, it was discovered that the card actually became corroded in some instances and activated the autopilot for the CAPS system. So, it’s not a CAPS fault—the chute is not going to deploy, he said, but it became an autopilot issue—and one that the pilot can handle by disconnecting the autopilot normally with the AP button.

Bergwall confirmed that of the more than 400 SF50s in the field, at least half of the fleet has already complied with the service bulletin, and most of the field will be taken care of shortly.

Without the timer card—the “fix” in the AD—for CAPS deployment, the pilot will have to slow the airplane down manually. 

Eventually, Bergwall said, Cirrus will have a fix that’s an overall design change that customers can take care of during their scheduled maintenance periods.

The post FAA Issues AD on Vision Jet for CAPS Autopilot Function appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

What do you think was the top story of the year? Let us know at: edit@flying.media.

1: NTSB Preliminary Report Sheds Light on Copilot Mid-Air Departure

According to the National Transportation Safety Board, the copilot of a skydiving aircraft that made an emergency landing July 29 at Raleigh, North Carolina, intentionally departed the aircraft in flight without a parachute. According to the surviving pilot, the copilot was upset about the hard landing that damaged the airplane.

2: World’s Largest Airplane Completes First Test Flight in Eight Months

Stratolaunch’s Roc—the biggest airplane in the world—returned to the sky Sunday, completing its first test flight in more than eight months.

The four-hour and 23-minute mission expanded Roc’s proven test envelope, including a higher altitude, as well as retracting and extending one of Roc’s main landing gear in flight for the first time. 

3: New Images of World’s Largest Cargo Jet Show Details of Destruction

Russia’s Ministry of Defense has released new imagery showing an apparently destroyed Antonov An-225 Mriya—once the world’s largest cargo airplane—at Gostomel Airport (UKKM) in Ukraine.

The airport—also known as Antonov Airport—was the scene of intense firefights last month between Ukrainian military and invading Russian special forces. The photos show Mriya’s gigantic nose cone riddled with what appear to be bullet or shrapnel holes sitting near the aircraft’s wing and turbofan engines. 

4: The ‘Colossal Mistake’ May Lead to a Colossal Bill

“I made a colossal mistake in my first lesson, mistakenly departing with the cowl plug still in place. The cylinder head temperature had reached a sickening 550 degrees for a few minutes, and we made a precautionary landing at a nearby grass strip. After cooling down, the airplane performed flawlessly for the trip home, so I went ahead and scheduled a second lesson with my instructor for the next day.”

5: Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida

A pilot and two passengers are okay after the Cirrus Vision Jet went down after deploying the CAPS (Cirrus Airframe Parachute System), apparently while on approach to Kissimmee Gateway Airport (KISM) in Florida on September 9.

The post Top 5 Stories of 2022 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The scene following the deployment was reported by a local news affiliate as a marshy area in the “area of Lake Tohopekaliga,” where the pilot and a boy walked away and a second passenger, a woman, sustained “no life-threatening injuries.”

The SF50, powered by a single Williams International FJ33-5A, first flew in July 2008 and has been in service since December 2016, after several iterations and a measured development program to get the company’s first turbine aircraft right.

First Pull on the SF50

While the Vision Jet’s CAPS saw significant testing during the airplane’s development—and most SF50 pilots have practiced simulated pulls in training—this is the first deployment of the airframe chute in operation.

Cirrus Aircraft tracks “saves” internally, with careful attention paid to the circumstances surrounding each deployment so that they can be driven back into training.

The company has confirmed this first pull—and save. “Cirrus Aircraft is aware of a Vision Jet Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) deployment near Lake Tohopekaliga, Osceola County, Florida, on Friday, September 9,” said the company in a statement given to FLYING. “This is the first deployment of the CAPS system on a fielded Vision Jet aircraft. 

“We are grateful to learn of the reported outcome of the incident, and our thoughts are with those involved for a quick recovery.”

The Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association tracks CAPS deployments on its website, with links and commentary up to September 2021. 

While the scenario leading to the deployment is not yet known, FLYING will be following the story.

