But the plane is going to stay upright and float long enough to get into a raft. Not much worry of flipping over and drowning. I'd rather do overwater legs with a parachute than without.

Ignoring obvious airplane capability aspects, e.g. pressurization, FIKI... The following holds true for me.
I basically equate the parachute to a second engine. So if I am willing to do the flight in a twin, I am willing to do it in a Cirrus.

Tim

Water? No change.

Mountains? No change in operation, but a lot of change in comfort level.

Night time VFR? You bet. No doubt.

You left out IFR. For some reason, I flew scared at night for the last 5 years. Over low IMC worried me, but not quite to the same extent - probably because my scare was a night time incident. It should have. Much more comfortable with the chute.

My good friend, Chris, that lost his engine going into Brownwood a few months ago would have likely been home with his family that evening, looking through the trade-a-plane if he'd been in a Cirrus. Instead, he was in the ICU burn unit at Parkland.

Good chance that the pilot that lost oil pressure in Denton in the Mouse this weekend could have walked away, along with his wife.

If I didn't perceive a greater amount of safety in those situations, I wouldn't have traded the plane that I loved.

BTW, Chris can't wait to fly in the Cirrus. We're hoping to fly it to a BT lunch in June.

Ignoring obvious airplane capability aspects, e.g. pressurization, FIKI... The following holds true for me.
I basically equate the parachute to a second engine. So if I am willing to do the flight in a twin, I am willing to do it in a Cirrus.

Tim

Could not have explained it any clearer. And add kids to the wife comment.

Well said!!

But the plane is going to stay upright and float long enough to get into a raft. Not much worry of flipping over and drowning. I'd rather do overwater legs with a parachute than without.

Seems it didn't take too long to revert back to a parachute discussion, eh?

I don't know you, Jim, but I caution anyone flying a Cirrus to never say never.

As others have posted here, the presence of a life-altering safety feature deserves careful consideration. Of course, you could ignore it. Of course, you could claim that past success predicts future success.

But the reality has borne out that good pilots have died in a Cirrus without using the parachute. Regrettably, they have taken others with them.

The pilot in this Cirrus fatal accident at Palm Bay, FL, in 2011, who previously flew a Columbia 400, was known to state that he would never use the parachute. He diverted for weather and then encountered a loss of engine power. When he touched down in a field, the wing tip caught the ground, the plane cartwheeled, the engine tore off the airframe, the pilot and his wife were taken to the hospital and declared brain dead, while their niece walked out of the wreckage.



He had altitude, he had opportunity, but he also had attitude. Consequently, I believe that he and his wife died without using the parachute.

Bad things happen to good pilots. The Cirrus parachute system offers another way to survive.

Cheers
Rick

Rick,

I hate to see pictures like that but you make a very, very valid point.

Can you please give us the 'Chute Pull' rules? Meaning what is Cirrus teaching with regards to chute pulls. Engine quits, pull chute, etc. etc.

Peter,

Yes. I never flew at night after my private required night flights (during the first one I lost a mag and the 2nd one an HSI just for grins…) until I bought a Cirrus and recently became night qualified.

I have taken flights through low layers that "might" have ice in them where I would not have taken off without FIKI but I basically view it as an escape mechanism.

As someone else mentioned I do feel more comfortable in clouds now. But it's not the chute but all the instrumentation back ups, the AP, EPS, etc. that gives me more relaxation. It's simply a much more capable IFR airplane than I had before.

I flew over the mountains before. A little nervously. I will continue hopefully with a little less stress.

But in general my limits are still my limits. Having a more capable plane doesn't meant I'm more capable and that's what I base my limits on primarily.

Michael,

I'm not Rick but I'll sing his praises a little. He has an excellent video which I hope he will post which discusses this.

In the mean time, here is a very abbreviated version of what Cirrus teaches with respect to CAPS for engine failure (or loss of control for that matter). Their initial and recurrent training is scenario based so there is lots of practice and discussion of possible outcomes with and without pulling:

On take off with runway remaining land.

From take off to 600 feet AGL land straight ahead or slightly to the left or right.

From 600 feet AGL to 2,000 feet AGL pull CAPS immediately.

From 2,000 feet AGL control the airplane, establish best glide to the runway or clear area, run the engine restart checklist and attempt restart. If no restart by 1,000 AGL and runway not made pull CAPS.

Above 2,000 feet AGL there are other CAPS pull emergencies like loss of control, disorientation, pilot incapacitation, etc. But the idea is if the problem is fixable, fix it above 1,000 feet AGL or pull CAPS. The idea is never say never to CAPS but continually evaluate whether it is the best option or not.

Tony, thanks for the reply. I'm a member of COPA now

Quick question for you, Jim and Nate. I noticed that you all have the Turbo version of the airplane. What made you all choose that over the NA version? I have about 20 hrs in the NA and it gets up and goes really well.

I'll answer for me, Michael. Tony had turbo, and he bought a new one, so he made his decision. Mine was kinda made for me.

I wanted the most plane in a fixed budget. The budget precluded new.

When I saw how close I was in budget to the Perspective, I reached a bit more.

My preference was n/a. In the later model Cirrus, they are predominately turbo. It is so one-sided, that the n/a seems to carry a premium making them, essentially, the same price, but also rare.

I didn't want to wait, but I wrestled with it a bit. Then I started researching the turbos. I got excited about them. The turbo comes with built in oxygen. I've tried the portable. It sucked. Then I thought about what I could get over when I needed, since the oxygen was always right there and available. And then I started seeing the speed of some of these guys. And the tail winds that are sometimes available up there. And... and... and....

So I could go high if I wanted, or stay low. Engine management is simpler on the turbo. I never knew that. But it gave me more options if I NEEDED them.

And, again, they were about the same price.

AND, I checked on what was involved if I wanted to replace the turbo with an n/a when it was time for a new engine. Easy enough, so I can go n/a and have the built in oxygen later, if I want.

I've always struggled clearing my ears. I'm excited enough about the capabilities and the 200+ KTAS that I had tubes put in my ears for the sole reason of flying high and fast.

It was all very scientific.

Michael,

I had a TN A36 which I really liked. I liked the flexibility that the turbo offers, the somewhat simpler operation and the speed. I actually ordered an NA Cirrus thinking that I didn't always use the Bonanza's capabilities. Then I flew one. To me the difference was pretty dramatic and I changed my order. I have several friends that have NA Cirri and they all like them very well. It's been said here a bunch of times that once you fly a turbo you don't want to go back and that was true in my case.

Michael,

I'm not Rick but I'll sing his praises a little. He has an excellent video which I hope he will post which discusses this.

In the mean time, here is a very abbreviated version ...