Everyone has to make their own assessment of risk. I think it's equally likely that there are people who want to pretend those risks don't apply to them. Remember there are lies, damned lies and statistics, and if you feel better taking refuge in averages, then be my guest.

As for me, it is coming down to a simple choice, I'm afraid, and that choice will be to mitigate the risk to what I consider to be an acceptable level (Cirrus) or quit flying serious trips with passengers and go airlines when I have to go. I'm not ready to go airlines yet...

A little more research would help you make more credible statements.

Mike C.

If you consider any potential emergency with odds of 1 in 10 million to be worth providing safety equipment on the plane, then it will never leave the ground.

Do you have an AED defib on board? How about rattlesnake antitoxin?

If not, then you are just like the rest of us in taking refuge in averages.

Mike C.

Pilot incapacitation isn't the primary benefit of CAPS in my opinion. I'm interested in the chute because I fly over rugged and/or mountainous terrain and would like the option of coming home late in the evening or in IMC. I would NOT do that in a SE aircraft without a chute. I'm actually thinking of buying a 182 and adding the BRS STC. I really don't care for the 182 but can't afford a Cirrus (nor can I afford to operate a turbo twin). If they had the BRS STC for a 1960s V Tail it would be a done deal for me.

The point is that you CAN mitigate the risk.

Pilots with chutes tend to mitigate the risk LESS, taking risk credit from having a chute.

The proof is in the safety record of the Cirrus. It started worse than average, and is much better very recently.

What changed?

Not the airplane, it is the same.

It isn't because the chute is being used more. There are less fatal+chute events now than before even though the fleet is larger every day.

The mindset of the pilots changed. That is where the true risk of a flight is controlled. Risk CAN be mitigated.

Mike C.

Reductio ad absurdum

Tell me this, do you think the chute mitigates the risks associated with incapacitation or mechanical failure? Yes or no. If yes, then it's only a matter of the degree to which you personally believe that it helps. And you have to consider the costs and benefits associated with taking and mitigating these risks. In my case, as I age, the risks of incapacitation are rising, and now that I include my two little granddaughters (who I adore and trust me completely) in my passenger manifest, along with company employees, there are increasing costs associated with continuing the take these risks, and I have decided to deal with this reality instead of ignoring it.

This doesn't take an advanced degree to understand...

The ongoing cost of the chute is 150# on each and every flight, and a $15,000 repack every 10 years. Something to think about when you're talking about something as rare as pilot incapacitation.

Hire a qualified co pilot. Make your aviation life easier and set your passengers at ease.

True but even with a chute an SR22 has about the same useful load as a G36.

It was your argument, I was just applying it to show you that YOU already use probability in your decision making so telling others they are absurd for doing the same is disingenuous. Assessing probability, or as you say, taking "refuge in averages", is a necessary and required skill of piloting.


Ah, the "force someone to make a black and white choice when the issue is very gray" tactic.

The answer: it depends.

The risk from pilot incapacitation is so low as to not be worth dealing with. There are risks substantially more likely that you should manage first.

The risk from mechanical failure is low, but not so small that it isn't worth considering. I would use the chute the same way others have stated, take a flight in IMC or at night in a single engine piston airplane that I would otherwise not take without it. Today, of course, I mitigate mechanical issues with having redundancy in the propulsion and other systems in my plane.


Do they know how to deploy the chute?

Would they be capable of actually doing it?

Just wondering if the chute really works in this situation.

If subjecting your granddaughters to the 1 in 10 million risk of pilot incapacitation is too much, you should never take them flying at all, chute or not.

Mike C.

If $1000 per year is money, then a Cirrus may not be the right plane.

Pilot incapacitation is one of the least likely scenarios for use of the chute. Most have been due to loss of control, a couple due to mechanical failures.

This is an amazing thread...I don't know where to start, but I'll finish by saying everyone makes their own risk assessments and choices (how many times have I said this?). It is MY risk assessment and choice that counts here. Everyone else makes their own choices. Period....done with the conversation.

Mark,

Don't let this thread get under your skin. This very same subject has been beaten to death here about 98 times.

You entered the fray by saying:

"I am test flying a new SR22 on Friday (really)...as I get older and as none of my passengers are pilots, I am finding the chute to be an attractive and possibly life-saving feature. Not trying to anything up (really)"

...and you may not have known that it was not possible to avoid stirring up this repetitive discussion again. It's all OK; there's nothing new here. Yes, it does get tiresome to take the subtle and the not-so-subtle snipes and jabs, but it's best to just take it and move on.

By the way, I absolutely LOVED the SR22 G2 I had 2004-2007. You will love the plane too! Go for it!

The odds of shark attack are about the same, yet it's enough to keep lots of folks out of the water.

"When your intellect and emotions sit down at the negotiating table, the intellect is usually the first to blink." -- Austin Pryor, writing in a financial newsletter but describing something true in most areas of life.