The post Cirrus Vision Jet Pilot Pulls Chute in Florida appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

When PIC James J. Durkin failed to deploy the Cirrus Aircraft Parachute System, or CAPS, installed in the 2001 Cirrus SR22 G1 he was piloting in 2018—and the aircraft crashed, killing Durkin and a passenger—it sparked a lawsuit that put flight schools and CFIs around the country potentially on notice.

In the initial complaint, filed April 4, 2020, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Civil Division, Pennsylvania, the plaintiff, Patricia Grady, alleged that Aero-Tech Services, a flight school in Lancaster, and its employees, CFIs Zach Hurst and David Peachey, failed to adequately teach the CAPS system to PIC Durkin. Furthermore, Grady claimed in the suit that had Durkin received said instruction, the accident that killed Durkin and his passenger—her husband, Stephen Grady—“would not have occurred.”

In the end, the trial court dismissed the case, stating that the complaint “failed as a matter of law” because it was based solely on a theory of educational malpractice. The ruling stated: “Pennsylvania courts have not permitted cases of negligence resulting from alleged educational malpractice to persist.” 

Grady appealed, however, to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. In March, the appellate court upheld the dismissal, adopting the lower court’s opinion as its own. Essentially, that the plaintiff lacked a legal cause of action. Now, Grady has filed a petition for allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the petition in the next couple of months, said Laurie Salita, senior counsel of Skinner Law Group in Philadelphia, who represents Aero-Tech in the suit. “We obviously oppose the petition,” Salita said. Given the pending litigation, Salita and Aero-Tech were unable to comment further on the case.

Still, the Superior Court’s decision should give flight schools and CFIs a welcome sigh of relief—at least for now. FLYING delved deeper into the case to determine why the court ruled as it did and what it means for the aviation community, and will follow up once the Supreme Court decides on the plaintiff’s petition. 

The Fatal Accident 

The plaintiff’s husband, and Durkin, died on April 19, 2018, when the Cirrus SR22 Durkin was piloting crashed near Williamsburg, Pennsylvania. According to the National Transportation Safety Board’s accident report, Durkin took off from Lancaster Airport (KLNS) in Pennsylvania, en route for South Bend International (KSBN), Indiana. The flight plan was filed as a personal flight. After takeoff, Durkin asked to divert from his original flight plan to Altoona-Blair County Airport (KAOO), due to icing. The Cirrus was not equipped to fly in icing conditions, according to the NTSB report. 

The NTSB listed the cause of the accident as “loss of control in flight.” Photos of the aircraft wreckage showed the CAPS safety pin on the activation handle intact and the CAPS activation handle in its holder. This would indicate that Durkin either was unable to or did not attempt to deploy the CAPS system. In the pilot’s operating handbook (POH) for the SR22, the “normal operations” pre-flight checklist calls for the pilot to remove the CAPS safety pin during “preflight walkaround,” and to verify its removal during the “before starting engine” checklist, and again, in the “before takeoff checklist,” the lawsuit states. 

• WATCH A VIDEO: FLYING Explained: How Does Ice Affect Your Aircraft

The Lawsuit 

In the original complaint, the plaintiff, filing as the executrix and personal representative of her husband’s estate, alleged negligence on the part of CFIs Hurst and Peachey for not properly instructing Durkin in the CAPS system, and negligence on the part of the flight school for not ensuring that its flight instructors were qualified to train Durkin in the use of CAPS.

According to Cirrus, CAPS has saved the lives of more than 60 people in 30 different loss of control flight situations since it was installed in Cirrus aircraft. 

Following the trial court’s ruling to dismiss the complaint, the plaintiff filed an appeal, arguing that flight schools “teach a precise activity” that is “ultrahazardous,” and therefore, should be an exception to the state’s “educational malpractice doctrine.”

