Another is landing on water/snow/ice covered runways.

I go months without using my brakes.

Mike C.

Mike I think I can agree with you mostly on the parachute .

But can you agree with the following?
Engineer: Holy crap, another parachute save. There sure have been a lot of them lately. There must be something inherently wrong with how this airplane handles or the pilots are all just dumbasses. Either way we need to look into this problem and see if we need to increase the safety of the aircraft and handling or possibly do better with our pilot training.


Marketing: Awesome another parachute save! I sure am glad some dumbass did something stupid and lived to tell about it. That should sell at least another 10 airplanes.

There's a fundamental problem with rational chute use. It causes accidents.

Take a situation - use your imagination - that leaves 1/3 of people who encounter it dead and the rest go on to change their underwear. Up until now that event produces 1 accident per 3 events. With a chute it should typically produce 1 accident per event. Pilots live, passengers live, lotta planes die. But nothing has changed about the pilot or their risk-taking decisions.

That's not to say a chute can't embolden people. But even if it doesn't you should expect many, many more accidents.

First of all, thanks for taking the time to look over my figures.



Yep, that sounds like a good airplane too. Since it's Cirrus, throw in a chute while we're at it.

They are taking Netjets Phenoms, they just don't fly it themselves.

The chute wont change anything in the safety of a jet. Look at all the latest jets accidents, all are on landing or takeoff phase. No use for a chute.
This is no piston engine, turbine engines rarely fail, what is Cirrus trying to achieve with a chute in a jet? Jet airframes dont fail, they are built stronger.
Im with Mike, I dont get it.

It's been explained 500 times in this thread already. We're going in circles at this point.

I dont get it anyway.



It's been explained 500 times in this thread already. We're going in circles at this point.

It makes people feel good. That is all there is to get. Who cares if you want to put numbers and statistics to it. If it makes people feel good they will buy it.

Here's the deal with the chute - most of the people on this forum aren't the target customer. You can rationalize it however you want - you aren't it. We all pride ourselves on being able to fly with both engines falling off (of course you have twice the chance of that happening with a twin), the elevator and aileron jammed, and probably a bit of rudder control. You have to punch holes in the side of windows and extend your arms into the airstream to help turn the plane. I get it - I used to be of this mentality.

BUT - and here is the big BUT - there are plenty of people out there that are the predominant new pilots in GA and they subscribe to the theory that "one mistake shouldn't kill you." Guess what - they will buy the planes. Look at the numbers last year - Cirrus outsold everyone except robinson I think in the GA market.

Cirrus is chasing the money - not the guy that is going to complain about a $5k ADS-B upgrade or even give a second thought to a chute repack cost. You aren't the demographic.

Finally, while I may not think I need a chute, if my kids were out flying solo, I would absolutely, 100% insist on them having it. If the odds were upped just 1% on a survival of a mid-air, fuel issue over terrain, etc, I would pay for it.

The chute isn't really a rational decision - stop trying to make it that way.

Also, I don't understand this whole thread that Crandall has going on about staying high/low in a PC-12 versus a jet. Everyone knows a jet is faster.... JUST KIDDING.

-jason

Yah, I skipped APG as a consideration. The price for this is rather high, for a pilot owner (I think) so I did not include it for the normal process. I do have to admit, APG makes it very easy to do though.

Tim

Jason,

From what I recall, APG is a lot more then that. And if you only fly from flat land airports or only go to the same ones all the time, it is an extra expense an owner flow jet with a 100hrs a year I could foresee dumping.

As for 90% getting all options, that sounds high to me. Now if you say, 90% getting the major options like FIKI, O2, A/C, Turbo I would agree based on what I have been told and by looking at what is for sale on planes just a few years old. Yes, I am nit picking here.

Tim

APG is like $1200 or something a year. Not to sound flippant, but that is about 2-3 hours of fuel for flying - before programs. If you frequent airports that you can make use of it - you use it. If not, then you don't. I want to know my VSpeeds and alternate procedures. I know plenty of guys that don't. I fly in the mountains. Part of the cost of flying a jet. Kind of reminds me about all the TBM guys talking about how you can't do takeoffs in a light jet because of single engine performance issues - let's talk after we each lose one.... :-) (calm down Marc)

I didn't hear that from Cirrus directly, but from two independent sources. Heck, even if it is 75% that is still crazy high.

Glad to see you back Tim - your absence was noted!

-jason

Have not sat on the sidelines and enjoyed a thread as much. Jason, Jason and Tim throwing it down. I'm gonna stop posting.......well, we need a Pilatus thread here soon.

We didn't do Cesscom on the Citation, previous owner gave us a big Excel sheet and we kept it up, worked well and we passed it on to the current owner. I do understand the appeal of automated maintenance tracking though.

I wonder what the maintenance program on the SF50 will look like? I have a hard time thinking they'll do annuals on it, but I also doubt they'd go the full phase inspection style either.