A Letter to Cirrus Aircraft: Please Fix Your Plane
Bill King
Vice President of Business Administration
Cirrus Aircraft
Duluth, Minnesota 55811
Dear Bill:
I own one of your aircraft. There are some nice things about the Cirrus. But a few things, from a safety standpoint, really suck. First, the doors don’t stay closed. Second, too many pilots and passengers are getting killed when pilots try to land the thing. Third, the fuel gauges don’t work.
I read your comments on each of these issues in today’s Duluth News Tribune. Considering that they come from a company that prides itself on “celebrating safety,” I found some of the comments disturbing.
The doors.
Bill, they pop open. A lot. It’s always a distraction when it happens. If they pop open at a bad time, it can spell real trouble. More on that here.
I read how you flew from one airport to another a few weeks ago with a door that wasn’t shut, and
you handled it without any problem. Congratulations on some good piloting. By the way, was the weather low IFR on your flight? Was it at night? Was your engine running rough? Did you have a scared 
passenger to deal with?
No? Then maybe it’s no surprise that you found the open door to be a "non-event."
You point out that doors pop open on other aircraft too. That's true. But we know that most of those "other" aircraft are “legacy” aircraft and that, unfortunately, lots of people have died as a result of the 50 year-old door designs used in those aircraft.
Now, as I understand it, Cirrus doesn't accept the old ways of the industry. Rather, Cirrus’ mission is to “challenge conventional assumptions to find ingenious new improvements,” right?
Great. Please gather your most ingenious people and have them figure out an ingenious way to keep the doors of your super-modern and ultra-safe $600,000 aircraft closed.
Landing accidents.
Next, this stuff about people getting killed when they try to land the plane. I find it troubling. I guess Cirrus does too. I received from Cirrus a safety alert (pdf), asking pilots, in light of all the accidents, to review the landing speeds spelled out in their Pilot's Operating Handbook. And to get recurrent instruction.
That’s always good advice. But I don't think it's a solution to the problem. With all due respect, Cirrus pilots are not, as a group, especially stupid. They are just as likely as Beech and Cessna and Mooney pilots to read and follow their handbooks. They are just as likely to get recurrent instruction. In fact, from what I can tell, they may even be more so. Yet, for some reason, they are having more landing accidents.
Can Cirrus consider the possibility that there might be something about the airplane itself that contributes to its poor safety record? Or does Cirrus believe that it’s all the fault of Cirrus pilots who, Cirrus seems to think, are not as conscientious about doing their homework as the pilots who fly the competition?
You say that “all airplane models have their idiosyncrasies.” Agreed. That’s my point. Maybe there are some idiosyncracies about the way the Cirrus behaves in the landing phase that need to be uncovered and dealt with. Maybe the speeds the Pilot Operating Handbook specifies need to be re-evaluated. Please take a hard look and tell us what idiosyncracies your engineers and test pilots find. Don’t just tell us to follow the Handbook, because I think we are. Something else is going on.
Fuel Gauges.
Buy a new airplane and you’d expect it to come with fuel gauges that work. But in the Cirrus, they don’t. Your comments totally avoid the issue. Rather than ‘fess up .jpg)
and get on the problem, you stated that the aircraft’s other “sophisticated electronic monitoring makes the gas gauge superfluous.”
Huh?
The reporter, John Lundy, then asked “Then why even have a gas gauge?” Your response:
You know what? I don’t know. . . I think it’s probably an FAA requirement.
News flash: fuel gauges are an FAA requirement. That’s because the FAA thinks it’s really important for pilots to know how much gas is in their tanks. And, Bill, none of the “sophisticated electronic monitoring” on board the Cirrus makes the gauges superfluous, because none of it tells the pilot how much fuel is in the tanks. The only thing that does that is the fuel gauge.
Any questions on this, you may want to spend some time with the Pilot's Operating Handbook.
Sorry, Bill. A working fuel gauge is high on this pilot’s wish list. Call me nutty.