The Pennsylvania Superior Court wasn’t swayed. In denying the plaintiff’s alleged cause of action, the court reiterated the lower court’s ruling, that “[a] cause of action seeking damages for acts of negligence in the educational process must be precluded by considerations of public policy,” because (1) “there is no clear definition of the standard of care for a reasonably prudent flight school for instruction on airplane specific safety mechanisms;” (2) “it is difficult to determine if the Defendants’ instruction on a certain subject would have prevented the Plaintiff’s damages;” (3) it would cause a flood of litigation because “virtually every future plane crash will raise the specter of a negligent training claim against the flight school or aviation training center … for no other reason than they have an attenuated connection to the pilot’s actions on the date of the crash since the flight school provided the pilot the knowledge to become licensed by the FAA;” and (4) “[t]rial courts have no business meddling in the field of day-to-day educational standards of pilot schools,” particularly because “[f]ederal regulations clearly delineate standards for certification and operation of Part 141 schools,” as cited in a synopsis of the case published by JD Supra. 

What It Means 

According to Widener University Commonwealth Law School professor Greg Randall “Randy” Lee, J.D., in allegations of educational malpractice, schools and teachers tend to have an advantage. 

One of the first things a court needs to determine in a lawsuit like this is if there’s a legal cause of action against the school or the teacher, he said. “In the vast majority of these cases, you don’t have a cause of action against any one of them.”

Lee explained, “When people tell you there’s no cause of action for educational malpractice, what they’re normally saying is that if I’m in my classroom as a teacher doing my thing, and you don’t like the way that I did it, or you didn’t feel like you learned from it, can you sue me because I didn’t ‘subjectively do it better?’” That answer is generally, no, unless the teacher fails to teach something that’s statutorily required, he said, citing two cases in Montana that ruled in favor of the plaintiff (B.M. v. State of Montana; and Yellow Kidney, et al. v. Montana Office of Public Instruction).

“You can sue a pilot for exercising bad judgment when he’s flying the plane. He doesn’t have to do something illegal to have a problem. He can just exercise bad judgment and he can get sued for professional malpractice. But that’s not the way we treat teachers,” Lee said. 

There are several reasons why the law gives latitude to teachers and educational institutions. Lee said these include: 

• “Malpractice claims would intrude on academic freedom (the right of schools and teachers to instruct in the ways they think best) and First Amendment free speech rights;
• “Schools facing malpractice claims might have to take resources away from education and use them to fight lawsuits;
• “The fear of lawsuits might cause schools to abandon their educational mission or interfere with their ability to design effective educational programs;
•  “Effective education is too hard to determine when students all learn differently and there are many different ways to teach. In addition, there are more topics than anyone can teach, and how does one decide which topics are absolutely necessary to teach.”

Per that last point, how can the court determine if a teacher is at fault for failing to teach or the student is at fault for failing to learn?

“If I’m teaching how to land a plane and five students in the class leave that class clueless because they couldn’t understand what I was talking about, and one of them knows exactly how to fly a plane, have I been ineffective as a teacher or are they ineffective as students?” Lee asked. “Who can really tell? And, even if it’s possible to figure that out, are courts really the best party to figure that out—or should we leave that to school boards, or principles, or someone else to determine that they’re not being an effective teacher?” 

FAA Regs May Buffer Schools Against Malpractice Suits

Per the court’s ruling, with regard to flight schools and claims of educational malpractice, there is an additional level of instructional oversight that would further dissuade the courts from getting involved: the FAA. 

According to Stephen “Steve” Dedmon, J.D., aviation law professor and associate chair of the College of Aviation at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, acting on claims of educational malpractice, like the one alleged by Grady, would put the courts in a precarious situation. “It would put them in a position to have to micro-manage all aspects of flight…and that is not their purview. They would also have to attempt to discern what a pilot actually learned, to what extent, over what period of time, what factors might have impeded application of that knowledge (fear, anxiety) and they cannot do that.”  

FAA-approved Part 141 flight schools are required to have an approved syllabus for instruction that outlines specific ground and flight modules. Additionally, Part 141 schools must monitor student pass/failure rates and the FAA may revoke their certification, Dedmon said. “They are also subject to their instructors being observed in a classroom or flight setting to assure they are teaching the specific module information.”

Flight schools operating under Part 61 are not as closely monitored by the FAA, and do not need to follow the requirements outlined in Part 141. Part 61 schools train students on a one-to-one or customized basis and have a more flexible training schedule. “[Under Part 61] I, as a CFI, can set my own ground or flight instruction as I wish. Or in many cases, ground instruction can be purchased from various commercial providers and is totally acceptable to pass the knowledge written and oral associated with obtaining a pilot certificate,” Dedmon said. 

