Absolutely there are Cirrus pilots who get it. They understand the traps and operate accordingly. They will have alower fatality rate than a similar SE airplane.

But for everyone like that there will be 5 who take the airplane into a riskier environment with the false sense of security of having an "out".

This is like your professor forcing you to use a typewriter instead of Microsoft Word. Same exact thing.

I was in college when the internet hit. Professors banned internet forcing us to go to the library and do research "the old fashioned way".

People hate change.

Where did you pull that number from???

Know what? I've finally figured out the philosophical meaning of this thread. Even the tone deaf should be allowed to toot their own horn. Blow away. But I gotta tell you: in the real world the stuff you guys say is absurd as long as we have SEP or SEJ planes. And all planes have risks. Walking outside has risks. At some point I don't want mommy holding my hand though.

Need a new BT category: tone deaf horn tooters.

I agree on the "tone deaf" lots of that.

Whats up with the hand holding?

To a large extent, the cause is the pilot taking on higher risk during the flight than they meant to because they had a chute to protect them. In just about every case, there were signs the risk was increasing that the pilot ignored. Had they heeded those signs, they would have avoided the accident way before the use of the chute was required.

Eclipse pilots have no chute. They have no fatal accidents, either.

Corvalis pilots have no chute. They have a lower fatal accident rate than Cirrus pilots.

Someone making an assessment of the value of the chute from field experience says it is at best neutral on safety and perhaps negative IN TOTAL IMPACT.

That's because the chute affects human judgment and the human is the most important piece of safety equipment on the aircraft.

This Cirrus chute thing has definitely become a religion. The advocates point to isolated cases where it made a difference. The critics point to the overall effect it has had on the fleet. Everybody gets to believe what they want.

The chute is a self UNfulfilling prophecy. The more the pilot believes in its value, the less benefit it has to him. It would be ideal if the pilot didn't know the chute was available and only presented itself as an option at the very moment you need it.

In terms of the SF50, the airplane would be better with two engines and no chute. That's my opinion. I'd rather it have a fleet experience like an Eclipse and not an SR20/22. Unfortunately, Cirrus wants it to be SR like with a single jet engine. I think that is a big mistake for a multitude of reasons, safety, performance, utility, and cost among them.

Mike C.

So what?

Many "twin pilots" here tackle situations that they claim they would not tackle in a single. It's been proven time and again that performance of a single or a twin is the same unless "an" or "the" engine quits.

To a large extent, the cause is the pilot taking on higher risk during the flight than they meant to because they had a chute to protect them. In just about every case, there were signs the risk was increasing that the pilot ignored. Had they heeded those signs, they would have avoided the accident way before the use of the chute was required.

Eclipse pilots have no chute. They have no fatal accidents, either.

Corvalis pilots have no chute. They have a lower fatal accident rate than Cirrus pilots.

Someone making an assessment of the value of the chute from field experience says it is at best neutral on safety and perhaps negative IN TOTAL IMPACT.

That's because the chute affects human judgment and the human is the most important piece of safety equipment on the aircraft.

This Cirrus chute thing has definitely become a religion. The advocates point to isolated cases where it made a difference. The critics point to the overall effect it has had on the fleet. Everybody gets to believe what they want.

The chute is a self UNfulfilling prophecy. The more the pilot believes in its value, the less benefit it has to him. It would be ideal if the pilot didn't know the chute was available and only presented itself as an option at the very moment you need it.

In terms of the SF50, the airplane would be better with two engines and no chute. That's my opinion. I'd rather it have a fleet experience like an Eclipse and not an SR20/22. Unfortunately, Cirrus wants it to be SR like with a single jet engine. I think that is a big mistake for a multitude of reasons, safety, performance, utility, and cost among them.

Mike C.

You're assuming what Ciholas says is true. I'm not buying it. Cirrus has a lot of smart engineers too. Judge once it comes to market. If it sucks I'll be the first to bash I promise.

Methinks you need to differentiate between "dictate" and "attempt to persuade". What's an internet forum for if not discussion? Seems to me there has been plenty of discussion.

Yes, we are assuming different things. If and/or when the SR50 actually has examples in the field and flying we can all stop assuming.

Agreed 100%. I love the back and forth. I've conceded a lot in this thread. Some here concede nothing. They just keep beating the same drum. It's like a political thread.

Technology advances. Adopters of new tech are not less capable because they "aren't doing it the old way".

Why train for vacuum pump failure when your plane has no vacuum pump?
Why train for VMC rollover when you have a single?
Why write a letter on a typewriter when you have a MacBook?

Cirrus engineers have already spoken. High fuel flow, low speed, low full fuel useful load, short range, limited altitude, lacking redundancy. You don't have to wait for the plane to exist to know all that.

TF50 could be a twin that equals or exceeds an Eclipse in literally every way.

They chose not to, clouded by their piston think and chute religion. Oh well.

Mike C.

Yes, we are assuming different things. If and/or when the SR50 actually has examples in the field and flying we can all stop assuming.