Will Cirrus please fix the problem? Please? Before someone gets hurt?
Thanks. Looking forward to Cirrus' response.
Mike Danko
I'd be surprised if you get a real answer to this from Cirrus. They are a company in financial trouble and they are only interested in saying what they need to say to make the next sale.
This is heating up a bit.
This is unacceptable. When defects are detected in automobiles, they annouce it, give you a loaner and fix the problem. If your door pops open in flight, it initiates the "fight or flight syndrome." After the door is closed, all of your bodily systems are slowly restored except for your fine motor skills like those required for buttoning a shirt or writing on a note pad, let alone navigating a plane. With no precise fuel guage, how do you know if you are leaking gas for some reason? Cirrus, you are formally on notice that if your planes crash, it would be logical to assume it was due to your defects that you didn't recall and fix. Sadly, the NTSB gets involved after the crashes. The FAA should shut you people down. It is beyond belief the spin you put on these defects.
Now that you're at it sir...why don't you confront Cirrus head-on, with the BIG weakness?...it's their CAPS of course...and has been all along. It's simply a transparent (albeit successful) attempt to entice folks to buy into a safety net -- a system not fully tested, certainly not fail-safe, and proven to be dangerous -- in order to market their airplane.
Shame on Cirrus...but nobody (save for plaintiff's lawyers) are confronting them head-on about their CAPS. Perhaps if the airplane performed better at slow speeds, it wouldn't need such a jury-rigged creation.
Anon
Mike,
If you believe that Cirrus is Producing a poor product and that the aircraft "sucks", why are you flying one??? I'm sure that if you called Cirrus they would be happy to buy the aircraft off you and sell it to one of the customers waiting in line to take delivery.
I am an A&P mechanic with over 15 years of general aircraft experiance as well as a Cirrus student pilot and there is not another aircraft that I would rather fly.
It's time pilots start accepting responsibility for the mistakes they are making. You guys always try to pass the blame onto the mechanics, instructors, or the manufacturer but remember the pilot the one that makes the decisions to fly beyond there skills or in conditions that are marginal. If you're not comfortable flying the aircraft then get some training. Seems simple to me!
I Guess in the profession you are in, passing the blame is what you are trained to do. I'm a mechanic so I just man up and take responsibility. That is what I was trained to do.
You talked about how the doors seem to just pop open in flight. In my experiance this is do to a door either not being fully shut at take off or the door being out of rig. Either way, a simple check before take off or an inspection at your annual should prevent these issues. See, I come up with resolutions instead of just standing on a soap box pointing fingers.
You also state that ther is a problem with the way the Cirrus handles durring landing. I'm a low time student (35 hrs) and have bounced this aircraft down the runway more then once and never blamed the aircraft. I blame the operator (me) I am the one in control of the plane, not the other way around. When I notice that my landings aren't the best, I practice. I don't switch aircraft!
You also stated that Cirrus needs to " fess up to the fuel qty issue. They have! It's called a Service Bulletin!! You might want to look into that. Cirrus engineering also has a Blog stating that engineering is working on the issue and you should know Cirrus doesn't make the sending units. They purchase them from a vendor like all the other manufacturers. These fixes take time. They require the manufacturer the end user (Cirrus), and the FAA all to buy off on the fix before it can be implimented.
Bill King commented on the fuel gage being superfluous. While not totally correct, atleast to the FAA, the fuel totalizer that your Cirrus is equiped with is a way more accurate way of monitoring your fuel consumption.
I cannot understand why someone that is so passionitly against Cirrus would still be flying one. Maybe you're just looking to drum up business for your lawfirm.
I guess this is why people shouldn't listen to aircraft advice from a Lawyer. Instead, talk to your local A&P mechanic.
Dan-
Thanks for leaving the comment.
I don't believe that the aircraft sucks. As I mention up front, there are some nice things about it. For example, I think that the parachute is a distinct safety advantage. A pilot who thinks he can reliably dead stick this bird into a field after an engine failure is kidding himself. The evidence seems to be that the parachute saves lives, and is a valuable option. That's one reason I keep the aircraft.