While there are some differences, both Part 61 and Part 141 schools adhere to the same airman certification standards set by the FAA, which are used to assure that the pilot meets the requirements in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs).

The defendant in this lawsuit, Aero-Tech Services, offers both Part 61 and Part 141 training options. 

While not required, Dedmon said as an attorney and a flight instructor, he would advocate for greater documentation of training details. “Practically speaking, logbook entries by the CFI showing the pilot had been advised of the operation of the CAP system as related to being in the POH [and told to consult it], and an entry showing the instructor demonstrated how to preflight the system would have been valuable evidence of pertinent instruction,” he said. “Granted you cannot document everything [as the court said]…but details count.”  

A note entered in Durkin’s logbook dated July 25, 2014, indicated that he “received the required training of section 61.31 (f) in an SR22 and was determined “proficient in the operation and systems of a high performance airplane.” There was no entry specific to CAPS training, so it is unclear if it took place. 

Not ‘Blanket Immunity’ 

While the Superior Court’s ruling may be seen as a win (for now) for flight schools and their employees, Dedmon cautioned that it doesn’t give them “blanket immunity” from claims of educational malpractice, and this was referenced in the lower court’s decision. “For example, if a flight school failed to warn of the deadly flight characteristics of an airplane that had resulted in a disproportionate number of crashes and fatalities,” it might be liable, he said. “Practically speaking, the issue here is what you know or do not know, but this is a reasonable expectation of CFIs and flight schools.” 

And, flight schools and other educational institutions may still be subject to claims of fraud (e.g., lying to a student to get them to enter into a contract) and breach of contract, Lee added.

The post Court Ruling Brings Sigh of Relief but Not Immunity to Flight Schools, CFIs appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Cirrus Vision Jet G2+ at a Glance

And it’s one that now extends to the addition of Safe Return—the Cirrus name for Garmin’s 2021 Flying Innovation Award-winning Autoland system—the G2 platform that was designed around the capability to land the airplane without pilot intervention.

Test Flights

The cold rain on a July morning in Tennessee came as a surprise—and frankly did not bode well for a demo pilot looking to show off hot-and-high-altitude performance. Fortunately, it wasn’t my first time flying with Cirrus Aircraft’s Matt Bergwall in the SF50. We’d had a couple of hours in the straight G2 version a few months earlier, plus a solid session in the sim. More on that—and its value both in initial type rating and recurrent training—a bit later.

Before we met up for the flight, Bergwall and I briefed the new features on the G2+, which centered around an update to the Williams International FJ33-5A engine that expanded temperature limits, allowing for the use of more of the available thrust at high temperatures and field elevations. This would result in a projected boost of 20 percent at the highest airports in the system as well as a respectable 4 percent reduction in takeoff and landing distances at sea level. We would also have a chance to see the jet’s latest advancement in connectivity: the addition of in-flight Wi-Fi from Gogo.

I should have known—or maybe Bergwall should have been more skeptical of—the juju I would bring to the flight when he picked me up at Wilson Air Center on the west side of the field at Chattanooga. So far, we are two for two in gathering a significant collection of mixed ice on our duo of days flying the jet together. Fair warning for next time, Matt! But once more, it was instructive on many levels.

On our first flight in the previous G2 model, N858AG, back in December 2020, the ice was not only anticipated—yeah, December—it was also wholly expected, given the reports of light rime on the descent from Delta and Envoy flights coming into Knoxville that morning. We had a lot of room under the overcast and only a thin layer to contend with, so what we picked up in the transit between 2,500 and 10,000 feet—though not anything to brush off—was a nonevent, save for the fact it gave me a good sense of how the deice and anti-ice systems work on the SF50. We turned on the boots as we entered the clouds, along with the engine anti-ice we’d engaged after takeoff and the alcohol-based ice protection system for the windshield.

Flash-forward to July this year. We’d had a letup in the morning sprinkles when we went out on the ramp to N275CM that gave some indication of the moisture level to be found within the clouds above. Once preflighted, loaded and on our way, we took another look at the weather to expect for the 454 nm journey ahead. There was some convective activity buried in the layers centered about 65 nm south of the Volunteer VOR (VXV) near Knoxville, but there were widely spaced cells and no pireps of note. We planned for a climb to the airplane’s max cruising altitude of 31,000 feet to take advantage of whatever speed advantage we could find up there.

