You know you make agreeing with you hard?

Aviation Consumer did a study that is old now but included comparisons of these 2 types. I found it interesting that the biggest % of accidents for Cirrus, possibly for GA overall, was RLOC. Engine failure was about 1/3 the rate at less than 10 %.

Why not ask the pros of risk comparison -- ask the insurance companies to quote the same pilot in same value SR22 and Corvallis. I'd get separate quotes for liability (representing serious accident odds) and hull (includes variables of different cost of repair, etc. that might muddy the waters.) Insurance uses a slightly different metric (accidents per month) than we care about (per flight hour) so the which-flies-more question still needs to be factored in.

I don't think insurance underwriting is as sophisticated as you perceive it to be.

Many risk factors have nothing to do with flying. Hangar fire, theft, wind damage, etc.


Sounds like you'd be an ideal candidate to get such quotes. Let us know the numbers.

Mike C.

This is a good comparison to make.

I should reference, statistically, there may be many accidents where the chute felt like it saved someones lives, however the vast majority of fatal accidents begin in a regime of the flight envelope or set of circumstances that the Chute is not able to assist.

In other words, sure, during the engine failure it feels like the chute may have saved a live, but >90% of those are survivable with no chute.

But it sure sells airplanes, and there's no denying that for the guy who had the flight controls depart the aircraft, it was a clear save.

Best comparison would be high performance Corvallis and SR22, but that will be difficult.

I don't think insurance underwriting is as sophisticated as you perceive it to be.

Many risk factors have nothing to do with flying. Hangar fire, theft, wind damage, etc.


Sounds like you'd be an ideal candidate to get such quotes. Let us know the numbers.

Mike C.

Paul,

Sorry, your post is kinda funny. You have made so many assumptions, most of which are wrong, that I am not sure where to begin.
But I can tell you off the bat, that you should read more NTSB reports on fatal Cirrus accidents. The vast majority of which were preventable by the pull of the chute.

In terms of the Corvallis and SR22, that is the point of the thread. But even then, this is a false comparison. In terms of risk management, a lot, in fact I would say the majority of Cirrus pilots compare the Cirrus to a Baron, Twin Comanche or other light twin. This is based on the simple assessment that if the engine fails they have a way to land safely.

Tim

Paul,

Sorry, your post is kinda funny. You have made so many assumptions, most of which are wrong, that I am not sure where to begin.
But I can tell you off the bat, that you should read more NTSB reports on fatal Cirrus accidents. The vast majority of which were preventable by the pull of the chute.

In terms of the Corvallis and SR22, that is the point of the thread. But even then, this is a false comparison. In terms of risk management, a lot, in fact I would say the majority of Cirrus pilots compare the Cirrus to a Baron, Twin Comanche or other light twin. This is based on the simple assessment that if the engine fails they have a way to land safely.

Tim

The vast majority of fatal accidents are preventable by the pilot. Indeed, the chute REQUIRES the pilot to do something to make it work.

The chute prevents about 30% of Cirrus fatal accidents. Maybe less depending on how many of the "saves" you really think would have ended up fatal.

Mike C.

Many years ago as a seminarian I was certain I knew the truth and that those who disagreed with me were wrong. I've come to a place where I'm not sure I know anything but if I can find some agreement on a basics of my faith then that is enough.

Much of what is discussed about airplanes is conjecture, educated guessing, opinion and other things which are difficult to prove. There is a lot of bandying back and forth about "facts" and "statistics". We all know that both of these things can be shaded, twisted, manipulated, forgotten, presented incompletely or lied about. So we can have endless arguments. Some think that's a good thing...

BUT I think the statement I extracted from the rest of what you said is absolutely incontrovertible.

The chute replaces a power plant if we are talking about a piston aircraft, in all, but very small limited cases when a piston twin could actually climb away on one. Which most cannot, any place west of about mid-nebraska on any sort of a non-standard day. Then the question is do you want to crash at 60 or 90? You can try to convince yourself otherwise, but I have a 421C POH in front of me right now. Any sort of engine failure on departure from KAPA will more or less end up with an aircraft boring a hole in the ground. Only reason why I am looking is friend has one and is trying to convince me to hop on over to Telluride with him this weekend. I'm going to politely decline.

The chute replaces a power plant if we are talking about a piston aircraft, in all, but very small limited cases when a piston twin could actually climb away on one. Which most cannot, any place west of about mid-nebraska on any sort of a non-standard day. Then the question is do you want to crash at 60 or 90? You can try to convince yourself otherwise, but I have a 421C POH in front of me right now. Any sort of engine failure on departure from KAPA will more or less end up with an aircraft boring a hole in the ground. Only reason why I am looking is friend has one and is trying to convince me to hop on over to Telluride with him this weekend. I'm going to politely decline.

One, the chart you're showing does not include any aftermarket GWI STC. Second of all, I've never seen a 421C with 2500lb useful. More like 2200 with aftermarket GWI STC (VGs), so really a 2050lb useful for performance chart calculations. Knock away 900lb and we're flying on fumes. Any decent wind in Denver coming in over the mountains and that 200fpm instantly becomes -200fpm. Correct me if I am wrong on any assumption here.

Two guys, winter coats and ski gear and baggage is 600lb, That leaves 91 gallons of fuel. That's not enough to go anywhere.

This is as stupid as saying an engine failure in a single will cause a hole in the ground, as many in the general public believe.


I'll take the 421 over the single, thank you very much.

Mike C.

The math police are at the door. Better flush your calculator down the toilet.

Mike C.