That said, there are some things about the Cirrus that, from a safety perspective, do indeed suck.
The Fuel Gauges. They've been a problem for a long time, and still are. Why are you so offended that I (or any owner) would ask Cirrus to fix them? Why is this such sacrilege? You seem to concede that they don't work. Then you make excuses for Cirrus.
It's hard to understand why a mechanic would defend gauges that don't work. Who cares whether it's a vendor issue? Cirrus needs to fix the problem.
The Doors: The first time my door popped open I was two hours into a flight back from picking up the aircraft from the factory. If it is a "rigging" issue, then even the factory doesn't know how to rig them.
I'm not saying that an open door is necessarily dangerous. I'm saying an open door can be a dangerous distraction, and that the distraction is unnecessary. The doors can be and should be fixed.
Landing characteristics: You say pilots who are not comfortable with the aircraft should get more training. I have no argument with that! Heck, everyone should get recurrent training, regardless of how many hours are in their logbook.
And I'm not saying that landing mishaps are not the pilot's responsibility. I'm saying that there too many of them, and it's irresponsible of Cirrus to just chalk them all up to "dumb pilots."
I am not "passionately against Cirrus." I don't know why you would say such a thing. But ditch your rose-colored Ray-Bans. The problems I mention can and should be fixed. Perhaps lives will be saved as a result.
I'm not sure I understand your comment about "drumming up business." To the contrary. By sending this letter to Cirrus, I am hoping that Cirrus makes the fixes, prevents an accident or two, and thereby takes the business away from me.
Nothing would make me happier.
Mike
Mr. Danko, as an average time pilot with average skills, I must disagree with your reply to Mechanic Dan regarding "pilots can't reliable dead stick airplanes into a field"...thus the reliance on the CAPS of the Cirrus. The value or the safety of the CAPS system aside, that's not the acceptable standard for pilots world wide, from students to pros. Pilots are trained and should practice the speeds, the glide angles, the winds and the spots to put their airplane into...and survive. Perhaps not without bending their airplane, but surviving. I believe you are doing a disservice to many good pilots who rely on their training and skills to "dead stick" airplanes in the event of an engine failure.
Anon
Anon-
I agree that every pilot needs to be proficient at engine-out landings. But a Cirrus won't squeeze into every grassy field. And even fields that are long enough can hide stumps, rocks and culverts. That can make the chute a better option.
Mike
responding to dan the mechanic -
you point out that the fuel totalizers are way more accurate than the fuel gauge; i agree! i like them so much that i even spent $800 to install one on a relatively low cost boat that i built.
however, i must strongly point out that the totalizer and fuel gauge are in no way redundant if there is a compromise of the aircraft systems.
points:
1) having redundancy gives the pilot at least one alternative if one system goes offline. totalizers can fail, wires can come loose, computers that calculate fuel totals can have glitches, ANYTHING is possible [that is a rule in aviation]
2) if there is a leak in the fuel system prior to the point where the totalizer is connected, you can be blissfully ignorant of the fuel on-board the aircraft, the totalizer won't know about it but your fuel gauges will! if your gauges are "glitchy" then you are MUCH less likely to interpret the system failure. in fact, the glitchy gauges will likely be ignored even though they could be the only good information you can rely upon for decision making.
i am reminded of an accident in a relatively large cargo plane, perhaps it was a caravan, i can't recall. the operator of the aircraft insisted on NOT topping the fuel tanks because of the added energy cost of "ferrying" excess fuel. the operator was using fuel totalizer data to estimate fuel remaining in the tank....then fill up accordingly at the airport. as you can imagine, over time, the small error in totalizer accuracy added up and unfortunately the aircraft ran out of fuel. over many fueling operations this is a definite hazzard.
even on a small aircraft like the cirrus though, imagine a two to three day trip around the US with the average pilot, who LOVES to save 20 cents a gallon on fuel. i could see them easily relying upon totalizer data to add fuel back to the aircraft and should the totalizer have a failure mode that might introduce for example a 10% error, it is quite possible that on that last leg of your journey that you come up a few gallons short.
i flew an aircraft with bad fuel gauges, in fact, worthless gauges. it led to a very close call on takeoff due primarily to me trusting the student in the left seat with regard to how much fuel was in the tanks prior to takeoff. i was operating on a "time in the air" basis and didn't pay any attention to the "almost useless" gauges.
there is still much to be learned about cirrus as well as the aircraft they manufacture.