Not expecting to see much in terms of takeoff-performance change at KCHA, we launched, carrying nearly full fuel (270 gallons), which was enough plus more than ample reserves for the trip, as well as our 650 pounds of people and baggage; the flight planned 131 gallons plus 52 gallons of reserve fuel equaled 183 gallons of the 296-gallon usable capacity, or 1,231 pounds.

This kind of trip fits a sweet spot for the jet. With two people and bags, the Vision Jet carries full fuel and easily makes 1,000-plus-nm trips. Adding that third or fourth person (depending on their size) knocks the range down a bit from the maximum of 1,275 nm, to roughly 800 nm plus IFR reserves, but operationally, owners rarely push up to that limit. Bergwall noted that on 90 percent of flights, four or fewer people are on board.

We passed the freezing level as we climbed through 16,000 feet. Looking out through the fuzzy air at the wing, I waited for the inevitable. Yep, there it was. We had the engine anti-ice on already—not just a good idea in visible moisture but also the “law”—but we waited to turn on the wing and stabilator boots (on a single switch in the SF50 because you don’t want one set without the other) until the buildup began in earnest. There’s a small performance penalty from using the boots, because they run off of bleed air from the FJ33—but you can leave them on indefinitely, an advantage over the TKS-based ice protection on the SR series.

And it did, with even more thinly veiled aggression than the ice of our December 2020 flight. We sat quietly as the measured climb continued, but even the small change in weight brought on by the buildup ate away at our rate. I know I was looking hopefully upward, seeking the sun. When the light began dancing again on the glareshield 5,000 feet and 8 minutes later, I admit to letting out a little sigh. In this respect, I sense that my experience reflects that of many pilots transitioning to the SF50 from a high-performance single or twin and getting to know the flight levels above 24,000 feet for the first time—or extending their time within them. With that comes more exposure to high-altitude weather as well as icing conditions that aren’t necessarily forecast.

Brandon Ray, instructor and owner of High Performance Aviation, agrees that this is an area of focus for transitioning pilots. “Even with larger jets, most pilots will tell you they don’t like to stick around in icing conditions for long,” says Ray. “It is important for new Vision Jet pilots to get exposed to some varying icing conditions so they can evaluate an appropriate decision to fly through it, change altitude, or change direction. Just like the piston aircraft, having FIKI does not make a plane invincible in all icing conditions. Having a healthy respect for icing will pay dividends in safety.”

In the full sun at FL 240 and minus 12 degrees Celsius, 17 nm south of Volunteer, the trails of melting ice coursed across the windshield and down each side of the fuselage. We’d held off on deploying the windscreen’s in-plane-switching goo knowing that sunshine was imminent and a hot, solar-satisfying descent and landing lie ahead. Otherwise, we could have engaged it in low or high mode to rid ourselves of the frozen menace and gain forward viz again.

Staying Connected

Now that we cruised along at FL 310, we had two goals: get to a true airspeed above 300 knots and check out the connectivity package touted as a primary delighter in the newest G2 model.

Bergwall was getting that fidgety demo-pilot demeanor as we waited to shed the ice that clearly held us back from the first goal. I tried to soothe his nerves by suggesting we leverage the Cirrus Perspective Touch platform to take advantage of such tried-and-true SiriusXM music as one could find on the Love channel or Bluegrass Junction. He landed upon Road Trip Radio, which felt appropriate for our journey north.

Smooth and in the clear, Bergwall walked me through the systems pages on the right-side multifunction display, which allow the pilot to keeps tabs on all the critical parameters during the flight, down to a pilot-satisfying level of detail. The deice/anti-ice system map was of particular interest, and we could see at a glance the status of the left and right pitot-tubes and angle-of-attack indicator heat, IPS fluid level, engine inlet temperature and pressure, engine TT2-probe heat, and even the temperature of the air in the boots (205 degrees C, by the way, when we checked it).

