I own an SR22. I just made a deal to join a partnership in a Meridian. I told her about it beforehand, but now she's upset because the new plane still only has one engine and it doesn't have a parachute. She doesn't (won't?) understand the turbine vs piston argument. I've shown her the data about the rarity of inflight shutdowns to no avail. Any suggestions on how to present the advantages to a totally non technical and skeptical audience? BTW, I'm not getting a new wife. There are other good reasons to keep her.

Tell her to fly Commercial... that's what I do.

"I'll see ya there"!!!

Your chance of dying in a Cirrus is at least as great or greater than your chance of dying in the Meridian. Period. With or without a parachute. End of discussion.

Give her a parachute

Here we have the exact the scenario Cirrus is banking on with the SF50.

Let me help your wife. “Honey, not only does it have a chute but its 50 kts faster, has no prop to FOD, and it fits in a low-cost THangar. What I haven’t told you is I’m only partially worried about the plane failing. The chute helps me in the event YOU fail.”

Unfortunately, the logical argument here is to explain that the chute isn't all that effective which will make her less fond of the SR series you presently own, and maybe sour her on GA in general. The stupidity of others is what makes the statistics and you will be guilty by association.

For example, in the last 18 months, been 12 SR fatal crashes, and only 1 non fatal chute deployment, and even that one was in a situation that was highly unlikely to be fatal (engine failure on a clear day over a large empty field). So the chute effectiveness lately has been essentially zero. The chute is VERY far from a 100% reliable means to escape a fatal accident.

Also, there have been only 14 fatal crashes of turbine PA-46 (Meridian, M500, M600, and JetProp) in their entire history. When you read through the causes, the vast majority would not have been prevented by a chute and are highly likely to be pilot caused.

Of the 14 turbine PA46 fatal crashes, 11 are in the US and have these probable causes (newest first):

The pilot's failure to maintain clearance from power lines while returning to the airport after becoming distracted by a noncritical flight instrumentation anomaly indication.

The pilot’s loss of airplane control during takeoff, which resulted from his impairment or incapacitation due to an acute cardiac event.

The pilot's loss of airplane control due to spatial disorientation and light ice accumulation while operating in night, instrument meteorological conditions with gusting wind.

The pilot's encounter with convective weather, which resulted in a loss of airplane control.

The pilot’s failure to maintain airspeed in instrument meteorological conditions, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall.

The pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane during final approach for landing in night, visual meteorological conditions for undetermined reasons.

The pilot's failure to execute an instrument approach. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's impairment due to recent use of over-the-counter medication

The pilot's failure to activate the pitot heat as per the checklist, resulting in erroneous airspeed information due to pitot tube icing, and his subsequent failure to maintain aircraft control. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's continued flight in an area of known adverse weather.

The unqualified pilot's continued flight into known instrument meteorological conditions which resulted in spatial disorientation and subsequent loss of aircraft control. Factors were the pilot's lack of instrument flight experience and the low ceiling.

The pilot's unstabilized approach and his failure to maintain obstacle clearance. Contributing factors were the dark night light condition, and the static wires.

The pilot's excessive bank angle and his failure to maintain airspeed while returning to the airport after takeoff due to an unspecified problem resulting in the airplane stalling and colliding with trees during the resultant uncontrolled descent.

You will notice that EVERY ONE starts with "The pilot's...". They are all caused by a pilot mishandling the plane, usually in situations far too low to the ground to be saved by a chute. So be a competent pilot and you virtually eliminate your chance of crashing. That is FAR more effective than getting a chute.

Even the three foreign accidents suggest a chute would not help:

The airplane crashed during an instrument approach to the La Crete Airport.

... crashed in a wooded area during a visual approach ...

Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed in the area at the time, and a visual flight rules flight plan was filed.

In short, it isn't clear that if a PA-46 had a chute, that it would have prevented ANY of the fatal accidents.

Also note that complete lack of engine failure in ANY of the fatal PA46 turbine accidents. Meanwhile, the SR series has had at least two fatal accidents due to engine failure in the last 18 months where the chute did not help.

For the most part, planes don't crash, pilots do.

Mike C.

I heard these exact words a few days ago.

Thanks Mike. I'm going to forward your post to her.

you guys are missing the forest for the trees. Many times, the non-pilot spouse recognizes that airplanes have redundancy and emergency procedures to follow. The single point failure they see is the pilot. If the pilot has a stroke, what do they do ? Telling them to "pull this red handle" is a comforting answer.

The accident history of the SR series shows this to be a highly unlikely event.

I don't believe there has ever been a successful chute activation by a passenger on their own initiative.

By "successful", I mean the chute deployment had a material impact on the accident outcome, that is, done at a high enough altitude and slow enough airspeed for the chute to work

By "initiative", I mean the passenger decided by themselves to deploy the chute without direction from the pilot.

I know of only two cases where the passenger activated the chute in the SR series. In one case, the pilot commanded the deployment and the passenger complied. In the other case, it was at very low altitude after hitting power lines.

SR pilots are having a hard enough time, even with special training, trying to activate the chute at the right time (witness 12 fatals, 0 chute saves in last 18 months). It is delusional to think an untrained passenger can do it properly.

Mike C.

Says the bachelor...

The accident history of the SR series shows this to be a highly unlikely event.

I don't believe there has ever been a successful chute activation by a passenger on their own initiative.

By "successful", I mean the chute deployment had a material impact on the accident outcome, that is, done at a high enough altitude and slow enough airspeed for the chute to work

By "initiative", I mean the passenger decided by themselves to deploy the chute without direction from the pilot.

I know of only two cases where the passenger activated the chute in the SR series. In one case, the pilot commanded the deployment and the passenger complied. In the other case, it was at very low altitude after hitting power lines.

SR pilots are having a hard enough time, even with special training, trying to activate the chute at the right time (witness 12 fatals, 0 chute saves in last 18 months). It is delusional to think an untrained passenger can do it properly.

Mike C.

It may be "comforting", but it isn't realistic. 7 million SR flight hours, 0 such cases.

A pinch hitter's course is likely to be more effective and also likely to create a better understanding of everything going on. This potentially makes the passenger helpful during normal operations as well.

Mike C.

It may be "comforting", but it isn't realistic. 7 million SR flight hours, 0 such cases.

A pinch hitter's course is likely to be more effective and also likely to create a better understanding of everything going on. This potentially makes the passenger helpful during normal operations as well.

Mike C.

Says the bachelor...