Personal Jets (VLJ's) Part II

[moxiepilot]

Originally Posted by Airdale

How about some aviation talk?

What are your thoughts on VLJ's and the impact they will have on
1.) Safety (both in the sky and on the ground)
2.) Insurance
3.) Flight Training
4.) Where will their place be in the market of GA?

As for safety, these toys are geared to the same market segment that Cirrus is targeting. And as I've mentioned previously, I have not met one cirrus pilot, including some "air taxi" operators, that could not use some serious recurrent/remedial training.

Originally Posted by Sprint100

1) From what I've seen they seem to be geared towards that weekend warrior that flies solo IFR.

And with that market, there is a small percentage that is actually competent and proficient. I see it every day with folks doing things because their brain is turned off.

Originally Posted by flyinawa

I fear these will be the toys of the rich and stupid.

Vast generalization, but kinda dead on.

Originally Posted by flytilidie

fortunately i think these rich 100hr d-bags will never be able to get insurance on these things

Unfortunately the ins co's dont care they're in it for the money. When it comes to risk assessment, if you're premiums are high enough and you're willing to pay, they don't care about your experience.

[minitour]

I'm not sure about it yet. How hard will the type ride be for the VLJs? Should be just as hard as a G-Whiz (same standards) but I have a feeling there will be enough "DPEs" given examining authority on the various VLJ's that it will turn into a glorified instrument ride.

They'll be stuck in the low to mid 20s for the most part so that should keep them out of the big boy'z way enroute. In the terminal environment...eh. If you can fly a baron down final at 140 so sure you can fly a VLJ down final at 140+...maybe not.

It's going to come down to the experience, training and qualifications of the crew (read...guy up front doing everything himself). Since they're single pilot airplanes, no recurrent check-rides are required and that means it will be as safe as that person makes it.

-mini

[TFaudree_ERAU]

Originally Posted by moxiepilot

I have not met one cirrus pilot, including some "air taxi" operators, that could not use some serious recurrent/remedial training.

I know you haven't "met" me, but damn, talk about a vast generalization. I happen to fly a Cirrus for our company and have had the task of teaching a 10,000+ hour corporate jet captain (who I fly with in a Lear) the ins and outs of a SR22/Avidyne package, which I feel qualifies me to say that I don't need remedial training. We commute in it on occasion and fly in and out of a 2270' runway that a lot of 182 pilots won't bother with. While I hate the airplane itself, would never own one, and happen to agree that there are a lot of "money men" that shouldn't be flying one, you just can't make a generalization like that.

Puddlejumper doesn't need remedial training either. I know that for a fact.

[SIUav8er]

Originally Posted by minitour

They'll be stuck in the low to mid 20s for the most part so that should keep them out of the big boy'z way enroute. In the terminal environment...eh. If you can fly a baron down final at 140 so sure you can fly a VLJ down final at 140+...maybe not.


-mini

I highly doubt ANY of these VLJs have ref speeds much greater than 100 knots. In other words, theyre not gonna be doing 140 on final...more like 110-115ish. Not too bad really. You can take a prop twin in a lot faster cause you can slow down alot faster.

This doesnt make them easier by any means though, you gotta plan the descent much more carefully in a jet. The problems for most people that transition arent gonna be dealing with higher airspeeds/altitudes enroute, but rather SLOWING them down in the terminal areas. I think we're gonna see people flying them TOO fast in the approach environment (cause thats what they are used to) then running em off the runway. Kinda like the problem seen with the earlier citations.

[minitour]

Originally Posted by SIUav8er

I highly doubt ANY of these VLJs have ref speeds much greater than 100 knots. In other words, theyre not gonna be doing 140 on final...more like 110-115ish. Not too bad really. You can take a prop twin in a lot faster cause you can slow down alot faster.

Depends. Are we talking about airplanes with spoilers/speed brakes? Thrust Reversers (obviously not to be used in flight unless it's some new system that I don't know about)? I'm not really sure what the VLJs are going to be equipped with but if they've got sb's they can slow pretty good from the marker inbound.

