Yes, PAT is AWESOME. My CFI Robert is in love with the Cirrus, I swear every time we come back in he's practically drooling and saying, "oh they washed it today"..

Wondering what the buzzz really is. They are a nice looking plane and for the mission they can make sense.

I like Beechcraft aircraft, the quality, performance, retractable gear, etc. However, I have had several friends (professional Exec type people) that can afford 350k for an airplane begin to take lessons. I find that I am recommending they look at 3 (possibly 4) airplanes for their missions - Bonanza, Saratoga, Cirrus, (and possibly Cessna 350/400). Out of the 4 I find myself recommending the Cirrus SR22 GTS over all of the other models and the chute and age of the aircraft is a big factor. Don't get me wrong, I think the Bonanza is a stronger, better flying airplane, however, I also believe the Cirrus is a safer aircraft. Both have similar performance (speed, fuel burn, etc.), I just think these type of folks identify better with the Cirrus, especially if they are button pusher pilots.

Bought a Cirrus SR22 because my wife would not hardly ever go in my A36. Her fear is what if something happened to me while we were flying and she was stuck in a plane with no way down. With the chute I have trained her on how to pull and hopefully get to the ground with some type of chance. Before anyone says have her take lessons ( SHE HAS NO INTEREST ) it is all she can do to get in a small plane. With the Cirrus it gives her the ability to face her fears ( which are real ) and overcome them. We have taken baby steps over the last 1.5 years and now she goes with me all the time. It has truly changed our lives as far as going places together which was my goal from the start in becoming a pilot. As far as my perspective it also gives me comfort in night flying when you can't tell if a field is 40 ft or 4000 ft long.
Regarding the two planes the best comparison I can give is the A36 is it is like driving a suburban and the Cirrus is like a sports car. There are things I like about the Suburban ( mainly can haul more ) and things I like about the sports car. Can't say one is better than the other just love having her in the plane to go on trips with me. Good luck you will enjoy the Cirrus. Make sure you have a good person to train you in it as Nate said a Cirrus Certified Instructor would be my recommendation.

As Pancho Barnes said in The Right Stuff: "I tell you, we got two categories of pilots around here. We got your prime pilots that get all the hot planes and we got your pudknockers who DREAM about getting the hot planes. Now, what are you two pudknockers going to have, huh?"

So, we got your Bonanza pilots and your Cirrus pilots........

This is very true.

I rented a Cirrus with an instructor for a day business trip while in Colorado. The first plane had a computer problem and had to switch to another. Lots of electronics in the systems that manage the operations. LOP was calculated and indicated on the FF gage.

Very cool presentation of modern aerodynamics and electronics but I think most A&Ps would be lost working on the systems which questions repairs while traveling.

Fun to fly. The side stick took about 5 minutes to get comfortable with.

I went back again to see about a solo check out. It's a 2 day affair with ground and air work. It was going to cost about 2AMUs to complete. Ended up with a Bonanza. 2hr check out, same speed, $75 an hour less and included fuel.

I'll stick with metal planes.

Alan

For pure flying qualities, I found the only Cirrus I’ve flown – the 22T – to be surprisingly sluggish in pitch and roll. No doubt to reduce drag and obtain more speed out of the airframe, the ailerons and elevators are small – disproportionately so to my eye. And there are no trim tabs. Instead, it uses a complex system to directly trim the ailerons and elevators themselves. The lack of responsiveness was a surprising contrast to the flying qualities of the Beech that was the only aircraft I flew regularly at the time.

Slow in pitch is something I would NEVER say about a Cirrus. You need to go up again. If anything I consider it too sensitive in pitch but I look at is as an IFR platform where stability is very important to hand flying in IMC. I agree with the earlier comment in the thread that it is more sports car like. I do think older models in particular lack the same feel as some other planes. The spring tensioned controls don't have the same feedback as a 182. However, the 182 is like driving a truck by comparison.

Slow in pitch is something I would NEVER say about a Cirrus. You need to go up again. If anything I consider it too sensitive in pitch but I look at is as an IFR platform where stability is very important to hand flying in IMC. I agree with the earlier comment in the thread that it is more sports car like. I do think older models in particular lack the same feel as some other planes. The spring tensioned controls don't have the same feedback as a 182. However, the 182 is like driving a truck by comparison.

To date, no Cirrus chute pull has been initiated by a passenger.

6+ million flight hours. That's 700 years in the air.

I understand fear is sometimes resistant to rational thought, but that's the only known cure.

Mike C.

To date, no Cirrus chute pull has been initiated by a passenger.

6+ million flight hours. That's 700 years in the air.

I understand fear is sometimes resistant to rational thought, but that's the only known cure.

Mike C.

Slow in pitch is something I would NEVER say about a Cirrus. You need to go up again. If anything I consider it too sensitive in pitch but I look at is as an IFR platform where stability is very important to hand flying in IMC. I agree with the earlier comment in the thread that it is more sports car like. I do think older models in particular lack the same feel as some other planes. The spring tensioned controls don't have the same feedback as a 182. However, the 182 is like driving a truck by comparison.

Under the direct verbal command of the pilot. The passenger did not initiate the decision to pull the chute.

From the NTSB report:

"The pilot told the right seat passenger to pull the emergency parachute handle"

There has never been a case where a passenger initiated the chute pull.

Mike C.

Pilot initiated the passenger to act. The passenger imitated the chute to deploy.

Despite the semantic arguments here, this is clearly NOT a case of an incapacitated pilot, which is what the wife feared.

In other words, there has never been a case of using the chute for an incapacitated pilot.

The decision to use the chute or not is complicated, so complicated that TRAINED PILOTS don't do it properly sometimes. How do we expect a passenger to do it?

When the "incapacitated pilot" argument is put forth as a benefit for the chute, it ignores the following things: there has never been a use of the chute for this purpose indicating this is VERY unlikely, the process of determining when a pilot is incapacitated and when to pull the chute is complex and not easy for a passenger to do, and whatever incapacitated the pilot may have affected the passenger, too.

The chute provides a psychological crutch to fearful passengers, which is valuable in some sense, but that use case is really not something to worry about for someone being rational about it.

Mike C.