On April 26, 2022, at approximately 11:12 a.m. ET, while in level VFR flight at 2,000 agl and cruising over the nondescript Ohio landscape, 2,000-hour-plus pilot Marc Epner experienced the unthinkable in his Cirrus SR22, N973SD—a total engine failure.

Cue the sweaty palms.

What makes this event unique is the fact that the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System, affectionately referred to as CAPS, was intentionally, albeit not consciously, not activated as Epner recalls. “The brain told me what to do,” he says. “I knew exactly what to do and reacted accordingly.” This included establishing the best glide speed, picking out a suitable landing area, a restart attempt, sending out a Mayday call on Guard—121.5—and successfully landing the airplane. Elapsed time from engine failure to safe landing: 1 minute, 36 seconds.

While the timing of the event had a positive outcome—10 minutes later and the failure would have occurred over a populated Cleveland, which would likely have necessitated the need to activate the CAPS with unknown results—Epner never doubted the need to declare an emergency to ATC. In fact, it can be said that if you are questioning whether you must declare an emergency, in all likelihood, you should. Once the “startle effect” at the outset of the engine failure subsided, previous scenario training kicked in with laser focus, allowing for Epner’s successful landing. (For more information on the startle effect, see the article “Scrubbing the Flight” in the September 2023 issue of Plane & Pilot)

The same cannot be said of an accident that might have been prevented if an emergency had been declared on September 15, 2017. The noninstrument-rated pilot, his wife, and two children took off from Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport (KFNL), now known as Northern Colorado Regional Airport, en route to Canyonlands Regional Airport (KCNY) in Moab, Utah. They found themselves in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) at night over mountainous terrain in a Cirrus SR22. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reported that “…the flight was likely operating in [IMC] at the time of the accident, [which] included light to moderate icing conditions. The airplane likely encountered intermittent IMC beginning about 30 minutes after takeoff and continued into an area of solid IMC about three minutes before the accident occurred.”

In this case, the pilot was already on flight following and talking to ATC. He was attempting to circumnavigate mountainous terrain at night in bad weather. He was below the minimum en-route altitude (MEA) for that area and, for whatever reason, did not declare an emergency with ATC. Perhaps he believed he could salvage a bad situation. Maybe he was relying on the advanced technology of the glass panel to protect him. Or maybe he was concerned he would get into trouble after the fact with the FAA. Sadly, we will never really know his reasoning or motivation to forgo a Mayday call. What we do know, according to the NTSB final report, is the aircraft struck terrain with the airframe and engine showing severe fragmentation consistent with a high-energy impact likely caused by the pilot experiencing a loss of control because of spatial disorientation, which resulted in a subsequent descent into terrain with fatal results. 

Pilots are generally an intelligent breed. So why are some pilots reluctant to declare an emergency? Even when they know in the back of their pilot brain that such a declaration can bring valuable resources to the forefront while improving the chance of surviving the crisis, many still refuse to send out that Mayday call.

According to former NTSB senior investigator Greg Feith, there should be no ambiguity in declaring an emergency when a critical in-flight emergency occurs. The long-standing myth that sending out a Mayday call and declaring an emergency will result in copious amounts of paperwork for a pilot is simply untrue. Sure, there may be some documents to complete, but it’s not anything that should prevent a pilot in distress from taking such action.

Feith says the benefit of an emergency declaration—including having a controller one-on-one to assist, clearing the frequency and airspace as required, priority handling, and having another set of eyes available to provide critical information—should outweigh any concern of increased paperwork while increasing the chance of a good outcome.

• READ MORE: ICYMI: More Details Emerge in Piaggio Crash

One of the other common myths and concerns of pilots, according to Feith, is the FAA will use the emergency to impose a fine resulting from conditions that occurred leading up to it. “The FSDO (Flight Standards District Office) is not out to ‘get’ anyone,” Feith says. “While they must enforce the rules, there should be no concern if the pilot has done what the FAR tells them to do, and you have demonstrated good ADM (aeronautical decision making).” This includes proper preflight planning and making appropriate decisions as the emergency unfolds. It is not worth risking lives because of a propagating myth.

