Cirrus SR22 G-RGSK 26/3/2024 Duxford EGSU (and go-around discussion)

Parthurnax wrote:

On the other hand if you don’t go around after a bounce you may porpoise where you could have a prop strike, break the nose wheel and/or have a runway excursion.

You don’t have to go around. First if all you must make sure that you don’t land nose wheel first and the airplane is more or less aligned with the runway. If you didn’t try to land much too fast this will require the application of a little bit of power but it is absolutely not necessary to climb into the sky with as much power and as steeply as possible.

The one time I bounced I first wanted to go around but after putting in some power noticed that the plane now was in a perfect landing attitude and I decided simply to land.

Unless you’re using an unusually long runway for the type, a go around is probably the better decision if you have bounced badly, or more than once. If you have controlled the airplane well, there will be either a pull or a pause (but never a push) on the controls during the flair. Remember that a good flare is a steady deceleration, and certification requirements state that a pull must be required to fly at a slower speed. So if you think you have to push the pitch control after you begin to flare, that itself is enough reason to go around. If you have landed on speed, you may have got a stall warning peep during touchdown. In this case, a big bounce is probably not possible, unless you have dropped it on from six feet up. Bounces happen because you were too fast, and the airplane could bounce because it had too much lift remaining available during the flare.

There’s no shame in going around, and setting yourself up better next time, with a lesson just learned. Continuing the attempt to land, particularly if you added any power during a bounce recovery, could see you going off the end of the runway. The bounce at all means that you were probably already too fast. Adding power to recover made you faster, which set you further along the runway, needing to slow again, and set up a landing again. If you have lots of room, fine, if you have doubts, just go around. While flying an acceptance flight in an floatplane new to me last September, with the seller beside me, and the buyer in the back seat, my first landing was too fast (hmmm… seller didn’t say a word!). I touched the water nicely, but the airplane yawed unexpectedly as one float grabbed the water more than the other – my fault. I picked it up, and added go around power, while telling them I was doing that. I sensed relief on their part. I would much rather get it better the next time, which I did, than to have to use way too much skill to get it stopped in the remaining distance on the rather short lake. Yeah, I got razzed a little, but no criticism. My next landing was much better, and the landing after that was very pride worthy. Don’t resist going around if in doubt!

Peter wrote:

The thing is that Cirrus could not have sold anywhere remotely near their ~10k aircraft unless they did marketing which uncovers completely new strata of customers.

True. In fact, they were the ONLY company in recent years who really understood marketing a brand so it could become the success it did.

Peter wrote:

And the only available direction is to pitch it at people who are quite new to flying. This in turn means people who are largely outside the “GA community” which reads the flying social media (including magazines, back when people used to read those).

To a large extent but not only. I know several seasoned pilots who went Cirrus as well, not few due to the added security of CAPS for IFR and night flying.

Peter wrote:

I don’t believe an SR22 is hard to fly.

I can’t comment on that, as I’ve never flown one, I only was in the RH seat as a pax once. The comment that very experienced guy (A330/340 skipper in his main job) said was that it needed a lot of trimming and that the side stick needed a lot getting used to. But that was when Cirrus was fairly new (this one was a G2 with Avidyne Cockpit).

Peter wrote:

The thing one is not allowed to say is that most people can get a PPL and fly something fairly benign but can’t go beyond that. In most cases it sorts itself out automatically because those less good do not enjoy flying and give it up. I had a business partner just like that.

As it’s been said, most Cirrus operators and most insurances demand Cirrus training.That is something quite unique, not that many manufacturers do that. And unfortunately, by far not all those “less good” realize that they are such and carry on regardless. It takes character to admit you’re not good at something, which some people may lack.

I was taught to go-around if I bounce, certainly if it is more than once. My instructor’s saying was something like “on the third bounce, the nosewheel is broken”.

I was a pax when we started to porpoise, 3rd bounce would have been really bad but we went around after the 2nd.

“Unless you’re using an unusually long runway for the type, a go around is probably the better decision”
On some very short runways just waiting for the crash noises to stop is probably the best decision.
I know of a go-around into trees, fortunately not fatal, in a Tiger Moth, by a very experienced airline captain who’d earlier flown for MAF in Papua.

If you’re landing into a very short runway with obstacles on the overshoot end, it might be wise to think of it as a committed landing well back. Like a cleared to “Land and hold short at…” if you’re not 100% certain you can do it, you should not try.

I’ve type trained several highly experienced airline pilots in GA airplanes. With some experience at this, I credit their experience that they will fly as a crew member, and listen to my instructions. I assume nothing else, until skill appropriate to the type is evident. In the early ’80’s I flew Piper Aztec then Cheyenne with an excellent mentor, I learned so much from him. He went on to the airlines, I went back to the SEP GA side of the industry. Years later I rode right seat with him in a 172, and it was evident that his skills for light airplanes had faded. Happily, his attitude was good, so I was pleased to reacquaint him with little airplanes. Skills are perishable, particularly recognizing limitations in a challenging operation.

A Tiger Moth is not a sleek rocket on climbout at the best of times, getting the nose down after getting airborne is important in those, so I would plan more room for a go around in one. On the other hand, it’s not going to torque roll you out of the sky much!

Peter wrote:

That is clearly true – a yoke has much more precision, feel and authority than the short SR22 stick – but you have what you have, and the sidestick enabled a more “car-like” interior layout. And there is the autopilot for nearly the entire flight…

Again, I can’t comment on the Cirrus. Sidesticks however in the Airbusses are a delight to fly. I’ve had the chance several times on A320 and A330 full flight sims and was surprised about the authority you get and how “easy” they are to fly as opposed to yoke types where large movements can be necessary. I’ve also seen some really experienced A320/330 drivers at work at challenging airports with circlings e.t.c. and they all said once you get the hang of it, it’s huge fun. The big difference of course is that the Busses are FBW whereas the Cirrus sidestick is purely manual.

Peter wrote:

That is clearly true – a yoke has much more precision, feel and authority than the short SR22 stick – but you have what you have, and the sidestick enabled a more “car-like” interior layout.

Comparing Cirrus SR22 to Cessna TTX I’d say the TTX had a real side stick, like an Airbus, while the SR22 is more of a ‘side yoke’.