What would be interesting in this regard would be the CAPS events which resolved
- engine failures in IMC/Night/non recoverable situations
- structural damage including mid air collisions or structural failures
- crew incapacitation
or other factors which will cause a severe accident in any non-CAPS equipped aircraft regardless if there is a competent pilot at the controls or not.
In other words, cases which were not brought about by lack of airmanship.
The list of 15 reads like a confirmation for those who criticize the CAPS system (unjustified in my view) as a free for all to throw away caution and just fly regardless, because you have it. Apart from the two which were events where the passenger pulled the handle without authorisation, where the CAPS system actually was the reason for the hull loss in the first place.
And that is a pity. To use the existence of a system like this to behave recklessly is contraproductive to the maximum and gives a good airframe a bad name just because people are too negligent because they know they have the shute. That is exactly what should not happen. And that does not go for Cirrus folks but for any airframe which has such a system.
I don’t understand the negative views some forum members have on the Cirrus parachute.
Adding a parachute to your aircraft and getting appropriate training on how to use it will reduce the risk profile if your flying profile remains the same.
Simply because it offers a way out in situations where you would otherwise have little options left.
@ Mooney Driver,
all of these scenarios happened, all more than once. In all cases I know the outcome was all occupants uninjured. To date there were 53 CAPS deployments and 107 uninjured occupants.
The FIRST 15 I listed were all from the beginning of the SR22s carreer, so they are not completely representative.
BUT: Open a list of all Mooney, Cessna, Piper, Socata, Robin … accidents and they all will be of this quality. Almost all of the accidents of GA SEP’s "could have " been prevented. By “Monday Morning Quarterbacks” anyway.
I knew a 15.000 hour Lufthansa captain who died when he tried to shut the door of his Baron at 100 ft AGL, I have talked to Scott Crossfield, the famous X-15 test pilot who really flew his C-210 into a Thunderstorm and died, and I knew about 10 more famous or very experienced other pilots through my work as a journalist who died in tragic accidents. I am very well aware of the fact that I will never be a pilot of the Scott Crossfield calibre. But i am also pretty sure that nobody here will either. Each and every one of us might make a potentially deadly mistake one day, even a completely stupid one. And in the Cirrus your chances to survive such an accident are higher (of course not from 100 ft AGL).
That’s all there really is to it.
I have studied GA accidents for 10 years and I have written more than 100 articles about them, and they all have in common that they were “completely unnnecessary.”
Cirrus pilots are just as good or bad as Mooney or Socata pilots, and it’s really only very few cases where pilots took off into dangerous conditions just because they had “CAPS on board”.
@Peter No, wasn’t thinking of AF447, that was a pilot induced stall. Rather the Buffalo crash (Colgan Air) and other TP flights where the AP actually doesn’t have stall protection. Another one was at the Lofotes I think, approach at night and stall on final. Scary as hell when you read the report, they recovered only meters above the water. The co-pilot had to complain after this incident because it was not being properly investigated by the Norwegian authorities. You can find this and other cases on Avherald.
Edit: here’s the link – they were not on AP but still something you wouldn’t expect from such a crew: http://avherald.com/h?article=487ffab8/0001&opt=0
More cases:
http://avherald.com/h?article=43cca6ed/0001&opt=0
http://avherald.com/h?article=477c75de/0004&opt=
cobalt enjoyed the real experience review. Have only flown the Mooney 20J once, but was surprised at the good handling. The rear seat is more spacious than the iconic Super 21’s. Still the efficiency champion in a well constructed design.
I sympathise on the assessment of the PA28R. A lot of complexity for only another 10 knots over a well trimmed Archer, however these are good workhorses with honest characteristics and predictable maintenance. The original 1968 -180 strikes me as well balanced, a bit of a sleeper, and a good utility aircraft.
Never flown the Cirrus but owners love them, so their relative commercial success must be built on some emotional satisfaction as they get repeat sales.
Flyer59 wrote:
But i agree that you, Michael and Peter do not need such silly stuff.
Get serious Alexis.
For the record, since you obviously don’t “get it”, my position is very simple :
IMHO, Ballistic Recovery Systems have some value, but not enough to warrant the additional cost, maintenance burden or weight.Hence, I would NEVER trade my Lancair Columbia / Ttx for a Cirrus. 
What does that really mean if the G5 has a higher payload than a Ttx – and is also cheaper?
Flyer59 wrote:
What does that really mean if the G5 has a higher payload than a Ttx – and is also cheaper?
It means that the Ttx is a BETTER PLANE !
Got it ?
So without the parachute and with a lower payload, a smaller cabin, worse visibility … it is the “better airplane” just because it’s 20 knots faster …. although it’s even more expensive?
I am trying to get it!! It’s just so damn hard!
Superior handling,
Superior build quality
Superior range
Superior climb
Superior cruise efficiency
AND Way more SEXXY look !
What’s NOT to get ?
