Another Cirrus BRS deployment:

Richard,

You are correct that the parachute SHOULD only be used in those situations;
whether that turns out to be so in practice is unknown at present.


I don't understand this. We're talking about a life-saving device, people
start using it and some here actually suggest those pilots weren't macho
enough to try to get out of their emergency without being a sissy and pulling
the chute? This is unbelievable. "Real men don't use chutes"? What BS!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

I don't understand this. We're talking about a life-saving device, people
start using it and some here actually suggest those pilots weren't macho
enough to try to get out of their emergency without being a sissy and
pulling
the chute? This is unbelievable. "Real men don't use chutes"? What BS!

Why do you suppose ejection seats are not permitted on civilian airplanes?
They would be life-saving, too.

The problem is coming to a happy medium. If the chute were to be pulled in
ANY emergency then the airplane would become impractical because there would
be too many damaged airframes, albeit no injuries. The question is WHERE
does one draw the line at when to pull the chute? There are some agreed-upon
situations but also some grey areas.


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

www.flyimc.com

The problem with the report I read is that the cause of the "out of
control" situation was not apparent. Was it a gust of wind?
Turbulence? Pilot error? Did a wing fall off?

If someone uses a parachute to save a plane when the mixture was
pulled out or a tank ran dry, then the parachute is a crutch for pilot
error.

Get the facts on this incident and we can discuss it better.

Ron Lee


You are correct that the parachute SHOULD only be used in those situations;
whether that turns out to be so in practice is unknown at present.


I don't understand this. We're talking about a life-saving device, people
start using it and some here actually suggest those pilots weren't macho
enough to try to get out of their emergency without being a sissy and pulling
the chute? This is unbelievable. "Real men don't use chutes"? What BS!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

keep in
mind that chute deployments seem to virtually assure totalled Cirrus
airframes.

Actually, the 1st Cirrus deployed under chute (Lionel Morrison's last year) was
repaired, exhibited at AOPA and back flying.
Initial reports of the two latest deployments indicate minor to moderate damage
to the airframe. Even if the airframe is not repairable, there should be a high
salvage return on the avionics ,engine, interior & other undamaged parts.

I think the highest cost to an insurance company is medical/death payments,.not
hull repair. Hull insurance cost is a small percentage of hull value, and thus
pretty high on ANY high value aircraft.

John

"ISLIP" wrote in message
...
keep in
mind that chute deployments seem to virtually assure totalled Cirrus
airframes.

Actually, the 1st Cirrus deployed under chute (Lionel Morrison's last
year) was
repaired, exhibited at AOPA and back flying.
Initial reports of the two latest deployments indicate minor to moderate
damage
to the airframe. Even if the airframe is not repairable, there should be a
high
salvage return on the avionics ,engine, interior & other undamaged parts.

I think the highest cost to an insurance company is medical/death
payments,.not
hull repair. Hull insurance cost is a small percentage of hull value, and
thus
pretty high on ANY high value aircraft.


Yep, I agree with that. I remember several years ago when I went to purchase
my first Mercedes. I was concerned that because the car was $80k, the
insurance premiums would be considerably above what I had paid on other
cars. I mentioned this to the dealer, and he told me that the insurance
rates would be equal to or less than any other car I would buy because the
Mercedes was so safe. The insurance companies don't care much about having
to repair or even total out a car, regardless of it's cost, because the real
expense for them is with injury and death settlements. An $80k car is
nothing compared to a million-dollar injury/death situation, and they would
rather insure an expensive but safe car than a cheap but potentially
dangerous one. As it turns out, the dealer was right, and my insurance
quotes were between 10% and 20% less than what I was paying for my previous
car.

I would imagine that the Cirrus would be along the same lines. If anything,
insurance costs for these planes should wind up well below average, as the
injury/death statistics begin to accumulate in their favor. Totaling or
fixing a hull, even on an expensive plane, is nothing compared to having to
fix a person.

The insurance companies don't care much about having
to repair or even total out a car, regardless of it's cost,

Not the case in New Hampshire. I pay two bills, one for liability and
one for collision (and others for comprehensive, etc., but never
mind).