The environmental systems page showed our oxygen-fill level and valve status, the cabin temperature and pressure, and the bleed-air temperature and pressure. Little green fan icons indicated all was apparently fine with the cabin-air circulation—and a check-in with our back-seat passenger prompted a thumbs-up from his roomy perch from which to take photos of all the action. An electrical-system page mapped out the main and essential buses (fore and aft) and the emergency bus, as well as the state of the two generators and batteries in the scheme. A fuel-system page similarly laid out our fuel on board in a simple diagram.

The Gogo L3 Wi-Fi transceiver and antenna installed into the G2+ we flew—and included in the newest model’s connectivity-upgrade package—worked as projected during the flight. The L3 stands in this case for “Level 3,” the 3G network that the system uses. Gogo offers an L5 system as well that will use 5G, but that’s only available in a limited number of platforms as of press time.

The system builds upon the Garmin Flight Stream 510—the wireless connection that allows the pilot to upload a flight plan from an iPhone or iPad to the Perspective Touch—that has been incorporated into the jet since its earlier days. It also enabled folks on board to send text messages and place calls through an Iridium satcom transceiver. With the Avance L3 we saw in operation as low as 3,000 feet agl, the need for that satcom goes away unless you’re beyond the reaches of a cellular network.

With that magic on full display, I could sense that Bergwall was hoping for a little bit more fairy dust to sprinkle down upon us from the speed gods—and for a few special minutes, about 225 nm out from KHGR, we topped 300 ktas. Granted, the SF50 shows its top speed at FL 280, according to the book, where it can hit 311 ktas under certain conditions; we were at an outside air temperature of minus 32 C, showing 31 percent thrust. We did our best.

In between a few twists of the heading bug to sashay past a couple of towering CUs[AC2]  on the descent, we played around with the enhanced-vision-system display, which would show the power of its infrared camera at night or in low visibility. We also cycled through the myriad ways you can use the two 14-inch displays to sort the information you want at hand. Split screens and reversionary modes make it a pilot’s choice, all driven by the three touchscreen controllers horizontally situated in the console below.

High Density

We got our opportunity to look at the improved performance in hot, humid conditions upon landing at Hagerstown, and again when we took off for a short repositioning flight into Manassas (KHEF), Virginia. The flight-management system within the Perspective made the projections for us. With a total air temperature of 35 degrees C (95 degrees F) on the ramp, the effective field elevation, or density altitude, showed as 3,064 feet msl. Not mountainous heights, but not a cool day at sea level, either.

With an aircraft weight of 4,972 pounds, we were looking at a takeoff ground roll of 2,661 feet and a distance over the 50-foot obstacle of 3,949 feet. We could expect an initial rate of climb of 1,162 fpm. Taking into account average pilot skill at the controls, we used well under half of the total runway length (7,000 feet) at Hagerstown.

Even without the autothrottle found on the G2 and G2+, the SF50’s Williams FJ33-5A could hardly be easier to manage; in fact, this is one immediate benefit that pilots moving up the food chain from futzy-feely high-performance turbocharged piston engines will notice.

“The Vision Jet is by far my favorite aircraft to fly,” says Max Trescott, longtime San Jose, California-based instructor typed in the SF50. “Although I do a lot of flying in the Vision Jet, I’ve only done one SOE [supervised operating experience (a session of 25 hours, typically, with an experienced pilot sitting in the right seat)], as Cirrus likes to do most of those with their own instructors. I do a lot of work with low-time Vision Jet pilots, either before they go to do their type training or after they’ve finished their SOE.”

Trescott notes only one area of concern with powerplant management: “The one thing new SF50 pilots occasionally forget is to reduce the power after takeoff; the FJ33-5A has a maximum power limitation of 5 minutes,” he says. “That power reduction happens automatically when using the autothrottle in the G2 and G2+, but pilots have to remember to do it manually in the G1.”

Ray notes that the autothrottle warrants careful attention by transitioning pilots. “An autopilot or autothrottle can make a flight safer or, in the case of an unfamiliar or untrained pilot, more risky. Because of the nuances of the automation, pilots of G2 aircraft will want to get differences training in the aircraft after their type rating to learn the specifics of flying the SF50 with the autothrottle.”