The door issue is complex. Yes, training should eliminate the door "threat" but then there is the real world of piloting. On a very hot day in Sacramento, as we rolled onto the runway for takeoff, I had the pilot-rated passenger latch the door. I didn't check it myself and learned soon enough it didn't get shut properly.
It was surprising to me at that instant the door poped open (500AGL perhaps?), but of course I flew the plane like I was trained. I told the tower we needed to remain in the pattern and return to land, pretty quickly if possible.
What really was an eye-opener to me is that I forgot to turn off the fuel boost pump in all this mess and that is why the voice in the back of my head was telling me the engine was running rough! Fuel boost was needed for full power climb but certainly not in the pattern as I came back to land. It was "slobering" rich on fuel mixture but luckily not so much as to kill the engine.
I probably made about five separate audible statements on final to the effect of "gear is down, 3 green" and even asked my pilot-passenger to tell me if he thought the gear was down and locked. In times of distraction, you never can be too careful.
Good read.
I just flew a SR20 on Saturday. You have to shut the door nice and hard to get it to latch. It is not some pussy door that just powders its latches. The fuel gauges - they were working; however, every plane has fuel gauge problems. I have been flying 172's - and about every one of them have fuel gauge problems. That is exactly what we go to flight school to learn - how to calculate our flights out with gallons and hours. Pretty simple!!! Landing - well, I think any plane can have its own issues with landing - it is all in the hands of the "person in command". Also - make sure you turn off the auto pilot well above 200 feet... that will give you an advantage to gain personal control of the aircraft so you don't have sudden control issues getting to close to the ground. Also, this SR20 is a faster plane than a 172. It will land faster - so be ready!
I fly an Sr-20 and am a 70 hour pilot. Yes the doors are a problem but every time I am cleared for takeoff I slam the door and listen. When the door is not closed properly it squeaks. The squeak is loud and can be heard and is very distinctive. I wear noise reduction headphones and can hear it clearly. The first thing my instructor told me was to pay attention to the door because of this problem. Cirrus does need to come up with a better solution to the problem because it's a distraction that can be avoid. A positive locking system would be a great aid to solve this problem.
Larry-
Thanks for the comment. Listening for the "squeak" (for me it's more like a whistle) is a good tip. It'll help you catch that the door isn't properly latched before you start your takeoff roll. But even when the door is closed properly so you don't hear the squeak, it can still pop open once you get airborne.
Mike
Mike-
Maybe you got a bad apple, and if that's the case CD needs to step up to the plate and resolve the issue just as any other reputable company would do. I'm curious, what year is your SR22? Since 2008, CD has downsized considerably and I am concerned that safety might have been jeopardized.
My father has an 05 GTS model SR22, and between the two of us, have put over 300 hours on it since 2008. Never have I ever witnessed any door or fuel gauge issue. Had a slight problem with the Avadyne flight deck, but it was minor and not Cirrus' issue. The only other issue was a faulty probe for the number 2 cylinder, but again that is a Continental issue and not Cirrus specifically.
Landings are of course more challenging in the Cirrus than in, for example, a Skyhawk. However, that is a result of a very fast wing.
Point being, new pilots should not be flying this aircraft. There is nothing wrong with the aircraft, but it is a high-performance machine and it will bite back if handled incorrectly by the pilot.