The liabilty is pretty standard across automobiles. The collision
varies hugely, by accident rate, cost to purchase and repair, and
especially by the drivers it is likely to attract. What you say may be
true of Mercedes--most models are staid middle-aged professional
cars--but that's because of their styling, not their cost.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

"ISLIP" wrote in message
...

I think the highest cost to an insurance company is medical/death
payments,.not
hull repair. Hull insurance cost is a small percentage of hull value, and
thus
pretty high on ANY high value aircraft.

Liability insurance rates (which pay medical/death payments) do not rise all
that much as airplane values rise.

Hull values rise substantially as airplane values rise.

For airplanes in the economic class as a Cirrus, hull insurance almost
certainly costs more than liability insurance.

For a commercial insurance policy on my P210, full in-motion and
not-in-motion hull insurance costs 4 times the price of liability
insurance -- that is no exaggeration.


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

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...
Liability insurance rates (which pay medical/death payments) do not rise
all
that much as airplane values rise.

That's because the liability exposure has more to do with how many people
the airplane carries, and how much OTHER people's airplanes and other
property costs than it does with how much the insured airplane costs.

So what?

Hull values rise substantially as airplane values rise.

So what?

For airplanes in the economic class as a Cirrus, hull insurance almost
certainly costs more than liability insurance.

So what?

For a commercial insurance policy on my P210, full in-motion and
not-in-motion hull insurance costs 4 times the price of liability
insurance -- that is no exaggeration.

So what? None of the things you've mentioned have anything to do with how
the installation of a BRS would affect the economics of insurance a
particular airplane.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

So what? None of the things you've mentioned have anything to do with how
the installation of a BRS would affect the economics of insurance a
particular airplane.

What I am saying is that before this weekend, the accident rate for the
Cirrus was already higher than expected in comparison to airplanes with
similar missions -- there was a good article about this recently in Aviation
Consumer. Now that there have been 2 more accidents in a fleet of only
1,000 we can be sure the underwriters will seriously take a look at the
numbers again and will not be likely to consider the statistics to be an
abberation.

Suppose it were the case that no one is injured in any BRS accidents but a
trend is noticed that pilots with a BRS tend to be conservative and pull the
chute in situations felt after-the-fact to be recoverable. In that case,
liability rates for a Cirrus might go down but hull rates could go up. If
hull insurance already costs more than liability for a Cirrus-class airplane
and liability insurance cannot go down to zero, the net effet of increased
hull insurance and some decrease in liability could well mean a substantial
increase in insurance costs for Cirrus owners.

Again, I certainly do not know for sure that this will occur... it is a
plausible scenario, though, based on the existing accident record of the
Cirrus. Only time will say for sure how this turns out.

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

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" writes:

Suppose it were the case that no one is injured in any BRS accidents but a
trend is noticed that pilots with a BRS tend to be conservative and pull the
chute in situations felt after-the-fact to be recoverable. In that case,
liability rates for a Cirrus might go down but hull rates could go up. If

Keep in mind that, on pretty much a daily basis, pilots (and
passengers) die in situations that feel "after-the-fact to be
recoverable." This underscores the fact that just because *you* feel
a situation is recoverable clearly does not mean that the pilot in
that plane could have recovered.

Happily, the insurance market is at least *somewhat* competitive, and
the Cirrus market has great promise (as well as risk) due to the fact
that Cirrus will build more planes this year than anybody.
Underwriters are sensitive to dollar losses and ultimately will price
premiums to accommodate their payouts. If there are a lot of dollars
paid on Cirri claims, the premiums will go up. If not, competition
will bring the prices down. It is generally the case that the
underwriters don't really care *why* they have to pay (short of
egregious or illegal behavior) but only care how much and how large
the premium pool is to cover the losses.

As a Cirrus owner I've seen my insurance premiums drop by 50% and then
go up by 80% (two fatal accidents in five days last year pretty much
tapped out the pool.) It's cyclic; they get scared when there are
losses to pay, and then undercut each other on premiums when things
quiet down. As the fleet grows, the depth of the cycles flattens out.

I think we can safely say that Cirrus premiums *will* go up and they
also *will* go down. It's not static by any means.