And it’s not just the FAA and NTSB that encourage a pilot in distress to ask for help from ATC early in an emergency. Rocky Sparks, a U.S. Air Force controller at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in Goldsboro, North Carolina, says that while he was working an otherwise normal shift, a Cirrus pilot advised him of an engine failure while at 7,500 feet msl. This quickly set a series of events in motion, including clearing the airspace and providing heading and distance information to the nearest airport (which, in this case, was unattainable). In addition, Sparks notified the appropriate emergency responders of the pending forced landing.

By declaring the emergency early, the Cirrus pilot had the benefit of a controller to keep everyone informed of the situation as it unfolded, including the aircraft’s trajectory. In this case, the pilot chose to deploy the Cirrus CAPS when a safe landing at an airport or field could not be assured. A safe descent under the canopy ensued and, with the assistance of ATC, ground-based emergency responders arrived within minutes of the disabled aircraft’s touchdown.

But what if the pilot does not decide to declare an emergency when it seems the situation would dictate that one is unfolding? According to Feith, ATC can declare an emergency on the pilot’s behalf. If the controller senses it is life-threatening, it can and will be handled as an emergency.

However, in some cases, there is a gray area, and the controller is waiting for the pilot to confirm the emergency. According to multiple sources, the controller will attempt to determine the extent of a possible emergency by asking the pilot, “What are your intentions?” At that point, it is up to the pilot to state they are declaring an emergency and need assistance. Those magic words will allow full ATC resources to be available to the aircraft in trouble.

An example of where this could have changed the outcome of an accident occurred on January 25, 1990. The commercial airline flight, Avianca 052 from Bogotá, Colombia, to New York, tragically ended when the aircraft ran out of fuel and crashed into a hillside in the village of Cove Neck, New York, on the north shore of Long Island. Eight of the nine crewmembers and 65 of the 149 passengers on board were killed.

The NTSB determined the crash occurred because of the “flight crew failing to properly declare a fuel emergency.” The ambiguity of the pilot stating he was “fuel critical” instead of declaring a fuel emergency resulted in aircraft sequencing that was not prioritized the way it would have been had an emergency been declared. This crash directly resulted in positive changes in how Part 121 carriers manage and report fuel-critical emergencies.

• READ MORE: Alleged Drunk Pilot Runs Plane Out of Gas, Crash-Lands on Highway

With all the resources available to pilots when they are presented with an in-flight emergency, it is incumbent on the entire pilot community to remember that declaring an emergency to improve the chances of a good outcome and surviving the crisis should take precedence over any concerns about doing so. We are all taught to mitigate risk in the cockpit. According to the statistics and experts, declaring an emergency early will reduce risk and improve the odds of living to tell about an in-flight crisis during that next hanger flying session. Sweaty palms optional.

Editor’s Note: This story originally appeared in the November/December 2023 issue of Plane & Pilot magazine. 

The post I Do Declare appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

If the paint on your airplane is duller than a roomful of mathematicians, then maybe it’s time to think about getting some new feathers for your bird with a professional paint job to restore your aircraft to its, as Bruce Springsteen once sang, glory days.

So as not to let it pass you by, let’s look at what it really takes to make the right decision to repaint your airplane. While it will help to have a few zeros to the left of the decimal point in your checking account, there are some other considerations other than cost that you need to keep in mind as you decide about getting your bird repainted.

First, does your aircraft need a new paint job, or will a professional detail restore the lost luster? That may be a question for a specialist to determine—but certainly worth investigating, as a pro detail will cost much less than a full repaint. Generally speaking, if there is enough base paint available, which can be determined by a paint thickness measurement test tool, then paint correction by way of detailing and refinishing can be a viable alternative. (See Detailing Your Plane.)

However, while detailing can remove visible and hidden contaminants from the exterior finish, there will be some circumstances where you may need to consider a full repaint. This will commonly be the case for those aircraft that have spent their entire decades in the hot South or Southwest sun, as they may not have enough base paint available for detailing.