-Brandon
Brandon-
Thanks for the comment. I have an '06. And sure, the quality of the aircraft varies by year and serial number. But the gripes I mention have been reported by many others. I don't think you can chalk them up to my aircraft being a "bad apple."
Your comment about a Cirrus being more challenging to land than your typical Cessna is interesting. Many would agree with you. It would help if the factory would tell customers exactly what the aircraft's handling idiosycracies are, and tell them what the best way is to deal with them. But the factory takes the position that there is nothing at all unusual about the aircraft. As a result, there is quite a bit of confusion among Cirrus pilots. That's not a good situation.
- Mike
I took delivery of my new SR22T 3 weeks ago. While in Duluth I had 4 days of advanced transition training. For the record : I am a PPL, IFR rated, have had my license for 16 years of which for 8 years I did not fly at all, and 720 hours total time.
My transition training included all types of emergencies that can happen. A door that opens in flight was included...
Firstly a door that is going to open in flight, did not latch well when it was closed. When you rev the engine up, you WILL hear a whistling sound. That should alert you to check the door at least! Cirrus told me to always slam the door and check it by bumping your body against it.
Secondly if it opens in flight it goes open about 2 inches with lots of wind noise, but definitely not scary!. On the flare it may go to 4-6 inches.
Fact is she can fly without a problem. The only reason why the POH states slow down to 90 knots is because when the FAA asked the designer for a safe speed limit he answered "90".... No tests were ever done on this.
So if you are in a cruise and you happen to get an open door because of not checking the door properly before take-off :
First thing you do is fly the plane!
Second thing you do is to apologize to your passengers that you did not do a proper job on the ground and assure them that it is NOT an emergency. You then increase the volume of the XM music in their ears.
Third thing you do is to ask yourself how many other things you also missed on your pre-flight and pre-take off check lists.
Forth thing you do is to promise yourself that it will never happen again!
Fifth thing you do is to seek an airport where you can land safely to close the door...,
Sixth thing: Land and again apologize to your passengers for the inconvenience!
Regarding the fuel measurement system: All fuel measurement systems are inaccurate and that is not Cirrus's fault. Visually check your fuel and dip the tanks before your fly.
I love my Cirrus thank you!
Johann -
Thanks for your comment and welcome to the world of Cirrus ownership. But regardless of what they are saying the factory, a door can pop open even if it was properly closed before take-off. So when it happens to you, don't beat yourself up too badly.
You suggest that the pilot should "dip the tanks" before he flies. To make it clear to others who aren't familiar with the phrase, you mean that the pilot should shove a wooden stick into the fuel tank and then pull it out to see how wet the stick is, right? Is Cirrus now supplying those wooden sticks at the factory?
Mike
The Cirrus is truely a beautiful aircraft I will never be able to afford one but if I could after listening to the comments I might reconsider.The only thing that I can say is if you dig deep enough you can find a wrong in anything and automaker Toyota being a prime example. How many of you drive Toyota's would you quit driving one if the gas gage didn't work or the door camr open while driving. Of course not you would take it to your local dealer and get it fixed and drive the stupid thing for 200,000 miles. Come on people nothing in this world is perfect from sanitation engineers to lawyers, doctors etc. As I see it you have 2 options either get the problem fixed or sell the dam thing but quit gripping.
Cirrus doesn't supply dip sticks to check fuel!?!?! They can't expect me to have to invest in fuel sticks to make sure my fuel gauge is accurate. They told me I had to pay for my own fuel but come on. FUEL STICKS ALSO!! Shame on them! All fuel gauges are supposed to be 100% accurate anyways right!!
Mike,
Thanks for posting this letter to cirrus. Some may think you are whining, but manufacturing companies are reluctant to fix post-production problems unless enough people complain. Im a Cessna 400 pilot and dont know if this is a true problem or pilot error. Regardless, I do care about the safety of my fellow pilots whichever make and model they fly. If this is a true manufacturing defect than something should be done.
The bottom line regarding the Cirrus fuel issue is when someone pays $600,000+ for an airplane, that person should have a fuel gauge that works properly. Anyone that buys the Cirrus has the expectation of an accurate fuel reading.
