The opening-day press briefing at Cirrus’s AirVenture display prominently featured the company’s “Safe Return” system, standard equipment on the new SR 7+ series piston singles. The innovation marks the first time Garmin’s Autoland technology has been applied to a piston-powered aircraft.
In Cirrus’s eyes, that is a significant development for general aviation, on par with the company’s decision from its inception to include a ballistic parachute—whether the buyer wanted it or not. Safe Return takes that concept a step further—“If the plane breaks, pull the chute. If the pilot breaks, press the ‘Safe Return’ button.”
But there’s a more nuanced element to Cirrus Safe Return, developed in concert with Garmin, that goes beyond reassuring skittish passengers. Cirrus wants to expand the general aviation market, “growing general aviation outside of aviation,” said President of Innovation & Operations Pat Waddick this morning. Cirrus wants to show the general public that flying personal airplanes is “so safe, so easy, that anyone can participate.”
That extends to student pilots in Cirrus aircraft who might be “just unable” to handle situations such as flying VFR into instrument conditions. Rather than pulling the parachute and damaging the aircraft beyond repair, Safe Return could bring the plane and pilot home safely to fly another day.
In addition, the aging GA pilot population could be made to feel more comfortable continuing to fly, particularly with friends and family, if they were confident their loved ones would have safe recourse should they become unable to continue to perform as the pilot, even temporarily.
While opening the GA market to everyone by means of simplicity and further eroding the need for training may be a noble task, I fail to see how any of it will grow GA in what looks to be a chaotic future.
Is Cirrus claiming, that more people with the financial means to entertain this hobby will now do it, because their passengers feel safer in a plane with a RTH button? That would mean that passenger fear is playing a role in inhibiting the sale of GA aircraft.
Admitted, when I learned to fly, VFR pilots were trained to stay out of IMC conditions. Feeling or being unable to handle a situation is generally best addressed by training and education. But that may be a dinosaur opinion in todays age.
The future of GA may depend more on how our industry deals with topics such as noise, environmental concerns, NIMBY’s and the continued and more and more vicious fight against something the common citizen perceives to be a hobby for the rich.
Ordering a fully decked Cirrus SR22T with all available packages will be ~ $ 1.3 Mill.
Perception matters. Like in the Yachting world, the price of some peoples toys greatly exceeds the majorities life-span hobby and recreation budget. Average people struggle to feed their families. This trend is worsening and I hope someone will realize that people who feel poor and beaten have little to no compassion for people who cannot decide which airplane to use for their next escapade…
I’d be much more impressed by Cirrus addressing the impending fuel crisis among the topics outlined above. Then again, building aircraft which can be operated in a “pilot optional” environment, may open the door into some very lucrative defense contracts.
Incapacitated PIC, ok. Incompetent PIC, automation should be that exterior door lock does not allow entry.
Environment has a vote, non-benign conditions are not well addressed by autonomous concepts (icing, convective). High value unmanned assets have limited autonomy and much remote human oversight to avoid/manage threats…I would consider my family/friends “high value”.
Fully autonomous platforms are typically lower value where acceptable loss is part of the mission risk/reward calculation.
…and you think the news coverage for GA will be positive if more than one panicked high net worth Cirrus pilot brings Class B traffic to a standstill so they can land?
Does that same logic apply to other areas of aviation? Airlines, Pt 135s, and other professional users appreciate increased automation but also realize there is no substitute for competency, currency, and proficiency.
Are some of those passengers are “more comfortable” with the added emergency systems because deep down they might wonder if the pilot they’re flying with isn’t competent and proficient? Solving that issue is the real winner. If the perceived cause of the most-recent Cirrus fatal accident is poor decision making and not an emergency aircraft problem it drives this home even more. I have my doubts the outcome of that accident would have changed with the extra gadgets.
At the end of the day a competent, proficient pilot using conservative judgment will prevent most of the cases where these added systems would be needed.
The highest I have reached within commercial aviation is Pt.135, however I was taught to fly by a WWII veteran with very strict and “set in stone/ written in blood” regulations, far exceeding what EASA or FAA rules and regs may describe.
While I have no personal problem with automation, I still believe that the major course of any aircraft is best determined by a human with a will to live.
For me personally, rendering control of an aircraft to HAL is a no-go, however - recent developments indicate, that automation may be a more viable way to avoid catastrophic outcomes.
Quality is not quantinty, so I hope Cirrus Aircraft will not be determining the future of GA.