While you may have considered vinyl wraps or decals as a viable, lower-cost option to repainting, vinyl wraps do not mix well on aircraft. The manufacturer may limit where vinyl can be placed on composite aircraft so that it does not interfere with critical safety components, such as the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS)deployment area on Cirrus aircraft.

In addition, the inherent characteristic of vinyl is that of a static generator. Any large area on an aircraft (think wings) that generates copious amounts of static electricity with a vinyl wrap will potentially create havoc with avionics and navigation equipment. It is simply not a viable alternative other than utilizing vinyl for some pinstriping on the fuselage or for the registration numbers (which would allow for an easy N-number change, if needed).

And for those considering vinyl for your aluminum-skinned aircraft like Cessnas or Pipers, you may also want to reconsider that option. Vinyl wraps on aircraft with rivets will make for a near-impossible task to create a smooth, shiny, clean finish. If you have ever attempted to hang wallpaper or “contact paper,” you fully understand that challenge. Therefore, for owners who might like to modernize the paint scheme or want to restore their old bird’s luster and shine, a repaint is likely the best option.

But as Captain Obvious would state, the general aviation fleet is aging, and, likely, your plane is too, unless your aircraft has undergone a recent refinish or repaint. When looking at your airplane, if it seems as faded as a view through cataracts, milky with vague wisps of misty strands, then it’s probably time to start the repaint process.

So, let’s look at the fine points of aircraft repainting and see if you can restore the shine you once had and return your bragging rights to the tarmac with fresh paint. 

Whether a conventional aluminum airframe or one of the composites, having your bird repainted starts with assessing several factors. According to Ross Robillard from Midwest Aircraft Refinishing in Hibbing, Minnesota, paint not only covers the aircraft, it also protects it. A tired, weathered exterior simply does not preserve the airplane as well as a fresh coat of paint. In addition to looking great, new paint also will protect the integrity of the airframe better. And what better time to design an updated paint scheme that will instantly transform your tired, old aircraft into one that would be difficult to discern from new? It’s basically a face-lift for your airplane.

When calling around paint shops specializing in aircraft repainting, one thing to consider is how long it will take to get yours scheduled. While you may think a short lead time would be a positive indicator, that may not necessarily be true.

Jaime Steel, who has operated an aircraft paint shop at Steel Aviation in Phillipsburg, Ohio, for many years, told Plane & Pilot that she is now scheduling well into 2025 for complete repaints. Since prepping and painting an aircraft represents a tedious, complex process that takes up to six weeks, don’t expect a short lead time for a reservation from any reputable shop.

Also, most industry experts agree that prospective customers should ask about the type of paint booth the shop uses. Most recommend avoiding downdraft paint booths, as those tend to stir up more dust and dirt while painting compared to the cross-flow types that generate minimal contaminants, especially when used with radiant heat.

It also goes without saying that you want an experienced technician to prep and paint, as well as a shop specializing in the type of aircraft you own. There is a dramatic difference when preparing and painting an aluminum-skinned bird compared to a composite aircraft. In fact, the prep time for an aluminum aircraft takes far longer since all the existing paint needs to be stripped off, along with any sheet metal or fiberglass repair, before painting. Any corrosion also needs to be mitigated prior to painting. Even composite aircraft, such as a Cirrus, have aluminum flight controls, so careful consideration is required to remove any corrosion during the flight control painting process. Since composite aircraft can’t utilize the harsh chemicals of a paint stripper, which would damage the resin in the fiberglass skin, the existing paint will require sanding in a tedious process utilizing 4-inch sanding blocks. Because of this it can be argued that the technician’s skill in prepping a composite airplane requires more finesse than the chemical stripping of an aluminum aircraft. In either case, the labor to design, prepare, paint, and complete the project will roughly take the same amount of effort in labor hours, no matter if it’s an aircraft of aluminum or composite construction.

• READ MORE: Upgrade Your Plane!

