I'll take my chances on my twin, not chute. If I were flying a 36, I would take a serious look. Heck it's an option, don't have to open it if I don't want to.

What I do find interesting is that over the past10 years we have added a large number of technological improvements meant to increase safety and seem to be getting killed at the same rate. Does it mean we aretaking more chances?

While I would consider a chute, I do the knowledge that the cirrus does not have a better safety records than the chutless Bo. It will be interesting to see in what new ways we manage to get ourselves killed with new things such as synthetic vision devices for fir flying.

It's not only that. The first save on Cirrus happened when aileron fell off after maintenance, over a perfectly hospitable terrain. I remember the anti-chute partisans going into frenzy how they surely would've landed that plane just fine. I laughed myself silly just from reading that.

That said, I do not expect Bonanza airframe to take well to a chute retrofit. If Beechcraft comes with a factory "model BE37" that has the proper airframe with chute attachment points, chute container, strip channels, and impact-absorbing belly cell, that would be very nice. But as it is I do not see it working.

I believe the Chute guys did an analysis on a retrofit Bonanza Parachute. Apparently, IIRC, the plane would have to break in 3 pieces. Each of the wings would have a chute and the fuselage would have a Chute.

Still want one?

I thought the aileron on the Cirrus became jammed, thus leaving the plane uncontrollable. I wouldn't think losing an aileron completely would render an aircraft uncontrollable. Slower in roll but otherwise what's the big deal?

BRS has been marketing a certified chute for most C150/152/172/182 models for years and have sold very few. I think the cost for retrofit systems is way too high and in competition with things like active traffic for the safety dollar.

Like most ultralighters, I've had a BRS on my Quicksilver since I first got the airplane. BRS chutes have saved UL pilots from as low as 50 feet AGL. I believe in the concept; all you have to do is look at a few of the save videos to see that it has real merit. Take a look at this RANS 7 that snapped a wing during an aerobatic routine (the drama starts at 2:20).

[youtube]http://youtu.be/mzh0gGj1zog[/youtube]

BUT...like everything in aviation, "it depends." I'm not planning to put BRS on my AirCam; nobody else has and active traffic would clearly be a better use of cash. In a transportation single like an A36...hmmm. I don't like the Cirrus and the chute doesn't do anything to win me over. I don't believe the record supports the idea that the Cirrus is "safer" than other high-performance singles; without the few chute saves its record would be pretty dismal. On the other hand, I love the A36 and a well-engineered chute installation sure wouldn't make me love it any less. But would I pay $50K or more and take a useful load hit for it? Hmmm...

It's all about choices, as always.

You're right if you are talking about a King Air:

NTSB Identification: CEN11LA192
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, February 15, 2011 in Des Moines, IA
Aircraft: BEECH E-90, registration: N51DN
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On February 15, 2011, at 0945 central standard time, a Beech E-90 airplane, N51DN, sustained substantial damage when the right aileron departed in-flight near Des Moines, Iowa. The airline transport pilot and pilot-rated passenger were not injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by D-W Corporation, Des Moines, Iowa. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and a flight plan was not filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 business flight. The local flight departed the Des Moines International Airport (DSM), Des Moines, Iowa, at 0910.

According to the operator, the airplane had recently underwent some maintenance and the pilot and passenger were conducting a "return for operation" flight. During a climb to 18,000 feet mean sea level (msl), the right aileron departed the airplane. The pilot reported the airplane was "very controllable" and landed the airplane at DSM without further incident.

Me too, but SWMBO doesn't always fly with me.....

Me too, but SWMBO doesn't always fly with me.....

Perhaps a chute is ok for a Cirrus. It was part of the design and part of the marketing scheme. But, putting "chute" and "airplane" in the same sentence almost seems like an oxymoron to me. I have a difficult time imagining the situation in which I would be willing to deploy a chute. I would be more concerned that the chute would cause a worse crash than without it. To again quote the famous Bob Hoover statement that so many others have referred to on BT, "When making a forced landing, fly the airplane as far into the crash site as possible." A chute won't allow you to do that.

Good question, and one I chatted with to an FAA safety guy. As technology makes our lives easier it also makes us lazy, and apt to rely on the technology instead of ourselves.

Case in point, there are guys here who will not fly hard IFR without an autopilot. Is the autopilot safer? Sure, but a cool yoke pilot is even better. There is a guy on my home field with a high performance single, 3-4 years old, Garmin everything, G600, auto this, and auto that. But yet he still white knuckles the yoke when the autopilot goes off and he has to fly an approach to mins.

The plane, equipment, gadgets, etc etc don't make a safe flight, THE PILOT makes a safe flight. His judgment, knowledge and skills, that's what counts.

We can't stop being humans, but we can strive to be the best humans in the cockpit we can be.

- Mark

There were only 2 people in the Cirrus. It was a mid air, 2 in the cirrus and 1 in the glider tow plane, the glider made it. 1 of the guys actually jumped from the plane because of the fire.

You do bring up the point of the Cirrus burning. This is the biggest single risk of flying a Cirrus - in my opinion. If you look at the stats a high number of them end up in a post crash fires. It is not the way I would want to go, especially after being saved by the chute.

Here is a video of a Cirrus crashing and post crash fire. The Cirrus Pilots (which I am a member) forum estimated 70 miliseconds between crash and explosion.
[youtube]http://youtu.be/stza9LAg-nQ[/youtube]

In that second video, I don't think there was a chute. I think it was just a plane falling from the sky.

Ya, I don't believe the chute was used and the plane was in the pattern, wouldn't have saved it anyways...

I would assume the purpose of the chute is more to save the occupants than the plane. So in this theoretical system a parachute for the wings would not be necessary.

Still, it would probably be better and more economical to simply have a way for the roof to come off so the occupants with individual chutes could eject.

Partial list of safety items I haven't needed thus far:

Training wheels
Fire alarms
Air bags
Seat belts
Anti-lock brakes
Helmets
Safety glasses
CO2 Detector
Gun safeties...etc.

I'd still wouldn't mind seeing a parachute added to the list even if I don't ever end up "needing" it or using it.

Why not?