FWIW, a baron doesn't ref above 100 either...or a skyhawk...mooney, etc. Even the Citation (500) doesn't ref much above 100 (104 ish depending on weight). All of which can safely be flown above 100 down final.

-mini

[TFaudree_ERAU]

Originally Posted by minitour

I'm not really sure what the VLJs are going to be equipped with but if they've got sb's they can slow pretty good from the marker inbound.

Or they could be like a Lear 55 and have spoilers that aren't certified to be deployed with any flap extended. A good pilot shouldn't have to rely on spoilers to slow down to approach speed. I know there are a lot of aircraft that need spoilers during a descent from altitude, but within 10 miles of an airport, there is rarely a good excuse.

[minitour]

Originally Posted by TFaudree_ERAU

I know there are a lot of aircraft that need spoilers during a descent from altitude, but within 10 miles of an airport, there is rarely a good excuse.

There are far too many variables for such a blanket statement.

If you can't do it, you can't do it ("unable").

-mini

[ComplexHiAv8r]

Originally Posted by moxiepilot

As for safety, these toys are geared to the same market segment that Cirrus is targeting. And as I've mentioned previously, I have not met one cirrus pilot, including some "air taxi" operators, that could not use some serious recurrent/remedial training.

You really need to meet some more Cirrus Pilots!

Originally Posted by TFaudree_ERAU

I know you haven't "met" me, but damn, talk about a vast generalization. I happen to fly a Cirrus for our company and have had the task of teaching a 10,000+ hour corporate jet captain (who I fly with in a Lear) the ins and outs of a SR22/Avidyne package, which I feel qualifies me to say that I don't need remedial training. We commute in it on occasion and fly in and out of a 2270' runway that a lot of 182 pilots won't bother with. While I hate the airplane itself, would never own one, and happen to agree that there are a lot of "money men" that shouldn't be flying one, you just can't make a generalization like that.

I too, am a Cirrus pilot, using it in a business environment. I too, don't think I need remedial training, and neither does my insurance company. I actually like the plane, know it was the best choice for the company and its mission.

Also know that ALOT of Cirrus pilots have more time in logbook them most new hires. While not saying much, we are SAFE pilots.

[TFaudree_ERAU]

The way I read it you were saying it was acceptable to come blazing down short final at lightspeed and throw out the spoilers to cross the numbers at Vref. If it is at ATC's request, the yes, say "unable". If you're doing it because you can't stay ahead of the airplane, then you need not be in the left seat.

[minitour]

Originally Posted by TFaudree_ERAU

The way I read it you were saying it was acceptable to come blazing down short final at lightspeed and throw out the spoilers to cross the numbers at Vref. If it is at ATC's request, the yes, say "unable". If you're doing it because you can't stay ahead of the airplane, then you need not be in the left seat.

If, on the other hand, it's within the aircraft's limitations, not against the regs, you've been trained (ie - practice it at "recurrent") on the procedure and have planned and briefed it....

I don't think throwing out spoilers at 100' is a good idea, but I've never had to do it or practiced it...maybe I'm wrong. I also don't see a problem with pushing the boards out at the marker or 1000' so you're stabilized by DH.

-mini

[jynxyjoe]

What are your thoughts on VLJ's and the impact they will have on
1.) Safety (both in the sky and on the ground)
2.) Insurance
3.) Flight Training
4.) Where will their place be in the market of GA?
---------------------------------------------------
I have written about the VLJ's in general many times. I have tried my best at all times to warn pilots in my travels and now a few times on this forum. Stay away from the VLJ's. These airplanes will betray you.

I could be considered an expert by some in the aviation community when it comes to the VLJ market. I took the liberty (and time) to ask these questions from Airdale to a man who is unquestionably an expert in the VLJ certification process. His responses are below.

1) "questionable safety record due to incomplete training and poor certification methods"
2) "insurance will of crouse be a problem due to accidents caused from low time pilots"
3) "this will mark a new chapter in flight training, filled with the same challenges the first instructors faced, with the same consequences"
4) "Flash in the pan"


To say i have a negative view on the VLJ's are an understatement. My ex co-workers in the certification business have continued to give me reports and its clear to me these projects have genuine safety problems and the problems have been bandaided. These sort of things must be sorted out as a matter of time and i would prefer all pilots that read this and those i've met and told the same things to stay away. Stay far away.