Whether your choice of paint shop uses an in-house designer or enlists the services of a third-party graphic design company to assist in your new color scheme, the fun begins once your aircraft is scheduled on the calendar and your deposit is made to begin the repaint journey.

Most design studios, such as Maverick Aircraft Design in Bandera, Texas, will start the process with a conversation to determine if you have anything in mind for your updated paint scheme. You may have seen an aircraft with a complex, unique scheme that sent you into the stratosphere. Or perhaps you want a simple, updated, and fresh design to accompany your new paint. Do you want something more linear, curved, or straight-edged? Or maybe you are like many of us and couldn’t design a stick figure if your life depended on it. Don’t despair. Your graphic designer will develop multiple variations based on the aircraft type, expertise, and information provided.

A discussion will ensue that goes over the base covering, colors, and any limitations for what’s approved by the aircraft manufacturer. Most notably, composite aircraft must have approved paints and colors for the wings and fuselage, and tolerant measurements for painting behind the cowl owing to the bond seams of the composite material. Needless to say, this is not your dad’s paint job on his 1963 Chevy.

Cirrus and other composite aircraft manufacturers do not recommend finishing the project with a ceramic coating, as it may cause a buildup of static electricity in flight that could cause avionics and communications issues.

To avoid disappointment, the designer will provide you with a rendering of what the airplane will look like once completed before any work begins. In fact, most professional renderings will be spot on, not only on the design itself but the color schemes that will be utilized, again based on your desires. Oh, the luxury of modern technology.

Moreover, most aircraft owners have at least 90 days to rework the design and approve the final rendering before the painting commences. Whether the design studio is in-house or outsourced, this timeline is generally an industry standard practice.

The cost of admission? You can expect an estimated price from a reputable aircraft paint shop from start to finish (assuming no sheet metal or fiberglass work) on most single-engine piston, four-place aircraft to be in the mid-$30,000s for a basic but nice repaint job.

More complex paint schemes and larger aircraft will likely increase your investment up to the $50,000 range. Your mileage may vary.

However, considering this investment will provide benefits for years to come, including better protection of your airframe, higher resale value, along with a potential slight increase in cruise speed of 2 knots or so (hey, every knot counts), and, last but not least, bragging rights for having a bird on the ramp that elicits oohs and aahs—well, that’s priceless. Isn’t it time to give that FBO cat something to purr about?

Editor’s Note: This story originally appeared in the October 2023 issue of Plane & Pilot magazine. 

The post New Feathers appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

Rethought from the inside out, the G7 series—including the SR20, SR22, and SR22T—takes cues from the Vision Jet to simplify operation while incorporating added safety and luxury features. All three 2024 models have completed the FAA type certification process and are ready for delivery.

We took an exclusive first series of flights with the striking new G7 in the SR22 version in early December for a We Fly pilot report that will debut in FLYING’s Issue 945/February 2024, reaching subscribers later this month. Till then, we can share a few key details. Further reporting will follow in an upcoming issue of Plane & Pilot.

Central to the updates is the reimagined Perspective Touch+ integrated flight deck with 12- or 14-inch high-resolution displays, and twin GTC touchscreen controllers, to mimic the functionality and redundancy available in the Vision Jet SF50–and the ease of using a smartphone. Engine start has transformed into a push-button interface, preserving the ability to check mags and set mixture while making the process feel similar to that of the SF50. The updated automated flight control system (AFCS) incorporates smart servos and includes an optional yaw damper. 

Updated synoptic pages and streamlined checklists aid the pilot in monitoring both systems and procedures throughout all phases of flight. And the Cirrus IQ app gives the pilot remote viewing and control of certain aircraft functions. Cirrus Global Connect delivers worldwide text messaging, telephone service, and global weather.

It’s telling that Cirrus Aircraft looked up the model line to its Vision Jet to drive out complexity from its core single-engine pistons, sending its engineers on a journey to find ways to make the SRs as straightforward to operate as the jet. While that sounds like a contradiction, perhaps, pilots have opined about the complexity involved in stepping down from a light jet back into the high-performance piston world.  

