On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 06:35:05 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote:

Jose wrote:
The fact is that the pilot of a parachute-equipped aircraft has one
option more than the pilot of one that doesn't have a chute.

All things being equal, this is the case. But in the Cirrus, all
things aren't equal. You lose the option of standard spin recovery in
exchange for the chute.

It is true that the options aren't equal, but the human _survival_ odds
actually favor the Cirrus than the spin-recoverable plane. Given the same

The Cirrus is spin recoverable. As Ron said, it's just not certified
for them.

pilot in either plane, there are theoretically more spin accident scenarios
where the pilot in the Cirrus can come out alive than in the non-chute-
equipped plane. This assumes of course that spin-recoverable plane requires
a higher altitude to recover than successful BRS deployment and that the
pilot in both cases executes the correct recovery sequence in time.

Theoretically, as far as I can tell, there should be a higher probability
of wrecked Cirrus planes relative to spin-recoverable planes _but_ a lower
probability of fatalities relative to the spin-recoverable planes.

Avweb has an article on the recent Cirrus accidents in its latest "issue":

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive.../733-full.html

Here's an article that discusses the motivation for the chute and why
Cirrus considers the use of CAPS superior to spin recovery:

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/chutehappens/qa/index.html
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com