One rich fella i met in the certification business is buying one strictly for ego stroking. I was very clear with my objections and so was everyone else. He feels if he keeps it in Day VFR he won't have problems, and he may be right, but its not certified for only day VFR and those are my objections (as well as entire FSDO objections which have been uniformly ignored).

Don't PM me for "sources" or for "links".

[SIUav8er]

Originally Posted by minitour

FWIW, a baron doesn't ref above 100 either...or a skyhawk...mooney, etc. Even the Citation (500) doesn't ref much above 100 (104 ish depending on weight). All of which can safely be flown above 100 down final.

-mini

thats not the point. 172's, mooneys, Barons dont have ref speed period. show me the Vref chart in any of those Flight manuals, I was saying that someone can fly a Baron 140 at the marker and make a perfectly safe landing. Try that in a 100 knot ref jet, speed brakes deployed TR's after landing, whatever, its not gonna be a good landing. Its the cause of many accidents involving running off the end of the runway.

Some guy thats used to doing that in his mooney and getting away with it, will run into trouble in a VLJ. Thats all...

[jtrain609]

Throwing out boards under about 500' in my jet (maybe even 1,000' AGL, I couldn't tell you what their limit is because I've never used them inside the marker) would be, as far as I can tell, a very, very, very bad idea. Throwing them out over the numbers? Damned near suicidal. Would you REALLY want the airplane retrimming itself while having that much of a loss of lift that close to the ground?

I dunno about other aircraft, but it seems like a REALLY bad idea after the experience I've had in my aircraft, and come to think of it I haven't sat in the back of any jet where the guys up front are using boards inside the marker.

Anybody else have similar experiences?

[SIUav8er]

The Citation 500 series (I, II, SII, Bravo) has a limitation on speedbrakes: they must be stowed by 50'AGL..this is stretching it though, 200 feet is much more realistic.

[jtrain609]

My book says that our speed breaks will not open if the thrust lever angle is less than 50 degree's and the flaps are past 9 degree's. So if you were to pull them inside the marker (if you're not putting the gear out and extending flaps towards 45 degree's you don't have a snowballs chance in heck of stabilizing by 500' AGL) it wouldn't do any good because the system logic will prevent them from coming out.

[Tram]

Originally Posted by TFaudree_ERAU

The way I read it you were saying it was acceptable to come blazing down short final at lightspeed

No.. It's not acceptable to come down short final at lightspeed.. However, Warp Factor 5 is perfectly kosher..

[moxiepilot]

Originally Posted by TFaudree_ERAU

I know you haven't "met" me, but damn, talk about a vast generalization.

I happen to fly a Cirrus for our company and have had the task of teaching a 10,000+ hour corporate jet captain *edit*

which I feel qualifies me to say that I don't need remedial training. *edit*

Puddlejumper doesn't need remedial training either. I know that for a fact.

Originally Posted by ComplexHiAv8r

You really need to meet some more Cirrus Pilots!



I too, am a Cirrus pilot, using it in a business environment. I too, don't think I need remedial training, *edit*

Also know that ALOT of Cirrus pilots have more time in logbook them most new hires. While not saying much, we are SAFE pilots.

Therein lies the problem....I'm sorry, I haven't met you.

Your all being good Cirrus pilots is GREAT to balance my perspective, because I have yet to meet a Cirrus pilot:

- who doesn't think that they are God's gift to aviation/invincible -or-
- can fly to Private pilot PT standards -or-
- who flies a traffic pattern less than 160 kt -or-
- has their head outside the cockpit more than playing with all the buttons

Call me jaded, I'm just calling it as I see it; and, from what I've seen, the pilots flying Cirrus are far from professional.

Now, don't take this as a personal attack against you personally - I'm sure you are an excellent pilot. You just seem to be much more the exception than the norm.

[SIUav8er]

I think patty wagstaf flies a cirrus...she cant fly to the PTS either.

