Recovery parachutes again!

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Peter,

Frankly, it's this kind of second-guessing of pilots who use the BRS that
really irks me.


Exactly right! This machismo stuff really gets on my nerves.

This "second-guessing" and "machismo" are relevant because there is a
very real and honest debate about whether Cirrus's most distinctive
feature actually increases safety in a meaningful manner.

Ilan stated in his account, "Don't fly a single engine plane that isn't
equipped with a parachute."

From my comfortable, stress-free, stationary seat, what saved Ilan was,
first, dumb luck (regaining consciousness before things got really bad)
and second, his own good piloting to get the aircraft back under
control.

Now, having the option to hit the silk at that point, I suspect most of
us, myself included, would be inclined to take it. However, it remains
a fact (by Ilan's account) that he remained fairly lucid throughout the
remainder of the "flight," and if he were in a Diamond Star or even
182, it's not beggaring belief that he would have managed to land, or
crack it up in a dignified and survivable manner.

I cannot shake the sense that the number of cases in which the 'chute
is really the best option are really quite small. Meanwhile, Diamond is
stacking up a remarkable record with the Katana series which have
protected their occupants in all manner of seemingly hopeless (and more
common) screw-ups, and the use of belt-mount airbags, which are easily
fittable to the SR series, promise to prevent not only death but many
kinds of serious and common injuries.

All of this is relevant because the safety provided by the 'chute is a
cornerstone of Cirrus's marketing. Let me be clear: I like the SR
series and I think if Cirrus failed as a business it would be a major
loss for GA. Still, that doesn't mean I should ignore my nose, which
tells me that some non-trivial proportion of pilots would be safer
buying parachute-free Skylanes than SR-22s.

Best,
-cwk.