View Single Post
  #9  
Old April 12th 04, 05:17 PM
Richard Kaplan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

Uhm, you think it would help insurance rates if these people were dead and
the planes totalled? Sorry, can't follow your logic.


I do not think anyone has any clear answer on what the long-term track
record of the Cirrus will be from either an economic or a safety
perspective -- this is all open for discussion and there will no doubt be
many viewpoints around for quite some time.

If the parachute is used in situations which would have caused serious or
fatal injury without the parachute, then of course it will turn out to be a
terrific device long-term.

On the other hand, if it turns out that the parachute is used often in
situations which may well have been recoverable with no airplane damage and
no injury, then the increased cost to insure the Cirrus could become
impractical.

The question really comes down to how often will the BRS be engaged in
situations which were doomsday scenarios vs. how often will it be engaged in
situations which are typically recoverable in a conventional airplane. No
one know the answer to this yet -- not you, not me, not anyone. It will be
worthwhile to observe and see how the statistics bear out.

Unfortunately, the initial Cirrus statistics show a much higher accident and
fatality rate for the Cirrus vs. competing airplanes -- no one knows for
sure yet if this is a function of the airplane, the pilots, the mission
profiles the airplane is used for, or whatever other reason. Again, no one
knows for sure... but it is very worthwhile to keep an eye on this and see
how the long-term statistics turn out.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com