You don't need one! the Royal Turbine has so much excess power you would be tempted to just fly on to your destination or a appropriately chosen maintenance facility on 1 engine..

Perhaps one day there will be a fixall. But in aviation math it will consume one side of the cost versus benefit. I like the safety backup of Cirrus. They are nice machines. We all minimize risks in otherways. I had a guy ride back to the homefield in a 172 because my plane has the famously dangerous V tail.
25 thats young in BT years, you have alot of great experience in that amount of time.

$1k per year is pretty dang cheap in airplane money.

A lot cheaper than carrying around (and caring for) a second engine.

10,000$ at least every 10 years for repacking is mighty negative. Carrying it around too, I'd rather have AC... or fuel for that weight, if safety is important.

I think this whole thread is kinda funny.
For some the parachute like a second engine is an emotional item.
Others try and use logic to get to the point.
Others look at like insurance.
At the end of the day, the chute presents options. Good and bad. Like many things, how the pilot / user makes or justifies the chute and if it affects the flying may be good or bad.

So for all those which have insurance but state the chute is a bad idea. How can you justify one and not the other? They both offer additional protection.

For all those which state they would rather spend the 1K a year annual ammoratized cost of the chute on training. Why not skip insurance and spend the money on additional training, it will reduce your risks?

For those that state they only fly day VFR in a single. Look at the crash reports, you are more likely to crash and/or have a fatal accident. More crashes are VMC (I am including scud running here) than IMC; since the pilot is the major weakness, focus on yur skills and fly the heck out of the airplane.

Most of flying is about risk mitigation. Pick your risks, I like to fly at night, IMC does not really matter to me. Therefore I want a fall back option in case it goes to hell in a hand basket. I know I am the most likely failure point. I therefore retrain as much as possible (I prefer a refresher flight every few months -- due for one now actually). The chute is a significantly cheaper fallback option compared to a second engine.

Lastly, as part of risk mitigation, consider where you fly. If I mostly flew over the midwest with the farms and rolling hills, that would be one thing. But I fly a lot over cities and the small mountains on the east. The condition of the land affects a lot of pilots appreciation or lack there of for what risks he/she is comfortable with.

Tim

You don't need one! the Royal Turbine has so much excess power you would be tempted to just fly on to your destination or a appropriately chosen maintenance facility on 1 engine..

Tim is hitting the nail on the head. The parachute is NOT a substitution for poor pilotage. Its an insurance policey for when the unexpexted happens. You can complain about the parachute repack every ten years, but break it down, it's 83.00 A MONTH. Another good argument is how much will you spend in your landing gear over a ten year span? I love my bonanza, but I'm planning on using a chute as a LAST choice not first. It's just an additional layer of safety. Just because statistically it's a low risk of happening doesn't mean it won't. Walking around with this "won't happen to me" outlook is naieve. I was one of them until I started burying friend and family.

Here is how I look at it. With careful planning and good judgment I can avoid the conditions which lead to these 85% of accidents. No matter how good a pilot I am, however, there are things I can't control, like engine failures over inhospitable terrain, mid-airs, and control surface failures. Coincidentally, the chute is a great tool for these situations.

If you are a prudent, safe pilot and fly a BRS-equipped plane, your risk exposure is pretty much limited to the first 500 ft of the climb. That must be a comforting feeling.

And below 133 KIAS not out of control.

And below 133 KIAS not out of control.

a friend of mine is looking at a new or newer airplanes and had this to say about his recent demo flight in a cirrus.



Growing up I always heard that 4 wheel drive will only get you stuck further out. I wonder with some pilots if the Cirrus parachute is the same.

This same friend of mine sank his pickup in the Canadian river just south of Norman one cold January night.

In a fixed gear airplane, a parachute really does have a purpose. If you have a forced landing in a muddy field, you're probably going to flip. Many deaths (and serious injuries) might not have occurred if not for the flip.

In the earlier days of Cirrus, Columbia was a serious competitor, and they were both fighting to be the composite, single piston leader. In that case the Cirrus won, and the parachute was an important reason. Flipping is one reason I didn't buy a Columbia, although I really preferred the way they fly.

Bonanzas give you the choice of a gear up and a belly landing in mud or water, and a decent likelihood of staying upright. Maybe that's why Beech owners are splitting hairs on the parachute idea?

I'll bet most of us would prefer a parachute over a flip!

There's a lot of talk about the chute providing options.

I feel that in most cases it is possible to fly in a way that would leave one with options should one loose the engine in a traditional single.

However, regardless what you drive, if the incident occurs at the worst possible moment, it will leave you without options.

E.g.:
- Just after departure in a twin fully loaded with climbing terrain.
- In a single on top over mountainous terrain.
- IMC in a Cirrus without enough altitude to execute the chute (departure or approach).

I think the only way to get entirely risk free flying is to use a sim.

Not if it has the full Robertson package.....

Arne,

Just FYI, for the Cirrus, that is less than 500ft AGL. If Approach, continue to land you should be dam close. If on take off, you land straight ahead as with an other single -- but you are unable to pull the chute for just a very short period.

Tim