To this end, Cirrus has introduced a new shallower menu structure in the touchscreen controllers, along with a scroll wheel for turning through the CAS-linked, on-screen checklists smoothly. Still on the ground, Taxiway Routing and a contextualized 3D Safe Taxi guide the pilot around complex airport layouts, decluttering and slewing the PFD imagery to match the airplane’s speed and position on the airport. In the air, the automatic fuel selection system automatically switches between fuel tanks every 5 gallons.

Additional Safety Features

Pilots will also find an improved flight control, incorporating a stick shaker function to piggyback on the other envelope protection features in the Perspective+ series, for enhanced low-speed situational awareness. Both the left and right controls vibrate to warn of an approaching stall condition.


Another new addition to envelope protection is flap airspeed protection. The system monitors airspeed to protect the pilot from accidentally deploying or retracting flaps when the aircraft is traveling too fast or too slow for the given flap configuration change. 

A Stylish and Functional New Interior

In addition to the magic up front, Cirrus also rethought the interior, taking a page from current luxury vehicles to incorporate a host of new features, including redesigned interior panels, dimmable task lights, and ambient accent lighting. 

More rugged cup holders, more pockets, and two center console compartments efficiently store your smartphone and other key things for better cockpit organization and accessibility. Powered headset jacks and lighted high-power USB-C outlets come positioned within easy reach of each seat. 


First SR20 G7 Customer

While only one new TRAC20 (SR20) G7 has been built, it’s already wearing its school colors—those of Western Michigan University College of Aviation in Battle Creek. The Broncos are longtime Cirrus flight training operators and will incorporate the new models into their aviation degree programs. The school will take delivery in the first quarter for integration into the flightline.

Pilots across the board can opt into several training options for the new Cirrus line, including the OEM’s recently released Private Pilot Program—taking a prospective pilot from first flight to certification in their new airplane.

“Our mission is to increase participation in aviation, so more people can benefit from the freedom, productivity, and joy it provides,” said Zean Nielsen, CEO of Cirrus Aircraft. “We have also developed a comprehensive ecosystem, providing global sales, flight training, maintenance, and support to ensure our owners have a seamless ownership experience. Our aircraft are truly designed with people in mind, and the new SR Series G7 is a testament to that philosophy. Our team and our aircraft provide a clear path to enter and advance within the personal aviation community by learning to fly and eventually transition to the Vision Jet with ease.” 

The post Cirrus Unveils the G7 Editions of the SR20, SR22, and SR22T appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

“The Innovation Center is an incredible company milestone that supports the future development and endeavors of Cirrus Aircraft product development,” said Cirrus CEO Zean Nielsen. “We are continuing to invest in the company and the City of Duluth with the Innovation Center opening. We have worked closely with our partners to renovate the building and hire more engineers and technicians to join the new facility in Duluth.”

Cirrus announced plans to build the Innovation Center in September 2022. In addition to workspaces, the facility houses a material and processes lab, integration test lab, advanced design and development lab, environmental equipment and testing capabilities and space for development and testing. According to Cirrus, it currently has over 300 employees working at the facility.

Note: This story originally appeared on avweb.com. 

The post Cirrus Launches Innovation Center appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

A variety of subjects were discussed, including the emerging issues associated with the new glass cockpits, aeronautical decision making, and the proper use of the then-new Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS), and on a lighter note, the apparent inability of any of the participants to win a single dime on the slot machines. It was a great pilot-to-pilot event focused on flight safety. However, the most surprising takeaway was the uniform opinion of this group of owner pilots that they were experiencing various symptoms of mild hypoxia, even at altitudes below the FAA-mandated 12,500-foot supplemental oxygen requirement.

So, what changed?

The difference was the SR22’s ability to climb quickly to the cool, smooth air above 10,000 feet, especially out west where the IFR minimum en route altitudes often begin there, or even higher. The pilots’ previous experience in a variety of fixed-gear singles that cruised at lower altitudes had not prepared them for three-hour cruise legs at 12,000 feet. They reported a variety of effects including fatigue, dehydration, and just feeling a bit less focused. Attempting to understand the phenomenon, most of these dedicated pilots had purchased the finger-mounted pulse oximeters that were becoming available at the time. These safety-conscious pilots were adapting to a new situation by attempting to understand it.

