So what I'm hearing you say, albeit reluctantly, that dem der chute is very, very, very good for personal safety but it should not be used for insurance purposes.

You and I agree...........beer time....

So what I'm hearing you say, albeit reluctantly, that dem der chute is very, very, very good for personally safety but it should not be used for insurance purposes.

You and I agree...........beer time....

By delivering a better PERFORMING airplane. There wasn't a production 200 knot fixed gear airplane before.

Sadly, their aims with the SF50 are the slowest, lowest, shortest, least capable jet.

How would the SR series have gone over if it was, say, the speed of a 172?

Thud.


An engine quitting in a twin jet is a piece of cake. Now you have hundreds of options, picking any airport in range to land at, all good.

Mike C.

Funny!! I am getting thirsty!

Sitting behind a beverage makes a much better place to debate all things aviation. A key board has never been my preference.

Does the chute "work"?

Yes, I expect it "works" in the sense that when you activate it, it will open with 90% or better probability and bring the airplane down to the ground with a good chance of avoiding death or serious injury.

No, I don't expect it "works" to reduce the fatal accident rate of the airplanes equipped with a chute. The chute emboldens pilots to make riskier use of the airplane negating the chute safety benefit.

The practical benefit is more than canceled by the psychological impact.

Mike C.

Now is that the logical or the emotional side

Come'on now, let's gather everyone, meet down at Nippers in a couple of weeks, I'll buy the drinks. If Pastis is your choice of drink, I'll hook you up there too.

Tom, would you rather payout 2 hull losses with 4 fatals in each case or 8 hull losses where everyone walks away? No moral thoughts just dollars.

I think it's important to remember that EVERY fatality in an airplane accident results in big legal expenses. I would think that's not the case where everyone walks away. BIG difference in dollars...

This has been my thought since the first post on this thread. It is bassackwards thinking, especially in aviation terms. Everyone is looking for more efficiency along with farther/faster/higher and then along comes the Jetson's airplane.

And I think it will sell like hotcakes.

They are not selling to "aviators" in the traditional sense. They are selling to guys who think that it will be cool to have a jet and that will be the end of the buyers thought process when it comes to aircraft choice.

The sf50 and it's associated parachute does not create some moral hazard that insurance companies have never dealt with. I can sink my boat, have my car stolen, or burn my house down to collect insurance, all with very little personnel risk to myself.



Fraud is fraud and people commit it. That is why we have law enforcement to investigate these things.

I agree. This thread is totally bizarre.

Hi Todd......
I think you can answer that question...take a look at the coverage limit on the hull versus the coverage limit on the liability side. On a cirrus it is heavily lopsided towards the liability which means a hull loss is much more palatable to the insurance underwriter (by the way those that participate on this board are brokers and not representing the carrier who actually pays the claim so my comment while educated is not feedback from the insurer who writes the check . ).

I agree. This thread is totally bizarre.

It's gotten hysterical, and I don't mean funny. Mike C. seems logical, but then when he's trashes every single possible aspect of the program, it starts to be clear that it's totally irrational.

Not only is the SF50 a bad, impossible, reckless idea - it is now also unambitious, immoral, possibly fraudulent, and the pilots who fly it, and the other Cirrus products, are too.

Of course, let's not mention how the Mits affected insurance rates.

Time for a poll....