The Chute Pull: Simulated

Trescott confirmed a suspicion I had about descent planning, the area in which pilots transitioning from the SR22 or similar high-performance singles would encounter the most need for a change in thinking. I experienced this on my own flights: When it came time to initiate the descent from FL 310, and we needed to make a crossing restriction applied by Washington Center that seemed fairly modest, I initially selected a descent of 800 fpm or so. That was not going to cut it.

“In my experience,” Trescott says, “the most consistent area of focus after getting the type rating is getting pilots used to managing their descents from the flight levels. If ATC leaves them up high for too long, it usually takes newly minted jet pilots a while to realize that, and they end up high and fast. Many of them will set the autopilot to descend at 500 fpm, which works well in piston aircraft but is often insufficient when descending from the flight levels. Using arrival procedures properly is also a common challenge, as many IFR pilots haven’t previously used arrival procedures much, unless they happened to be based at a very large airport.”

Ray concurred. “Most jet pilots plan for a descent path that is closer to a 3-degree angle,” he says. “Because of the pressurization system, pilots no longer have to worry as much about maintaining a descent rate around 500 fpm to be comfortable for passengers. The aircraft can descend at a much faster rate, while the cabin rate of descent stays in a comfortable range for the ‘perceived’ rate of descent for the passengers. Because the SF50 is not as fast as traditional two-engine business jets, it can actually hit some steeper descent gradients without much effort. Why would one want to do this? For jet pilots, fuel efficiency is all about flying high as long as possible. The performance and flight characteristics of the SF50 make it possible to fly higher longer, and then descend at steeper angles to maximize efficiency or to meet crossing restrictions. It is useful to practice a variety of scenarios to get comfortable how to manage the mental descent planning as well as the VNAV programming and automation.”

Another way down is the CAPS—one that pilots hope they never have to use—and a procedure that I’m now fortunate to have practiced in the sim, if you could call a mostly psychological exercise “practice.” Once you run the checklist and pull firmly down on the handle, the airplane pitches up to bleed off speed if needed. Then, the chute deployment sends you into a further pitch-up attitude right after the straps elongate, then a pitch-down attitude before the airframe settles into a fairly level descent. It’s hard to tell that you’re descending at a rate from 900 to 1,500 fpm until you get close to the ground.

With the G2 version, the sim now offers the ability to execute the Safe Return function—a third way down safely, if you will. Safe Return gives over to anyone on board the jet the ability to manage their own descent and landing, using the brains behind the Perspective plus the mechanical means to descend, land and brake the jet to a stop to do it for someone who cannot do it themselves for whatever reason.

Cirrus waited in anticipation of the first pull of the CAPS handle in real life, which happened back in 2002, four years after the first chute was installed on a production SR20. And I’m sure everyone at the company hopes that Safe Return never needs to be used. But that option—considering that the pilot meets their responsibility to train and brief properly for its use—puts the real “plus” in the G2.

Training Takeaways

More than 400 type-rated pilots, utilizing a fleet of more than 250 SF50s, have gone through the nine-day course at the Cirrus Vision Center at the Knoxville airport. And most have had the opportunity to train for abnormalities and emergencies in the center’s full-motion, Level D flight simulator. The follow-on to training includes the 25 hours of SOE, and then the pilot enters a cycle of recurrent training and ongoing education—hopefully for life.

 “I spend a lot of time reviewing the aircraft systems prior to going back for recurrent training,” says Trescott, referring to how he prepares for the recurrent training he pursues each year to meet both insurance and personal standards. “The SF50 has far more systems than a piston aircraft, and they’re more complex, so there’s a lot to remember. I have extensive notes I typed up from my original type rating, which helps with the review. There are also a number of emergency-checklist memory items, and I practice reviewing those throughout the year.”

Ray has a few pointers as well: “When I go back for recurrent on any plane, the things I like to review specifically are limitations, memory items, emergency checklists, systems, and flight profiles (target speeds for procedures). I usually like to “chair fly” in front of a panel poster to visualize the procedures, especially the ones that require multiple steps by memory.

Spec Sheet

The post We Fly: Cirrus Vision Jet G2+ appeared first on FLYING Magazine.