This looks a professionally planned and well risk managed IFR flight. The negative comments are predictable (A Cirrus is involved!) but regrettable nonetheless. One small technical correction to the narrative: Alt 2 provides power to the EBus only, it isn’t the primary power as indicated in the narrative. When Alt 2 fails Alt 1 (which normally powers MBus) will provide all the power necessary for both MBus and EBus. It does not work the other way around (Alt 2 will not power MBus) so in short Alt 2 failure is a minor issue whereas if Alt 1 were to fail you will loose all the MBus items (including flaps for landing) but still leaving you with the main items required for IFR flight and communication but no redundancy… after approx 30 minutes of Bat 1 is used up. I am very sure this pilot knew that and factored it in to his decision to continue to Biggin for an ILS Approach. As for the comments on weather radar versus, yes the Connext system is “not radar” but they had studied and planned in advance for the weather avoidance, and used the Connext to verify their advance planning to stay 50 miles North of the cell! Well done and thanks Jon for posting an interesting video and not being afraid to spark some debate.
Excellent video! I didn't need any arm twisting to keep me watching till the end. I was riveted! Thankfully, it all worked out well. My GA flying days are now long behind me but, if I still flew GA and could afford one, I'd definitely own a Cirrus SR22. An amazing GA aircraft!
Lovely film Jon, thank you. Really informative and great to look at too. Modern sensors make low-light filming not only possible but really watchable too.
Hi Jon! Well! That was interesting! Great flying by Robbie, ably assisted by your good self. I can imagine your concern when ALT 2 Fault indication flashed up, but it all went swimmingly in the end. Best wishes from Wirral.
That return flight looked a little uncomfortable, Jon, that storm look pretty brutal... but made for an entertaining vlog. Good call to reduce the water crossing I thought👍🏻 👏🏻👏🏻
Routine IFR flight in a single, especially at night, or over water, is a little bit "bold" if you take my meaning. All the shiney screens and other toys do not mitigate that a) you only have one engine, b) can be battered to break-up by the weather.
@@Rewsky21 Which of us, as sprog pilots, has not had a silent thrill at flying in a cockpit festooned with new and exciting pretty lights, when first flying at night, no matter it be a Cessna 152 on a 1st night landing, or a modern Cirrus? The trick is to remain cognisant that flying a single at night, is a risky undertaking. Doing so over water, is doubly so, and with CB's about it's bordering on being a "little bit silly". I had an engine-failure or rough-running engine about every 750 hours over a career instructing on light singles and twins. Nothing could induce me to fly a single at night, with CB's about, and over the English Channel. I'd happily do ONE of those, but would not be a happy bunny doing two or more.
I’m in total agreement with you, flying at night is a fun but you always need to be three steps ahead compared to day flying, I have a grand total of just 36 night flying hours and yes some where over quite long water legs, but the enjoyment can make you blind to the risks. I took my young son with me a few times, and now as I no longer fly I look back and think to myself what hell was I thinking 😮
@@Rewsky21 The advice I received for having to force-land at night: Aim at the dark bits, when low enough, turn your landing light on. If you don't like what you see, (forests etc) turn it off again!
Hello, i notice that your safety harness buckle is near the middle of your chest? Usually it is recommended it be tightened around waist, it could cause nasty injuries if there were an impact?
Really nice informative video John, thanks for taking the time, I was glued to it all the way, alot of info to process, I was interested in how u can understand ATC pigeon English once u leave UK airspace,I know English is the language in communication but there's English and English, I thought you both have mastered it. Thanks again.
At least the ‘Pigeon English’ is in ICAO standard. As a non native speaker I have more difficulties understanding UK ATC then any other country in Europe.
Well, they were constantly visual with the storm and observed the storm motion before take-off. So in this particular case this one satellite update was arguably sufficient.
What was the alternator fault? Have you seen aircraft alternators? They total junk and I think amongst the most common failures in GA pretty much everyone will have a janky alternator failure in just a few hundred hours. Car alternators used to be the same but very rarely fail these days. At least the aviation alternators are readily serviceable.
