Let me start out by saying I'm a PROUD bonanza owner (aren't all S guys!!!) I am a corporate pilot flying helicopters, pc12s, and recently an SR22. When our company got the cirrus the swmbo never really heard of them. I simply said its the plane with the parachute. I showed her a picture and she says "why the hell don't all airplanes have one" I said cause most can recover from spins . But the last few weeks have really got me thinking. I've done everything I can to make myself and my aircraft safe (shoulder harness, engine monitor, emergency briefing to the non fliers). But at the end of the day you can't account for everything. Now I'll admit some parachute pulls have been silly, fuel starvation, pitot failure, spatial disorientation, all things that can be prevented with proper training and planning. But what about other things? Engine failures over rough terrain or at night. With the helicopter I can autorotate into a football field. As long as nothing comes apart I feel ok. With the pc12 the aircraft has so many back up systems and the dependable pt6 along with a 20+ thousand feet up I can glide for a while. A good friend of mine has a cirrus and told me this, "I bought the cirrus because I never want to look at my five and seven year old and say ill do my best in an emergency." That statement has stuck with me. He has a point, walking away from a plane crash with minor back pains is way better than broken bones or death. Granted viewpoints are molded by life experiences and the swmbo watched me go through loosing my father in a plane crash. It's miserable and think that with a parachute that Christmas and birthdays would be so much better. Now the parachute may not have worked and I would still be where I'm at but what if it had been an option. To me this problem plays with the male ego. We all like to think that we can handle the situation and don't need help (how many of us won't as for direction?) Up there were not looking for the restaurant with the swmbo, the consequences for failure are so much higher. I understand the Cirrus has its share of fatal accidents and personally I think them not pulling the chute plays into the male ego of not wanting to admit they couldn't handle the situation. I understand that the chute can't be pulled at any altitude and airspeed. The chute can be pulled around 500agl and catch it, 800 is optimal, and under 133kts. It doesn't take me long to get to 500 even at gross weight on a hot day. My only two real beefs with the cirrus is they couldn't hold enough weight and don't have a separate prop knob. A company now sells an stc'd traditional prop control and with the introduction of the G5 cirrus the weight issue is much better. With the used cirrus market better I'm getting the "I've always liked the cirrus" from the swmbo. So am I less of a pilot for admitting we can't account for everything and that a parachute provides another extra layer of protection? I can't help but notice the overwhelming look of comfort when I tell passengers about the parachute. I can't help thinking about my friends statement and my fathers accident. Am i wrong for this? Alright I got tough skin lets hear it

I think about it, too. Enough I check Controller from time to time.

Then I fly the Bo. Geez, I love it. But then there's that chute.

It may be something I have to try. I feel ya, brother.

Shawn,

Deepest sympathies regarding your father. I think about "what if" all the time....especially if my family is with me. I try to be as careful and safe as I can. I wonder quite a bit about a parachute.............maybe just for piece of mind.

Shawn,

From a purely emotional perspective, I want options! I want a second engine or I want a parachute. You can cite as many stats about the PT6 reliability, human failure the mostly likely cause, MIF. Does not matter. At the end of the day, I fly enough and I have the financial ability I want a second engine or I want the chute for any serious XC machine. If I did not go decide to pressuized I would likely have gone for the DA42NG or upgraded the SR20 for a SR22. And that new GW increase would really have pushed me in that direction of the SR22.

Tim

So far, the safety record of the SR22 has not been better than comparable legacy airframes like Mooneys, Bonanzas or Comanches. Depending on how you select your data, it is arguably worse. Cirrus points to all these 'saves', if one took those 'saves' at a fatality rate of 30%, the safety record of the SR22 would probably be considerably worse than the legacy airframes. Now, the great majority of GA accidents are the result of general purpose pilot knuckleheadedness, the Cirri are no exception. So the influence of technical factors on the overall fatality rate is going to be limited. If 8.5 out of 10 accidents are caused by the nut that holds the sidestick, you are going to have more influence on the accident rate if you improve training.

What is chiefly needed is skill rather than machinery. The flight of the buzzard and similar sailors is a convincing demonstration of the value of skill and the partial needlessness of motors.
It is possible to fly without motors, but not without knowledge and skill. This I conceive to be fortunate, for man, by reason of his greater intellect, can more reasonably hope to equal birds in knowledge than to equal nature in the perfection of her machinery... Wilbur Wright in a letter to Octave Chanute



I am 'aircraft promiscuous', I would gladly fly one if the opportunity came around.

Florian you would be right about the human factor being a big culprit. My take on the high accident rate of the cirrus is this. One the cirrus doesn't fly like a Saratoga or a 210 or bonanza. It flies like a cirrus. It's a slippery airplane and approaches fast and most pilots were not prepared for it. The second big thing that sticks out is the fact that the cirrus was the first single engine piston to bring glass technology into their aircraft. You have guys going from adfs to a full glass cockpit. The cirrus owners are generally older. The cockpit is like working a computer. I went to cirrus school and myself and two others were the only ones under 40, out of 65 people. I'm 25 and have no problems using the technology. So you have older guys with technology overload in an airplane that flies nothing like their ole 182. These factors can 100% be helped with proper training. But florian I ask you, you have an engine failure over rough terrain or a wooded area. What are your options? Without a parachute or a second BIG engine, you're setting up best glide and flying the plane all the way through the accident and hoping for the best.

You have my sympathies for you father.

All I have to say is we've been flying for 100 years without a parachute and we all still love it.

We wake up every morning thankful for a new day, live it to the fullest. Enjoy flying your bird!






ps. you could always purchase a baron. id pick two engines over a parachute.

My VP (a Cirrus owner) is trying really hard to talk me out of a Baron and into a Cirrus.

Ah, Wilbur me boy, ye were ever the optimist.

With should harnesses, if you fly a Bo to the ground and land in a football field, you will be slow enough to survive practically unhurt. And YOU select the landing site, which is not the case with the parachute.

Bottom line:

- when the parachute is deployed at an appropriate altitude and speed, it saves those in the plane...nearly all the time.

- very very few crashes are due to the feared engine failure over inhospitable terrain, low IMC, or big city.

- statistically, the parachute has not made the Cirrus a "safer" plane.

- statistically, adding a second engine has not made twin-engine planes safer than singles.

IT'S MOSTLY ABOUT US -- NOT SO MUCH ABOUT THE CHOICE OF AIRPLANE..

All the statistics and logic in the world will not necessarily make someone stop wishing for a parachute.

You might be able to glide a single engine plane down safely, but what if it is night, imc, inhospitable terrain. The parachute does give one another option. Regardless if the Cirris has not proven to be safer statistically. Many people I meet ask if I fly with a parachute on my back. Their mindset seems to be a small airplane requires the occupants to wear one. They think if the engine quits everyone will die.

The macho in us would typically say "I don't need a stinking parachute" The reality is it is a nice insurance policy and one hopes to never need it.

That's great, if its not night, or IMC, and you can see the field, and there are not stands and you miss the lights and goal posts....

Because the plane has a chute system doesn't remove the other human factors. How many pilots have ejected outside the envelope? Why don't most GA pilots wear a chute now? They don't cost that much. I think it comes down to personal risk management decisions not a male ego thing.