A friend sent me a link to this. Some interesting info.

https://www.avweb.com/ownership/cirrus- ... -airplane/

This part of the article asks if pilots are taking more risks because of the chute. AvWeb surveyed 80 pilots / owners.

Why are they more concerned about what the "haters" think than their own safety?

The labeling of others as "haters" is telling, too. People who criticize the Cirrus accident record are not haters but presenting their views.

The chute affects decision making even at the subconscious level, which a survey won't reveal. Many Cirrus pilots will adamantly maintain the chute doesn't affect their risk taking, but in nearly all cases you can construct a scenario where they won't go or won't continue if the chute is inoperative and the would if the chute does work. There may be a few who don't change, but they are rare. In the article, the quotes above show the chute does affect decision making if the pilots are being honest with themselves.

The chute is a utility enhancing feature. It allows you to fly the Cirrus in riskier conditions while maintaining the same risk tolerance, if you have properly judged the chute risk credit. The training program has made judging the risk credit better, so the accident rate has dropped, but it isn't markedly better than similar airplanes without chutes.

Mike C.

The old C172 that I initially trained in was a ratty, dirty, but reliable old beast. The TRAC looks much nicer.

If I were in the market for a HP single engine piston to replace my Bo, I would consider the SR22 very strongly.

I would go into it, thinking:

1. Most/many fatal accidents happen in situations and at altitudes below which CAPS will be useful.

2. In situations/altitudes where CAPS will/can be effective, non chuted planes have a very good chance of being non fatal, though the injury risk is probably higher.

3. An SR would allow me to fly in situations I either do not today, or in situations I do, but with high anxiety.

4. If I were to fly an SR, I would never have the thought "I should absolutely, definitely not be doing this, but hey, I've got a chute so....hold my beer!"

In the end, if an SR met all my mission needs (it does not today, but that could change), I would get one. Why? Because there are situations where having the chute is so far superior in every way to not having one, and I'd want that extra tool.

In the end, that is the core value proposition of CAPS. Not that it's a "get out of jail card". Not that it guarantees you will never die in it. Not that it won't encourage some to get in way over their heads. It's an incredibly compelling and proven tool. I'm an intelligent and responsible pilot. I prefer more proven and useful tools, not less. If I start hammering with a screwdriver, or use a nail gun to apply paint, that's a reflection on me, not the tool.

Here’s the issue to me - we shouldn’t be comparing relatively new SR22Ts to 40 year old Bonanzas with like 14% of the hull value.

We should be comparing SR22Ts vs. extremely nice piston twins or stepping up to a used SETP.

Totally different equation.

Best

Tim

I agree.

The "economic ecosystem" around a particular type has a fairly large influence on the history of that type and that is tied to the cost of the machine.

If you buy an $800K 2019 SR22T, you can bet things are different than a $40K 1947 Beech 35. And those differences have an influence on what happens next, like how often does the plane fly, what extra training does the owner pay for, does the plane get hangared, what level of maintenance is performed, what insurance requirements are imposed, and so forth.

For example, in the mid 1990s, MU2s cost $500K and King Airs cost $2M. Guess which one was used for overnight check hauling? The MU2. And that was reflected in the accident stats. If you switched the economics of the two planes, the accident history would have changed.

This is what makes the Corvalis comparison the most on point. Same rough cost to buy, same rough cost to operate, produced during the same years, same speed, same utility, same engine, and so forth. The two airplanes, SR and Corvalis, are being operated in essentially the same ecosystem.

Mike C.

Mike Your Right to an Opinion Does Not Make Your Opinion Valid.

My opinion - your a hater LOL. Just joking....

Your opinion is actually a little bit offensive and that is a fact!

Agree 100%. When I owned a Cirrus, it drove me crazy that for what I had in the Cirrus I could buy a nice Meridian (used of course).

The value equation is problematic, and different for each owner. The Cirrus performance is basically the same as any other high performance single. If one is comparing new to new, I think the chute is compelling. But comparing new to used is much more complicated. Would one feel safer, or take more risk, in a used Meridian or a new SR22T? Would one take less risk or feel less safe in a good Bonanza or Mooney in exchange for a multiple six figure difference in acquisition cost?

I fly a Columbia 400 (aka, Corvallis, aka TTx). (LC41-550FG is the official model number, until the TTx which is the T240 - you can ask Cessna/Textron about why they that).

The 400 is a bit faster than the SR22T and I think it is nicer to fly, but very similar in most respects.

The reason I eliminated the SR22T from my purchase decision is that the 38' wingspan would not fit in the hangar I have.

If I had a 42' wide hangar available, I'd have simply have kept my Seneca II.

The 400 has a 36-foot wingspan, so it comfortably fits in my hangar.

My wife would like the SR22T parachute and the blue button. Her only fear of flying is if I should somehow become incapacitated.

Textron (let's face it, Cessna doesn't really exist other than a logo anymore) couldn't seem to stop tripping over their own genitals after buying up Columbia. They made mistake after mistake, didn't produce any, moved wing production to Mexico, and screwed that up leading to an FAA AD (against unfinished airplanes that were still in the factory!!!!) thus suspending all production for a year or more, and poured a bunch of money re-certifying it as the TTx, which failed to address anything owners/operators of the LC41 had to say. The TTx a nice plane, with really nice interior styling and nicer LED lighting. But the only substantial change was adding TKS-FIKI, instead of TKS non-FIKI. The biggest complaint anyone had is operating weights, particularly landing and gross takeoff weights. The G2000 is really nice - but it was kind of dumb to go through all of that when G1000 WAAS would have made everyone happy enough, and the NXi even more so.

Then we get the Textron support lack of commitment to the overall market. Lots of glaring examples of that, from a lack of ADS-B support, to lack of NXi. Probably the goofiest is the different versions of the G2000 - different levels of software features enabled, depending on serial number, with no path to update firmware for the earlier versions, despite hardware identicality.

I will give Cirrus respect for better supporting the existing fleet. I'm sure, they're not perfect, but at least they understand that keeping the used market pipeline flowing opens the door to new airplane sales. People who buy a 2019 need a place to sell their 2017 plane and the people who buy that used 2017 need a place to sell their 2014.

Keeping them buying the same brand is great for sales.

Textron never really seemed to get that. Their attitude seems to be, "you bought it, go eff-yourself unless you want a jet."