So, let’s do the same by reviewing the basics.

What Are the Basic Requirements?

In our private pilot ground school, we learned that according to FAR 91.211, supplemental oxygen is required for pilots when the cabin altitude is above 12,500 feet, and up to 14,000 feet, for more than 30 minutes. Next, if Santa Claus dropped a turbocharger in your stocking this past year, flight above 14,000 feet requires the entire flight crew to use supplemental oxygen. Above 15,000 feet, everyone on board the bird receives it (the crew must use it at all times, and it must be made available to passengers). So, is it legal to fly all day long at 12,000 feet—4,000 feet above the cabin altitude of most jet airliners—all day long without supplemental oxygen? The answer is yes. Is that important?

• READ MORE: Plane Facts: Altitude

The Effects of Altitude on Our Bodies

If you watch NASCAR racing on TV, every so often, one of the top drivers will lose control, hit the wall hard and earn a trip to the infield care center. When asked what caused the accident by the TV announcer, the driver might say that they “just ran out of talent.”

Luckily, unlike race drivers who live on the edge, pilots tend to fly right down the middle of the envelope. However, just as race drivers put in endless laps to hone their skills, pilots should have the same attitude about proficiency. As the saying goes, practice makes perfect, or if not perfect, then at least safer and more effective.

When it comes to building and maintaining proficiency, the pandemic has thrown a major-league-level curve ball our way. While general aviation has remained available during the last couple difficult years, flying hours have been down, cross-country travel limited and intentional practice may have suffered. Now is a great time to find the local CFI and brush up on those crosswind landings, instrument approach procedures and navigation in busy terminal airspace. Currency does not always equal competency, so most of us could use the practice—and besides, your local CFI could use the business!

Normalization of Deviance

These three little words are some of the most dangerous in aviation. Simply put, if a pilot cuts corners by intentionally deviating from accepted procedure and then repeats this often enough, it soon becomes the new standard. Substandard or even illegal procedures that are repeated become the norm eventually.

The VFR pilot who flies into the clouds while scud running has probably slipped between the mountain ridges and the cloud bases several times before and gotten away with it. Pilots with poor checklist discipline are prime candidates for the dreaded gear-up landing, among other errors.
Our friends in the military and the airlines are scrupulous about aircraft airworthiness, checklist discipline and following established procedures. However, many more general aviation accident reports than we would like to admit are replete with out-of-license airplanes, non-current pilots and checklist or procedural errors.

While these aren’t always the primary cause of the accident, each indicates a general lack of discipline that can lead to something worse. Normalization of deviance is the most subtle of the hazards we face. It is an attitude that develops over time and then turns around to bite us when we are least prepared.

Experience Begets Judgment/Experience Results from Poor Judgments

So, what should we think about all of this? If we are honest, we can all remember times when we made a poor decision and relied upon a bit of luck to safely complete a flight. Each of us may have a few bad habits that we have been meaning to get rid of. And once or twice, we may have come close to running out of talent but lived to tell the tale.

Hopefully, these minor excursions into the danger zone have been learning experiences and make us stronger. The moral of this story is that pilots are simply human beings. As such, the decisions we make can be influenced by the presence and actions of others, our past experiences and our own personality traits, good and bad. Managing risk is often about facing these challenges and responding in a mature, thoughtful and well-practiced manner.

• READ MORE: Deadly Attitudes: Know How To Spot Risky Thinking

So, the next time you go to the local airshow, take time to consider how the successful airshow pilots prepare for and fly their routines. The non-aviation-savvy public thinks of them as daredevils, but we know better. Before each flight, they consider the weather, the crowd line and airport layout and then mentally rehearse their performance.

