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.

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 . ).

William-
Great question - and one which i seem to address frequently with my clients who are very liability limit sensitive.

As a preface and right, wrong or indifferent - for an owner flown CJ with a well qualified owner pilot flying single pilot (commercial pilot/MEL/IFR rated etc...good turbine time...good SP time etc) expect the ceiling at $10m limits. Certainly there are those owners that might be flying with $25m or even $50m in liability SP but I can guarantee you those are exceptions and not the norm. Certain underwriters even per capacity can't write more than $10m or won't write more than $10m SP for ANY risk (pro-flown even). So the owner pilot who for instance obtains the Comm or ATP , has exellent overall turbine experience, and does simulator based training at least every 12 months (some even every 6 or 8 months) is going to have the higher probability of securing those upper limits. Before anyone says well so and so has this or that - there are exceptions and accomodations possible for everything. All this said - plan on about $10m limits max if you are an owner pilot flying SP in a CJ or other light jet or turbo-prop.

On the proflown side (and not to spark a debate on owner versus pro or why they are viewed differently by insurers - i'm merely the mesenger here) - the limits available can be up to $100m or more provided the pro-pilot is well qualified in turbine overall and type. Simulator recurrent trained every 12 months or even 6/8 months (some guys with full service contracts may or will train every 6 or 8 months).

I can tell you however that there are very few insurance underwriters willing or able to quote a $100 policy for a single-pilot - even if it is pro-flown. Actually only about 3-4 total can or will do that limit SP. So the field is very narrow at high limits and even narrower if you are an owner/pilot wanting a $10m or higher policy.

And why? Well, that's pretty simple. A few posts back I said that anyone who flies an aircraft themselves is severely lacking in the risk management department to begin with. Owner flown turbines crash at twice the rate of of pro single pilot flown turbines, which in turn crash at 3.7 times of rate of turbines flown by a crew. That is a fact.

Insurance rates do not lie and anyone who's ever been in the insurance business on the underwriting end understands that in most states an insurance company is severely limited in its annual profit potential as in the rates have to make sense in both directions.

William,

Actually there was an article a long time ago about insurance rates in Flying magazine. (I think it was a Left Seat article by MacMillian).
Anyway, insurance rates are often a guess, because there is very limited data. As a general rule, we are "to safe" for a statistical analysis. So insurance underwriters accepted common knowledge that twins are safer then singles and this held true for insurance rates till some point in the 80s when FAA and other others started to do an analyze accident data. Same holds true for IFR....

So you can use insurance rates as a guideline, but you really do need more data (which I do not think really exists for many of the questions).

Tim

William, do you own or rent? I do not see an aircraft listed in your profile.

The SR series didn't suffer any fewer actual fatal accidents (in fact more than average).

The chute will allow people to use the SF50 on more risky missions, so the actual accident rate will be the same and has the potential to be higher.

The chute may save some, but it will create more events where they require saving.

Again, 21 fatal accidents and 27 chute pulls in SR over last 3 years, or 1.5% of the hulls lost in that period. And that doesn't count hull losses other than fatals and chutes (like hangar fire, runway excursions, etc).

The combination of the SR fleet history, the new category of being an SEJ, plus a preponderance of transitioning piston single pilots should make any underwriter cautious. Caution translates into high premiums and long mentoring times.

Mike C.

Those are absolutely the group of pilots I want to insure.

Not.

Price of admission to an SF50 is $2.2M and a proper attitude towards training to fly it. Flying a jet is a serious business, not a toy. These pilots you speak of that want "cool" are gong to find that out when it comes to training. I hope Cirrus has the toughest training program EVER and that they are willing to fail people who shouldn't be flying a jet. Not clear those who fail should fly an SR either.

Look at the Eclipse history. Tough training program, zero fatals. Not a coincidence. They failed people.

Mike C.

Those are absolutely the group of pilots I want to insure.

Not.

Price of admission to an SF50 is $2.2M and a proper attitude towards training to fly it. Flying a jet is a serious business, not a toy. These pilots you speak of that want "cool" are gong to find that out when it comes to training. I hope Cirrus has the toughest training program EVER and that they are willing to fail people who shouldn't be flying a jet. Not clear those who fail should fly an SR either.

Look at the Eclipse history. Tough training program, zero fatals. Not a coincidence. They failed people.

Mike C.

Moral hazard is temptation to commit fraud.

Actual hazard is putting oneself in danger.

Don't confuse the two.


I agree.

I think the "chute = second engine" thought process is spot on. So both the single + chute and the twin are flown to the same level of risk and thus they have the same fatal accident rate, more or less.

So the chute is not a safety device, it is a utility device, it eases the pilot's mind to go fly in riskier situations. A second engine does exactly the same thing.

So why not have the second engine and go faster, farther, higher, cheaper? And when you need it, it isn't a news or a hull loss but a trivial single engine landing?

There is also value in the second engine beyond propulsion. Two sources of bleed and electrical for example.

Are we pulling the chute for those kinds of problems, too?

Mike C.

William,

Actually there was an article a long time ago about insurance rates in Flying magazine. (I think it was a Left Seat article by MacMillian).
Anyway, insurance rates are often a guess, because there is very limited data. As a general rule, we are "to safe" for a statistical analysis. So insurance underwriters accepted common knowledge that twins are safer then singles and this held true for insurance rates till some point in the 80s when FAA and other others started to do an analyze accident data. Same holds true for IFR....

So you can use insurance rates as a guideline, but you really do need more data (which I do not think really exists for many of the questions).

Tim

Own and lease. Own an Acclaim via one business and dry lease a KA350 thru another. I fly the Acclaim and occasionally play navigator/sic on the ka350. Acclaim only gets flown daytime vrf. Yes instrument rated in EU, no longer current anywhere. KA always flown by at least one pro pilot and one amateur or two pros. If for anything, someone always does the call outs for the PIC.

I carry $25MM and attend SimCom every 12 months.

This is not true. Where are you finding this data?

I love it when people on BT say "this is a fact". You're dead wrong bro.

This is not true. Where are you finding this data?

I love it when people on BT say "this is a fact". You're dead wrong bro.