I never understood honestly if you can spend that kind of money, for sure a used multi engine or turbine pressurized would be my choice….
But that would require more sophistication & training? marketing wants simple things 
The simple C172 are also safe if you know how to fly them but they are useless for any meaningful flying mission !
There are even simpler aircraft like DA40 which by far has the lowest fatality rate as they are “the safest GA aircraft” on technical grounds: it’s due to simple design and benign handling but again they could be useless for the mission utility
On mission utility, the SR22 a very capable aircraft, if I have the money & the runway nearby I would get one right away: it can climb, handles weather, good ergonomics and comfort, lot of fuel endurance with plenty useful load most people buy one because of that, the chute is an extra safety but it’s appealing to some PIC/PAX, now compare that to an SR20, underpowered and way less capable, it won’t even match an Archer in term of utility but it has a chute, although it’s useless for the main risk: runway length, when I used to rent one it was tarmac only & 900m minimum before 100h on it !
One has to keep in mind there is a lion share of accidents that won’t go away with CAPS: hitting terrain in low visibility (I witnessed one recently as I flew same day), landing & takeoff accidents (mostly from runway length), go-around accidents (mostly with load of power in front), loss of control bellow 600ft agl (due to distractions or désorientation)
Vref wrote:
I never understood honestly if you can spend that kind of money, for sure a used multi engine or turbine pressurized would be my choice….
You might want to ask @chesthuntISF (on youtube) who did exactly that. He started out with a C210 and upgraded to a C414. 2 years later he sold the 414 and appeared pretty unnerved about eurocontrol taxes and unreliability of that old airframe. He now owns a SR22T, which cost quite a lot more than he got for the 414.
He explains about it (in German) here.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
They can afford to fly their 12 hours per 2 years (barely) in 200 Euro/hour C172’s or PA28’s, which gives about a budget of 2500 Euros per 2 years.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
But I have heard from many people that “if they had the money” they would fly a CAPS plane.
That is comparing apples with potatoes:
For people who can only afford 12 hrs. per 2 years the whole question is pointless because the cost of the chute (2k per year) is more than that. (and btw. these pilots should not try to fly night IFR anyways…)
For people where money is no factor the whole discussion is pointless as well because why would you fly night IMC in a SEP at all if money is no factor.
But both are not the average GA pilots – in my experience the average GA pilot can (and does) invest something in the ballpark of 4-6k per year into his flying. And for them the question would be “is it safer to fly 20-30 hrs a year w/o chute or 10-15 with”. Easy call I guess.
Therefore I’d argue that if money is the limiting factor it is always safer to fly without chute and invest the money one saved into more flight time.
The chute – and btw. this is exactly in line with the core target group of Cirrus – comes in only for people where money is only a minor factor (and therefore they are not limited by affordability when it comes to flight time but still can’t afford a turbine) compared to the much larger factor of time constraints. For them it is simply not an option to save 2k on the chute and invest them into more training/experience because they do not have the time for this training.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I have to admit, if I had the financial means to fly a BRS equipped plane or a twin, it would be my choice. Just because of that.
Yes I totally agree to that. Of course I would take a twin or a chute on IFR missions, if I had that available. And there is no real reason against that. The only point I want to make is: if you do some proper training, and keep current, to understand and see how to estimate your landings without engine, you can fly just as safe as with a chute or a second engine (let aside missions like long overwater flights). I constantly search on my moving map or outside (when VMC) during flight where would be my landing spot in case I need it. This flows in my blood. It doesn’t even distract me much. This was a reason why I decided: No I don’t need it, I’m fine without.
So the chute, in reality, is an option to skip that experience/training and be able to do the same things.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
if it is used the way Cirrus preaches it, as long as it does not lead to reckless flying “because we have that shute”.
Absolutely.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
You might want to ask @chesthuntISF (on youtube)
A C414 was a big leap I would say..It all depends on the mission…
Lets see what he has to say in three years ;-).
Mooney_Driver wrote:
It does not do anything to explain to a widow or kids wondering why daddy won’t come home that statistically he should be alive now.
With the same reasoning, if you have an illness or injury which is not (immediately) life-treatening but can be fixed by an operation, would you have one? People die of operations. It is very unusual but it happens. So how do you explain that to the widow or kids?
200 Euros does not even cover one hour of flying let alone with an instructor.
In my club you can rent a “non-shagged” IFR-equipped (with A/P) PA28 or C172 for €160/hr airborne and that is not an unusual price – I’ve seen lower.
Airborne_Again wrote:
With the same reasoning, if you have an illness or injury which is not (immediately) life-treatening but can be fixed by an operation, would you have one? People die of operations. It is very unusual but it happens. So how do you explain that to the widow or kids?
No, that was not my reasoning, but I detest the “statistical” approach trying to justify just about everything, from covid deaths to why people die in operations… statistically it’s safe but sorry, he’s gone anyway. Not the way I am thinking I’m afraid. To cynical for me.
As for operations, I know from recent experience when a family member had to have one the detailed briefing you get by the docs before they do an op. So pretty much everyone is on board there, everyone is briefed on the risks and they can come to an educated decision. That is hardly what happens in aviation, at least on a PPL level. There, risk is either not discussed or people are in denial.
Me, I have to say that I’ve sobered quite a bit after some accidents which really hit home in the last few years. Also one reason why I have not been in a hurry to go back flying. I still feel the drive to do it again, but more and more wonder if I personally should, given that after all this kind of aviation DOES bear risks which compare to other things I would not dream of touching with a large barge pole (such as Motorcycles, skiing or Base jumping…) given my role as sole earner in a family.
Airborne_Again wrote:
In my club you can rent a “non-shagged” IFR-equipped (with A/P) PA28 or C172 for €160/hr airborne and that is not an unusual price – I’ve seen lower.
€160 would be close to 200 CHF in normal times. Again, it is a huge difference where you live and what prices you have, but I would think that € 160 is also not a very small sum to pay for a father of a family. Apart, in my own experience, most people have much more problems finding time than money, but that is another problem. In the context of a Warrior or C172 for € 160 the question would be what the same kind of clubs charge for an SR20, if they had any.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
So pretty much everyone is on board there, everyone is briefed on the risks and they can come to an educated decision.
I don’t get your point – “risks” is a term that always relates to statistics. So how can you “detest” the “statistical approach” but still support that everyone is briefed exactly on statistics ?
and they can come to an educated decision.
https://www.waterstones.com/book/the-art-of-statistics/david-spiegelhalter/9780241258767
Unfortunately even high school and business school type statistics provide quite a sketchy grasp of statistics, and politicians/social media torture the discipline to death.
I strongly recommend Sir David Spiegelhalter’s book, very accessible and starts with a discussion what statistical analysis was needed to have intervened earlier in the GP serial killer Harold Shipman.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7958-statistics-could-have-spotted-mass-murderer/
From my Guru: Risk is in the eye of the beholder. For the one who does it, it could be calibrated action.
