"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...
What volume of chute deployments will turn the Cirrus into the safest GA
airplane but ironically economically non-viable to insure?

As Dan says, it depends on the nature of why the BRS is deployed. However,
the system is sold as a "the airframe is already a total loss anyway"
recovery item, so one would hope that a pilot would NOT use it when the
airframe wouldn't have been a total loss. Generally, when the BRS is
deployed, the net loss to an insurance company should be LESS, not more,
than it otherwise would have been, even with a destroyed airframe (since
there will be recoverable parts of the airframe, engine, and avionics, to
offset the payout).

Add to that the savings in medical expenses or death liability, and I can't
imagine that having a BRS installed would ever wind up creating an airplane
that's not a viable insurance risk.

Pete