On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 15:08:55 GMT, Peter Dohm
wrote:

:
:You're certainly right in saying "stay tuned". There are really at least three
:ways to look at this:
:1) Insurance liability is limited to the amount stated in the policy, with
:$300,000 or $1,000,000 per accident being typical for personal injury liability;
:and hull coverage should be related to replacement value of the aircraft.
:Therefore, the insured risk for lives in the air and on the ground *should* be
:up to about 3.3 times the new value of the aircraft. (Disclaimer: I am not in
:the insurance business, I do not currently own or insure an aircraft, and I do
:not pretend to understand the nuances or legalities.)

That's assuming (as everyone has, till now) that pulling the handle
will result in a destroyed aircraft. I'm not sure we're going to find
that. As I understand it, the airplane in the first successful
deployment (the one in Texas, mentioned up higher in the thread) was
bought back by the factory and is flying again.


:2) Product liability seems to be virtually limitless, and I can see an argument
:being made to a jury that the chute should have been deployed automatically. If
:automation is eventually added, I can also see an argument being made that the
:aircraft "would not have been lost if the pilot had been allowed to land it."

:3) I used to like the PA-38 (Tomahawk) despite the poor initial climb that made
:it much too vulnerable to an engine failure on departure; but the Cirrus scares
:the s__t out of me! In fact, I would go so far as to site the Cirrus as a
:reason to *only* fly aircraft which are certified for spins!

I'm sorry, I don't get that. I mean, lots of airplanes that are
certified for spins have been lost in spins. Ignoring the BRS the
Cirrus performance is very good, compared to other things in it's
class.