[jynxyjoe]

I thought it was hilarious our cirrus CFI had an invisible attitude in training right through the oral. Then he hit the sim and looked like a truck hit him after every lesson. HA HA!

edit: given a little time i'm sure he'll be fine

[TFaudree_ERAU]

Originally Posted by Tram

No.. It's not acceptable to come down short final at lightspeed.. However, Warp Factor 5 is perfectly kosher..

Phew, thats a relief to know. I've been right up to Warp Factor 5 a couple of times, and my mom, being the right seat driver that she is, told me I had better slow down, or else. Good to know I'm not the only one who thinks WF5 is acceptable.

[moxiepilot]

Originally Posted by SIUav8er

I think patty wagstaf flies a cirrus...she cant fly to the PTS either.

SEE?????

[Tram]

Originally Posted by TFaudree_ERAU

Phew, thats a relief to know. I've been right up to Warp Factor 5 a couple of times, and my mom, being the right seat driver that she is, told me I had better slow down, or else. Good to know I'm not the only one who thinks WF5 is acceptable.

Yeh, no worries.. You were totally within profile..

[ComplexHiAv8r]

Originally Posted by moxiepilot

Therein lies the problem....I'm sorry, I haven't met you.

We should try and change that. What part of PA are you in? I'm over at AKR/CAK in OH.

As for bad pilots, I have meet alot in the industry too. Sad, isn't it?

[Nihon_Ni]

Originally Posted by TFaudree_ERAU

I know you haven't "met" me, but damn, talk about a vast generalization. I happen to fly a Cirrus for our company and have had the task of teaching a 10,000+ hour corporate jet captain (who I fly with in a Lear) the ins and outs of a SR22/Avidyne package, which I feel qualifies me to say that I don't need remedial training. We commute in it on occasion and fly in and out of a 2270' runway that a lot of 182 pilots won't bother with. While I hate the airplane itself, would never own one, and happen to agree that there are a lot of "money men" that shouldn't be flying one, you just can't make a generalization like that.

Puddlejumper doesn't need remedial training either. I know that for a fact.

WOW!! Are you seriously saying that you see no value in recurrent/remedial training for you? In aviaiton you are either improving or you are atrophying. I have yet to meet someone who couldn't benifit from a training opportunity. I personally think there is a tremendous value in recurrent training. If you've ever read Bob Miller's Over the Airwaves or done much instruction with GA pilots, you know that it's a struggle for GA pilots to maintain proficiency in high workload environments -- a fact that is proven over and over again in the NTSB's files. Statistics from the AOPA say that the average GA pilot flies less than 50 hrs per year. For every CFI that flies hundreds of hours per year there are handfulls of pilots who balance out the average. How much proficiency in high workload environments can one maintain on 50 hrs a year?

Just curious who you think does need remedial training if Cirrius pilots and "puddlejumpers" don't.

[TFaudree_ERAU]

Originally Posted by Nihon_Ni

WOW!! Are you seriously saying that you see no value in recurrent/remedial training?

Where did I say that? Maybe I should have put "right now" after I said I didn't need recurrent training.

Originally Posted by Nihon_Ni

I personally think there is a tremendous value in recurrent training.

The more complex the aircraft, the more there is to become complacent on. The Lear I fly, yeah, I need to go to recurrent every 6 months. A Cirrus, however, is not a complex aircraft for a professional aviator with adequate experience in type. Me flying a Cirrus 20-25 hours a month (will be MUCH more in the summer) IS my recurrent training, of course until my biennial comes up.

Originally Posted by Nihon_Ni

How much proficiency in high workload environments can one maintain on 50 hrs a year?

I don't know, I haven't flown less than 100 hours a year for quite some time.

Originally Posted by Nihon_Ni

Just curious who you think does need remedial training if Cirrius pilots and "puddlejumpers" don't.

Puddlejumper is a JC member's handle, whom I happen to know quite well. The whole purpose of my post that you bashed was to make a point that there were at least two of us who didn't fit the mold of a Cirrus pilot that moxiepilot had definitively cast.