The maneuvers, which look daring and dangerous to the crowd, have been practiced hundreds of times and the video reviewed after each flight. And these professionals are never afraid to call off a flight if the conditions are less than predetermined minimums. Each one of these talented folks demonstrates risk management at its best. Fly safe. 

Editor’s note: This story originally appeared in the July 2023 issue of Plane & Pilot magazine.

The post Supplemental Oxygen for the Rest of Us appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

But as planes got faster, it became clear that aircraft needed some kind of enclosure to protect the pilot from the airstream. So, planes were given enclosures, and those enclosures were by necessity given doors. There are a few unspoken rules about doors. One, they don’t work very well in general, and two, airplane makers are all for putting as few of them on their planes as possible. It seems crazy, but the practice of shortchanging owners on the number of doors is rooted in a few commonsense concerns. Doors are heavy, hard to get to work well, and for low-wing planes, they require additional structure on the part of the wing that gets walked on, for obvious reasons.

Finally, doors aren’t as structurally integral to the fuselage as having no door is, so planes are automatically at least a bit stronger the fewer doors they have. So, putting just one door in a plane, as you see on many Piper, Beechcraft and Mooney single-engine models, is done to save weight, cost and complexity and to maximize the structural integrity. And while doors have gotten better, thanks to better manufacturing methods that yield closer tolerances and a better fit, the struggle is real, both for manufacturers, which need to figure out how to make a good-fitting, light and durable door, and for pilots and their passengers, who get to fight to make do with the few doors they’ve got.

• First airplane doors: Perhaps the Avro Model 12, which was the first plane with an interior
• Doors grow in popularity: Mid-1920s
• Cheat code: On several models, pilots were in the open and passengers inside an enclosure
• Door-making challenge: No suitable materials to make windows
• Window/door breakthrough: The invention of acrylic glass in the early 1930s
• Popular enclosure type: The bubble canopy
• Door on bubble canopies? The canopy itself either hinges open or slides rearward
• Potential safety risk? Canopies can open in flight, sometimes leading to a fatal crash
• Doors become popular: 1930s, popularized on cabin-class biplanes and monoplanes
• Material used for the doors: Usually the same materials as the rest of the plane
• Early cabin biplane: Beechcraft D-17 Staggerwing
• Max occupants: 5
• Number of doors: 1
• 1930s innovation that complicated doors: Pressurization
• 1930s airliner: Douglas DC-3
• Number of passengers: Up to 32
• Number of doors: One
• J-3 Cub of mid-1930s: One Dutch door for both occupants
• Advantage: You can fly with it open
• Ercoupe of 1930s: First popular slide-back canopy
• Advantage: Roll it back in flight
• First modern piston single: 1947 Beechcraft Bonanza
• Number of seats: 4
• Number of doors: 1
• Ultimate Bonanza expression: Current G-36 Bonanza
• Number of seats: 6
• Number of doors: 2 (progress!)
• Most popular plane: Cessna 172
• Doors? 2
• Other popular ’60s planes: Piper PA-28
• Doors? 1
• Position of door: On the passengers’ side
• Reason: Unknown
• 1970s innovation: Beechcraft Model 23 Sundowner
• Doors? 2! One on each side
• Safety concern: Door popping open in flight
• Level of risk: From the door being open, almost none
• Reason for increased risk: Pilot panic over the open door, loss of control
• Airliners number of doors: Often up to three
• Used for boarding and deplaning: Just one
• Reason: Jetways are set up for one-door operations
• Exception: Airbus A380 jumbo jet
• Boarding doors: Three
• Reason: Saves a lot of time when boarding as many as 500 passengers
• Time to board full A380 flight: As little as 20 minutes
• Early Cessna 172 issue, circa 1956: Poor door functionality
• Early Cirrus SR22 issue, circa 2001:Poor door functionality
• Number of doors on six-passenger TBM introduced in 1990: One
• First year pilot-side door offered as an option: 2002
• Cost: Around $50,000
• Added weight: Around 75 pounds

This article was originally published in the May 2023 Issue of Plane & Pilot. Subscribe today so you don’t miss an issue!

