Robert, both scenarios, the football field and gliding at night sound good, but practically unhurt can be vague and almost always within gliding distance doesn't work at 800ft on climb out. I'm not poking holes in it, if it happen to me in the bonanza I'd give them a shot. Personally if I can I'm going to put it in water. I live down south where water is usually warm.

And then there's that IMC stuff....

And high is always smart but I hate oxygen.

With that said, I think I'm going to panel mount an iPad mini with this on it all the time:
http://www.x-avionics.com

Thinking about moving the 930 up, relocating the 2nd set of gear lights to LED above the Aspens and putting the mini below the 930.

I remember reading an article several years ago (maybe in AOPA?) where a pilot had been invited to seminar/demonstration of the Cirrus at local FBO. His comments were that he went there to learn more about the airplane, and quickly realized that the sales pitch was not directed at pilots at all, but at non-pilot owners who would either hire someone to fly them around.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the whole airframe parachutes. The only time I feel they're really necessary (or even a better idea of is in the case of a structural failure of the airplane or a total systems failure in hard IMC. Neither of these are very common failures, and with modern avionics, the failure rate is getting smaller and smaller.

Since a lot of my flying is done at low altitude, it's all about training and mitigating risk. I feel that a lot of that is missing in much of today's pilot culture.

I just don't understand how having the chute is actually a negative in the eyes of so many pilots. It doesn't make any sense. If you don't care for the chute, ok then don't use/pull it. Fly the plane right down to wherever your emergency puts you. For me, I view it as one more option to have if you get into trouble... AND anyone can get into trouble; to think otherwise is silly.

It's all a risk management question. As has been pointed out pilot training and proficiency are the most critical component and the most ignored.

I try to fly, and train, a lot to mitigate that risk.

I don't fly at night SE and I don't fly hard IFR. I got my IFR rating to get me out of, not into, trouble.

I'm tempted to go to a twin, but then the proficiency issue starts over in a sense.

A twin turbo prop with a parachute may be the best answer short of a jet. Anybody know of a parachute STC for a Royal Turbine Duke?

I have said this before. I like the Cirrus. I like my Bo better. That's emotion talking, not logic.

At things being equal, which they never are, I do like the idea of the chute as a doomsday device.

Statistics one way or the other are fine. But none of us are statistics. We are fragile flesh and bone. So, the more chance we can give ourselves, so much the better.

Given his responsibilities, I believe that Shawn's instincts are both rationale and objectively good ones. Still, as others have observed, our single-engine chances can be increased in a variety of ways, including, but by no means exclusively, the chute.

There, is of course, no substitue for airmanship, and when a single engine blows on takeoff at 800 feet, well, it would be best implement Rule 1. The chute won't help.

The parachute was a marketing marvel. Alot of guys got permission to own an airplane because of the parachute. IMO, it adds a tremendous amount of unnecessary expense to the aircraft. It limits the useful load. The cirrus can haul more but the parachute is not rated for more.

I do think about it from time to time....yep, even me.

Remember that well maintained IO 550s don't often just quit. It's rare they won't make enough power to get you to the nearest alternate.

If you have enough fuel, the fuel is free of debris (water, etc.), and you have the fuel selector on a proper tank with enough remaining for the mission, the odds of killing yourself falls mostly in the favor of pilot error.

If you feel vulnerable, should you spend more on a parachute, or more spend money on pilot training?

I hate to say it, but I feel as if some posters are trying to justify the chute with safety. Or worse yet, feel safer because of the chute.

I think this angle is all wrong. Flying is inherently dangerous, and we all look for ways to minimize risk and maximize safe practices.

Proper go/no-go decisions, wx awareness, and mission planning including notams and W&B calcs...with solid checklist procedures makes for repetitive safe ops.

I know some will still toss in the random odd mechanical failure or ice debates, and those are valid reasons to want a chute. I believe those things are totally avoidable with solid MX and mission planning.

Id like to see the crash stats for the Cirri, but IIRC, they have had more fatalities than chute saves, and way more than Beechcraft products. Why is that?

Chute does not equal safer. $0.02

I think Cirrus try's to hard to convince us that the parachute makes it the best GA plane around.


Just a thought, you think well see a twin cirrus one day?

I look at it as insurance.....kind of like some folks prefer two engines, or two ignition systems, or two sources of power for flight instruments. You do not need those items, unless of course one decides to quit. At what point do you decide you no longer need some sort of system redundancy? The airlines have bunches of redundancy, why is that?

Well...

..."the random odd mechanical failure" is not ALWAYS "totally" avoidable...

10,000$ at least every 10 years for repacking is mighty negative. Carrying it around too, I'd rather have AC... or fuel for that weight, if safety is important.

You don't need one! the Royal Turbine has so much excess power you would be tempted to just fly on to your destination or a appropriately chosen maintenance facility on 1 engine..