I hear what you saying......Gianna wants a Kodiak

I hear what you saying......Gianna wants a Kodiak

The market clearly demands it, if sales numbers are a valid indicator!
But we won't know it from some of the opinions we hear on BT!

I think the better question is: if Bonanza comes standard with BRS - who would not buy the Bo because of it? Or ask the chute be uninstalled because it is not "necessary" and takes up weight?

The market clearly demands it, if sales numbers are a valid indicator!
But we won't know it from some of the opinions we hear on BT!

I think the better question is: if Bonanza comes standard with BRS - who would not buy the Bo because of it? Or ask the chute be uninstalled because it is not "necessary" and takes up weight?

Hi All,

I've been doing a lot of research into BRS in certified aircraft recently. It turns out that BRS CAPS (then called GARD) was actually installing the chute in Cessna 150/152 early on, in the 90s I believe. Long before the Cirrus 20/22 was certified. The chutes have also been installed in 172/182 aircraft. There are a couple of things to note. Only certain model years qualify for the retrofit. You need to have a 1964 or newer 182 and probably a 1974 or newer 172. This is because the chutes rely on rear window configuration. There are other requirements as well, electric flaps, non-retractable gear, shoulder harnesses. Other than experimental and home built aircraft, the chute is not certified to be installed on any aircraft that doesn't meet the specific rear window requirement. This pretty much excludes any model of Beech, Piper, Mooney etc that doesn't have the rear window until a major advancement is made. It may also be that they don't want to certify it in other planes that compete with Cirrus.

Also interesting is that reviewing the lives saved by the CAPS system, there is not a single instance of a 152, 172 or 182 on the BRS website list. Without knowing the total number of certified aircraft installations there are, this makes it hard to evaluate the effectiveness/need for it in certified aircraft other than the Cirrus and experimental.

In my view however, the number of incidents in Cirrus aircraft and Cirrus' safety record overall indicates that they are less safe aircraft than most Cessna, Piper and Beechcraft aircraft without the CAPS system.
Hish

hmmm, I thought you said you'd been doing a lot of research?

hmmm, I thought you said you'd been doing a lot of research?[/quote]


Please see this link for some interesting statistics and information:
http://www.stevewilsonblog.com/accordin ... very-safe/

Fatalities per 1000 aircraft Between 2000 and 2010:

Cessna 172: 13.33
Piper 28: 15.52
Mooney: 17.67
Beechcraft 33/35: 21.00
Cirrus: 25.71

You are free to disagree, but I think that's a pretty good measure of safety.
Hish

I wonder if the incidents with Cirrus are the result of pilots consciously or unconsciously placing the aircraft in more danger with the idea of the chute there to save them and actually being outside the operational limits of the system.

Also a consideration might be is that 'fatalities per a/c accident' or fatalities per 1000 people in a/c accidents?

Could it be skewed by the average 'souls aboard' per accident. For example, Mooney with two, and Cirrus with three. <--- not stats just a ponder.

What constituted 'accident'? Hanger banger, taxi tumble, etc. Are all of those 'accidents' comparable and were each potentially (high probability anyway) fatal?

While I concur with the report in general, more detail would create closer true information.

Data are easily interpreted in view of conclusion.

Old soviet joke. Khrushchev visits America and Kennedy suggests a foot race around rose garden to end Cold War. Obvious conclusion. Pravda headlines next day: "Soviet Premiere finishes honorable 2nd place, while American President comes in next to last".

Try doing that same search using 2011-2015

Try doing that same search using 2011-2015

Fatalities per aircraft number is a meaningless statistic.

Fatal accidents per 100,000 hours of flight time is the accepted stat on safety.

I wonder if the incidents with Cirrus are the result of pilots consciously or unconsciously placing the aircraft in more danger with the idea of the chute there to save them and actually being outside the operational limits of the system.

Also a consideration might be is that 'fatalities per a/c accident' or fatalities per 1000 people in a/c accidents?

Could it be skewed by the average 'souls aboard' per accident. For example, Mooney with two, and Cirrus with three. <--- not stats just a ponder.

What constituted 'accident'? Hanger banger, taxi tumble, etc. Are all of those 'accidents' comparable and were each potentially (high probability anyway) fatal?

While I concur with the report in general, more detail would create closer true information.

Data are easily interpreted in view of conclusion.

Old soviet joke. Khrushchev visits America and Kennedy suggests a foot race around rose garden to end Cold War. Obvious conclusion. Pravda headlines next day: "Soviet Premiere finishes honorable 2nd place, while American President comes in next to last".

I met the wife of this pilot last year during a vacation with my wife on Mackinac Island, MI. She absolutely insisted that he only fly an airplane with a chute, so he had it installed on his C182. As indicated in another post, it went down due to fuel starvation when the mechanics had the fuel selector in the off position and the pilot didn't notice. You can certainly fault the pilot for not adhering to the TO checklist but the fact is that he would've crashed that day and may not have survived without the chute installed.

Absolutely! I am with you on the best decision. Mission, mission, mission. Unless of course emotion gets involved.

I am fortunate to have the mission of me and maybe three but mostly only one more coming and going where we want when we want, and quickly if we want. Coupled with the limited purchase and maint budget and my life long love affair with the V-tail (my first was a '47 Straight-35) That means an older Bo that I can keep in the air. Maybe if there was a '54 Cirrus, I would have found that but not likely.

I have to look at the 'saves' and wonder how many would have had good outcomes anyway if flown to the ground.


Lawyer story:
In the 70's (I believe it was)Flying magazine had article about a pilot ground looping a (IIRC rented) tail dragger doing a xwind landing practice. Insurance company sued and when before the judge the plaintiff's lawyer coached it as deliberate negligence when xwing landings are only supposed to be performed under 'no other option' scenarios due to the inherent tendency of a tail dragger. Defendant was very fortunate the judge happened to be a pilot and understood.

Some of these would, no doubt, have turned out OK without a parachute. Some would not.

But,

ALL of them turn out OK WITH a parachute (when deployed below Vne and above about 600 feet).