Yes - I've had three failures in my 10 years - two in the air and one on the ground. It has to be one of the most common failures in light aircraft, and usually not an issue (VFR/Day). I'm afraid I don't know what the problem was. The aeroplane was sent to maintenance afterwards.
@@TheFlyingReporter Most aircraft alternator failures are nothing to do with the Alternator or the regulator. The week part of the system is the electrical cables forward of the firewall, these cables have lived in a harsh environment with oil, exhaust gasses , rain , vibration and a heat cycle every time the engine has started. Add to this the age of the aircraft and you have the perfect recipe for unreliability. If n every aircraft I have owned I have replaced the firewall forward electrical cables, it is a very inexpensive way to increase reliability and avoid the shotgun maintenance of changing stuff until the system runs ( poorly ) again.
Define anywhere near, 50 miles, 100 miles, not on the same continent...? As long as you factor in the delay in connect wx as compared to an actual onboard wx radar, I would consider adequate distance which i find 50nm to be a safe flight. This wasn't a giant squall line as You can see in windy, more like a large single cell. I agree to err on the very side of caution always, but your recommendation of just simply not flying at night ever if there is a thunderstorm in the general vicinity seems one step too prohibitive to me
I think realistically, to fly IFR at night in a single engine is a risk. But, I think you obtaining a full IFR rating is a worthwhile thing to do as you use your aircraft for a lot of business flights throughout the year. Such a pity the UK IMC can’t piggyback some European version, our CAA realised the need for an IMC whereas they don’t in Europe. For many a full IR is just unobtainable due to cost. Unfortunately, I think many people do fly IFR without the licence.
At night you should use oxygen a bit earlier than during the day. I'd put it on at 9000' if climbing above. The reason for this is that cone-cells which provide colour vision, require higher oxygenation levels that rod cells. (IIRC from training 30 odd years ago).
Can't talk about legal requirements but some sources recommend using it about 6000 or 8000 feet. The response to reduced oxygen is also subjective, for example SoCal Flying Monkey's family members felt very dizzy while he had no symptoms. You also might experience reduced mental capacity well before the full-on hypoxia.
Question is why is one flying at night with convective activity? That’s a big no-no for me for a night flight. Indeed I follow the airline rule where night operations are prohibited if the radar is inoperative. And no, data-linked weather is NOT radar. There is a lapse of at least six minutes (translation, the image displayed is at least six minutes old ) and more than a handful of accidents have occurred where pilots thought it was equivalent to radar and bumbled right into one. Data linked weather is more for strategic planning planning and definitely not for tactical maneuvers around convection This guy should’ve known better!!! Douglas Boyd Commercial single/multi engine land IFR.
You don’t need to sign off youtube comments even if you do want to show off your qualifications. The Cirrus is more than capable of night IFR flying and they were clearly able to maintain safe flight.
I’m showing my credentials as a qualified pilot with a decent amount of experience close to 1,700 hours. Additionally, I hold a faculty position at a US aeronautical University and have published over 30 aviation safety related scientific publications including at least one on aeronautical decision making. Notwithstanding the capability of the Cirrus aircraft, one of our papers showed that over 50% of GA accidents are due to poor ADM. Because they got away with it once does not mean it’s safe.
@@douglasb5046 1700 hours is barely enough to even start flying in the airlines. Also, you’re in the US but commenting on someone flying with a british IR, which is FAR more detailed and borderline airline level compared to the (im my opinion better for GA) GA focused US IR. This pilot knew what he was doing and was perfectly safe doing so in this aircraft.
But the PIC here considered precisely that, the delay in connext ey as compared to an on board radar, which is why ample distance to the cell was maintained (50+NM). There is a case on the air safety institute channel showcasing what happens when you assume the data is real time - you fly right into the storm. But the pilot here seems to have considered that, so I would argue the ADM was actually solid
50 nmi isn’t much if you’re moving at 3 miles per minute. Plus near cloud turbulence (published on in the last few years) shows that this phenomenon can extend well beyond the thunderstorm associated precipitation (radar return ) As I said, this is one of the reasons why the airlines prohibit operations if radar is inoperative at night.