I'm a 350 hour PPSEL-Instrument pilot. I have about 250 of my hours in a Grumman AA5B Tiger..so the transition to my new (to me) 2002 SR20 should be easy right? I do think this airplane is tricker to land than the Grumman (both being low-wing floaty aircraft). I don't have many landings yet (10 to be exact) and I am of the opinion that the spring/detent side-stick flight control system is annoying, you can't 'feel' the control surfaces. The electric trim sucks (not nearly as smooth as the Grumman's old trim wheel) and needs a re-design.
The old 2002 models like I have do not have the popping door problem because the door latch is different from the newer models. It is a beautiful airplane with a very roomy cockpit (as compared to Grumman or Mooney). I'll be in training for the next 50 hours and will not attempt any airport runway less than about 4000' feet until I'm comfortable with my landing distance in various wind conditions. I *never* trust fuel gauges on any airplane. FAA only requires them to be accurate at EMPTY. So use your stick for exact measurements. Write down your "away" time and just use the gauges to detect abnormally fast fuel level drop. Regarding fuel calculations, my rule of thumb is carry TWICE as much fuel as you need. This works for me on longer XC's because my endurance is bladder-based. :-)
Charlie-
I have a Tiger as well so I know what you are talking about.
You're wise not to trust fuel gauges, but the FARS do *not* require that the gauges be accurate only when empty. Rather, the regs require that the fuel gauges read "empty" when the quantity in the tank is equal to the unusable fuel supply. In other words, if there are seven gallons on board, but it's all unusable, the gauge must read "zero," not "seven." The reg is a bit confusing and so this stuff about needing to be accurate only when empty has become a bit of an urban myth.
Thanks for the comment.
to all
i have over 900 hrs in my 07 sr22, and yes fuel gauge is a problem, but last month{aug11} they cirrus came out with a fix call you service center, the door problem also has a fix problem, but is due more to adjust which ur service center can do also if they know how too, and like to know what landing problem you have i have close to 850 landings and think its the best plane to land in all conditions
sj
Dear Sir:
Is there a written statment in the P O H that prohibits Stalling the SR20.
Is there a written statment in the P O H that prohibits spining the SR20
Is there a placard in the aircraft that prohabits spins.
@Omer-
The SR20 POH prohibits intentional spins, and the aircraft is placarded against it.
There is no prohibition on the POH against stalls.
Mike
Mike,
My training to get checked out in a SR20 included an open door event. My instructor intentionally opened his door and made me find the correct procedure in the emergency checklist for the open door. We were flying VFR and it was not a problem. It could certainly be a great distraction in IFR as you mentioned.
Secondly, landing speed is very precise and important. I regularly fly out of a field 2,500 feet in length. This is a challenge with the Cirrus. On final with full flaps I like to have it at 72 to 73 knots with light power in. Any faster and it won't stop in the 2500 feet. The other option is full flaps and 65 to 67 knots with better than 50% power. Be prepared to use more power as this is very close to a stall and behind the power curve. This greatly reduces the flare and landing roll. Realistically it is much better suited to fields 3000 feet and greater in length.
The Cirrus and all of its great avionics are much better suited to be flown in autopilot mode than flown by hand. This also leads to a much lighter work load.
As I understand it, Cirrus was also required to have the parachute as a condition of their design registration. It then became an advertisement spin as an additional safety measure.
Overall it is a great aircraft. Also a very capable aircraft. Knowing its limitations is very important however.
Respectfully,
Marty
Marty -
Thanks for your comments.
To obtain FAA certification, a manufacturer must demonstrate that its aircraft is "spin-recoverable." In Cirrus' case, however, the FAA waived that requirement, accepting Cirrus' argument that the parachute provided a level of safety equivalent to spin recoverability.
Is the aircraft spin recoverable? Maybe, maybe not. But Cirrus never proved it was. Thus, the "need" for the chute.