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).

Fair enough.

Fatal accidents per 100,000 hours during the same period:

Cessna 172: .44
Piper PA28: .63
Mooney: 1.10
Beech 33/35: 1.31

Cirrus: 1.46

Hish

Glenn,

I don't think we'll ever really know.

We do know that emergencies in planes without parachutes often have bad outcomes, and we know pulling the chute results in good outcomes.

If 100 people were "saved" by parachutes, how many would have been saved by successful recoveries or emergency landings?

1 person?
10 people?
50 people?

I don't know.

I want an airplane parachute again......one day...

And that's with the chute saves? wow.

So the chute saves lives. That is pretty well established, I guess.

But the plane it comes installed in, doesn't do so well?

Scary thought.

And just to

How many of those non Cirrus fatalities would have been survivable with shoulder harnesses?

Quite the ponder.

Do I deserve to die for a bad piloting decision or fate?

For me the answer is easy, I will continue to fly the Baron until such time as I can purchase a Cirrus.

It's either two engines or one chute. If and when I get these children thru college, I am going to the

CHUTE!!!!!!

I think that if ultimate safety is your goal, fly a 172/182 and install a chute. Although it seems almost impossible to assess how the chute impacts safety in the 172/182 aircraft because I have yet to find a case where the chute was a factor. Most people are drawn by the sexiness of the low wing. I count myself along with most of those people.
Hish

Not Rick, not saying that. Chutes are great tools to have in the box, along with great maintenance, piloting skill and sound decision making.

Just parsing the information presented.

Deserving? Most of us hope we never get what we truly deserve.

Review the stats after they started using the safety device as it was intended instead of relying on shoulder harnesses and great piloting.

The stats over the past two years are pretty remarkable.

Are you certain of that? I didn't look at the past 2 years (less statistically significant) but a basic search through NTSB database over the period of 2000-2009 and 2010-2014 shows:

57 Fatal Cirrus accidents in the 10 years from 1/1/2000 until 12/31/2009, and

44 Fatal Cirrus accidents in the 5 years between 1/1/2010 and 12/31/2014.

Cirrus would have had to have twice as many airplanes/flight hours during the 2010 to 2014 period for the safety rate to have remained constant. Maybe they did, but otherwise it looks like the planes got even less safe as time went on.
Hish

Are you certain of that? A basic search through NTSB database shows:

57 Fatal Cirrus accidents in the 10 years from 1/1/2000 until 12/31/2009, and

44 Fatal Cirrus accidents in the 5 years between 1/1/2010 and 12/31/2014.

Cirrus would have had to have twice as many airplanes/flight hours during the 2010 to 2014 period for the safety rate to have remained constant. Maybe they did, but otherwise it looks like the planes got even less safe as time went on.
Hish

...and, Cirrus has added about 200 planes per year to the fleet these past 5 years...

Last two years it's been drilled into the pilots. Get into trouble then pull the chute. Upside down in the clouds, pull the chute, loose an engine, pull the chute.

They've started listening. That graph represents that view.

For me personally, my Baron is an awesome airplane, Me personally, I'm most probably safer with a single and a chute.

From 2010 through 2014, SR22 was involved in 22 accidents. By comparison, the A36 (just A36, not G36, B36TC, etc) was involved in 19 accidents.

According to FlightAware, there are 53 SR22's in the air right now, compared to 31 BE36's flying right now.

I don't know of a source for flight hours by type; can't say that any would be accurate. Flightaware provides at least one reference point, although there will be flaws in this as well. From FlightAware, I would deduce that SR22's are flying more than A36's, so based on accidents / flight hours, it would appear that SR22's are better in this period of review.

I think Beech makes an excellent product. I think Cirrus makes an excellent product as well. From the analysis I did when looking at different models from 2010-2014, I would conclude that Cirrus has a better history than others.

The problem with the internet is you can google anything and find support. Of course, you can often google and find an answer if you're looking with an open mind. But who does that? To be clear, I'm not saying I do....

The other problem with the internet is sheeple believe most of what they read if it makes them feel good about them or their decisions.

BT use to be much more level headed than it often is now. Or maybe it's just old-girlfriend syndrome.

The stats have actually been very good for 4 years. Cirrus tracks their numbers more accurately than any other piston OEM that I know of. Their certified network is... well, networked. And it's easy to track the line cutter maintenance (6 years - cost me about $1,200) and parachutes at 10.

The ACTUAL fatal numbers are 0.42 per 100k hours over the last 12 months - 0.74 over the last 36 months.

But if you want to feel good about Cirrus being a death trap (i.e., average for the category (in the generic sense - which is 2.38 for business and personal flying in SE pistons), than, by all means, search out some stale articles.