The post Airplane Doors appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

Dave Rathbun, a longtime Cirrus Aircraft engineer who played a critical part in the design of the company’s piston-single-engine SR-series planes and its SF-series single-engine jets, was killed in a plane crash in Duluth, Minnesota, late last week. Rathbun, who was flying a privately owned SR22, was the only occupant, and no one on the ground was injured or killed. The FAA is investigating the crash.

The SR22, a 2016 model, had just taken off from Duluth (KDLH) just a few minutes earlier and weas heading to a nearby Superior, Wisconsin, airport, just across the Duluth River. As Rathbun neared the boundary, he was given permission by Duluth tower to change frequencies to the Superior frequency. Rathbun responded in the affirmative. It was the last known communication. In fact, the ATC audio surrounding the crash is unremarkable. Rathbun, who had thousands of hours in Cirrus airplanes, never issued an emergency call or reported any kinds of problem with the plane. The weather at the time of the crash was good with scattered clouds high above and at least 10 miles of flight visibility.

The plane, which had been at 3,000 feet after its departure from Duluth, had begun a descent when something went terribly wrong. According to flight trackers, the Cirrus was descending at more than 130 knots and around 1,850 fpm. It made contact on the frozen Duluth River, inverted, partially broke though the ice and caught on fire.

Another pilot reported the crash to ATC, and first responders were quickly on scene, but there was nothing they could do.

Rathbun’s impact on Cirrus Aircraft’s success was immense. As an engineering designer, he made critical contributions to every airplane program in the company’s history, starting with the revolutionary SR20 and continuing to present day, with the SF50 Cirrus Vision Jet, a single-engine jet that won the prestigious Collier Trophy in 2018.

After authorities released the pilot’s identity, Cirrus issued a public statement. Dave Rathbun’s, “!passing is a profound loss for the Cirrus family. His presence and character will be missed, but his legacy will be indelible. A key contributor throughout his 26 years at Cirrus Aircraft, Dave played a crucial role in the early design and certification of the SR20.  Following similar work on the SR22 and SR22T, Dave was instrumental in the development and successful entry into service of the SF50 Vision Jet.

The post Dave Rathbun, Engineer Behind Cirrus Aircraft Designs, Killed in Crash of SR22 appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

The service bulletin requires that planes outfitted with the target serial-numbered engines that have fewer than 200 flight hours be flown no more than five additional hours in order to bring the plane to a service center. For some reason that the company doesn’t explain, planes with more than 200 hours on their target engines “may continue normal flight operations.” This exemption, presumably, is because engines with that much time on them would most likely have failed already if their snap pins were incorrectly installed. Which is a chilling piece of information. 

The mandatory service bulletin is targeting engines manufactured between June 1, 2021, and February 7, 2023. It requires operators to get their engines inspected to ensure that the snap rings are properly seated. The inspection requires the removal of at least one cylinder and the use of a special gauge to determine if the rings are properly seated. It won’t be a quick or cheap process. 

As we reported last week, in response to Continental’s woes, Cirrus Aircraft grounded all of its company-operated aircraft with affected engines, likely all of its SR22 aircraft which are powered by Continental IO-550 and TSIO-550 series engines; many or most of its company airplanes likely were manufactured within the affected dates. Late-model SR20s are powered by Lycoming engines, which are not affected by the service bulletin. 

The issue came to light after Cirrus issued a bulletin to its customers, saying, “We have just been informed by Continental of an issue that affects the engines that power both our SR22 and SR22T. While we are still working with Continental to determine the scope of the issue and specific serial number range of affected aircraft, we are proactively making the decision—out of an abundance of caution—to pause all internal Cirrus Aircraft company flight operations on SR22s and SR22Ts manufactured and issued a Certificate of Airworthiness from June 21, 2021, through February 7, 2023.” 

The service bulletin also applies to replacement crankshaft assemblies with the same manufacturing dates. 

Why airworthiness is the biggest checkride problem.

The post Continental Details Engines Woes, and It’s Not Just Cirrus Planes appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.