Another Cirrus BRS deployment:

And another one -

http://www.mysouthernalberta.com/leth/front_page.php

So what's the deal? Are these chutes really good, or are Cirrus crashing
more than most?
If you google search this one, the pilot claims that the crash was due
to uneven fuel consumption - In 135 miles? He left Kelowna which is my
home field. No way would uneven fuel at Nakusp cause a spin. I fly from
Kelowna to Nakusp on left tank only in my 172H.

There is a lot more to this than meets the eye



Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Almost Instrument
Cessna 172H C-GICE

Richard,

Well, perhaps they are paying off with no injuries, but keep in mind that
hull insurance is much more expensive than liability insurance and keep in
mind that chute deployments seem to virtually assure totalled Cirrus
airframes.


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

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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)

Tony,

There is a lot more to this than meets the eye


which is the reason why professional accident investigation doesn't
happen on internet newsgroups.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

That depends on how many pilots get trigger happy about pulling the
'chute in otherwise recoverable situations.

This will certainly happen. (And in fact would probably be the right
decision: why risk a dead-stick landing in a field that may be full of
rocks or gopher holes or worse, when you can float down instead?)

The criminal justice system has found that "electronic handcuffs",
which confine an individual to house arrest, and which were supposed
to cut down on the prison population, did no such thing. Instead,
judges began sentencing folks to house arrest instead of putting them
on probation.

That's the problem with softer alternatives: they're apt to increase
the wrong side of the equation. In this case, increasing cracked-up
planes rather than decreasing fatal crashes.


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

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

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message
...

All Cirrus are actually fixed-gear.

Oops... slipped there... I should say compared to other "comparable
aircraft." It was in this thinking mode because it is hard to come up with
another example of a fix-gear single which insurers treat with strict
undewriting requirements.




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

www.flyimc.com

"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

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 04:37:34 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
wrote:


"TaxSrv" wrote in message
...

From what do you get demographic? Anyway, my crude method: FAA
registration records indicate the vast majority of the approx. 1,000
are corporate-owned, and many names suggest more than just holding

Take a look at Aviation Safety March 2004. The Cirrus SR20 fatal accident
rate per 100,000 hours is 3.91 and the SR22 rate is 1.34. This contrasts
with rates for the Cessna 182S of 1.09, Diamond DA20 of 0.28, Diamond DA40
of 0.00, and Lancair LC-40 of 0.00

Total accidents of the SR22 were 6 in 150,000 hours vs. the Diamond DA20
with 5 in 361,000 hours and the C182S with 30 in 645,000 hours.

3 comments on these statistics...

At this point, the Cirrus fleet is still pretty young - a single
accident can probably skew those numbers pretty badly.

From a performance standpoint, I think the Cirrus is more comparable
to a BE35 than a C182. I wonder how it it compares in the accident
numbers?

Last, it would be interesting to see a plot of accidents against time
for several aircraft types. I suspect that most new types have an
'impulse' of accidents when first introduced, and then level off to
some lower steady state. I suspect this for a few reasons:
Airframe/engine bugs may not be worked out (this is especially true in
homebuilts), and lack of proper training for the aircraft, plus there
will always be a number of pilots who want the latest/greatest thing,
and purchase a plane they shouldn't be flying.

-Nathan

"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