Selective quote from Wiki:
Between 2001 and September 2012 144 US-registered Cirrus SR22 aircraft crashed, resulting in 115 fatalities.
In 2011 the accident record of the SR20 and 22 was the subject of a detailed examination by Aviation Consumer magazine. The review concluded that the series has an overall accident record that is better than average for light aircraft, exceeded only by the Diamond DA40 and DA42. However its fatal accident rate is much worse at 1.6 per 100,000 flight hours, placing it higher than the United States general aviation rate of 1.2 and higher than the Diamond DA40 (0.35), Cessna 172 (0.45), Diamond DA42 (0.54), Cessna 182 (0.69) and the Cessna 400 (1.0), despite the SR22's full aircraft parachute system.
The accident rate per 100.000 flight hours was very high in the beginning and in more recent years have stabilized to about the same rate as other manufacturers. It is definitely not lower, despite all the safety features on board. I talked about this earlier. The human behavior and the amount of risk a pilot is willing to take does not change per person/pilot flying, but does change per aircraft you fly.
Here is a one hour video from a fairly recent COPA meeting which shows a lot of data, pictures, investigation/crash report results and comparing outcomes of those that pulled the chute and those that didn't and why they did or did not pull.
The human behavior and the amount of risk a pilot is willing to take does not change per person/pilot flying, but does change per aircraft you fly.
I wonder why the aircraft type (by itself) would make people make more bad decisions - in the case of an SR22. It is a very normal plane, quite traditional except for the chute.
I think marketing is in this case responsible for the different customer profile.
Actually in a "normal" business e.g. electronics, the way marketing is done has a dramatic effect on the customer profile.
Customers come in a continuous spectrum, from wonderful/bright/competent to aggressive/stupid/useless, and by far the biggest factor in where your business will end up positioned (some years down the road) is the way the company+product is presented. As the old saying goes: you can judge a man by his friends.
The product type (electronics, mechanical, aviation, whatever) or whether it even works well, is secondary 
I would think that, with pilots, the really stupid ones won't pass the exams, and anyway flying won't appeal to people whose attention span is that of an ant, but if you market a slick looking product with slick adverts you will end up with a very different customer profile to what say Cessna or Piper would end up with.
I see for myself that with the Cirrus SR22T with FIKI and all the other stuff on board, I fly in more severe weather conditions in which I would not dare to depart in a Piper Archer 3. So, with other hardware, I dare to take more risk, depending more on the aircraft to help me cope with it. Exactly the same aircraft and another pilot will produce another scenario for decision making. Another pilot might not depart when I would depart with the same experience and the same hardware, but with another "risk-taking" profile as a human being.
The PA28 doesn't have FIKI on board, cannot climb out that well and above weather and has no parachute. The simple fact that these features are available to me makes me shift the domain in which I still am willing to fly to another wider domain including circumstances in which I would stay put if flying the PA28.
I also see that we all take decisions on what we would do in a different way. Some would not consider flying single engine IFR at night while others have no problem with it.
Then, there are a lot of Cirrus pilots flying around today. The sell a lot of them. I have not encountered the marketing selling pitches myself, but others might have.
I see for myself that with the Cirrus SR22T with FIKI and all the other stuff on board, I fly in more severe weather conditions in which I would not dare to depart in a Piper Archer 3. So, with other hardware, I dare to take more risk, depending more on the aircraft to help me cope with it. Exactly the same aircraft and another pilot will produce another scenario for decision making. Another pilot might not depart when I would depart with the same experience and the same hardware, but with another "risk-taking" profile as a human being.
That doesn't mean you are taking more risk. Flying in worse weather with a plane equipped for it, may be more, less or the same risk.
Indeed, I myself am not taking more risks. but am doing more stuff because the Cirrus allows me to do more. But since the Cirrus has more safety features, FIKI, envelope protection, etc. I am flying this aircraft in conditions I would not dare to consider in the Piper. Thus, my "chance" of getting involved into an accident or incident will not be better in the Cirrus compared to the Piper. The safety features are more, so you would expect me to have less chance to get into trouble, but with these extra features I am not doing more and thus this equals out.
That's an interesting site, Aeroplus.
Lesson #2: COPA members have fewer fatal accidents.
COPA members demonstrate an astoundingly better accident rate than non-members. Only 20% of Cirrus fatal accidents involve COPA members, yet about 60% of Cirrus pilots and 50% of Cirrus planes are owned or flown by COPA members. That’s significant.
For sure, membership is not a causal factor, so don’t join COPA and expect that alone will keep you safe. But lack of participation in COPA appears to correlate with an increased chance of being involved in a fatal accident. Membership does have its benefits!
Fairly obviously, the more diligent pilots are more likely to join COPA (in the same way that pilots who attend the sometimes embarrassingly patronising CAA Safety Evenings in the UK are far less likely to have an accident) but there is a large group who are basically operating "outside the system".
I meet a lot of pilots when "out and about" and it's clear that a lot of them operate on their own. There are still many IR holders who don't know how to work out Eurocontrol routings, and who don't know the FAA IR that most of them have will be of little use after 2014.
And it will be far easier to exist "outside the system" in the USA, due to the uniformity of their airspace and due to the FAA PPL or PPL/IR being actually usable for going A to B - unlike their European versions.
Cirrus chute - realistic lowest deployment altitude?
This very recent crash - apparently an engine stoppage in the aerodrome circuit - is one where the chute was deployed but evidently too low down.
What is the lowest proven altitude at which it works?
I also wonder if deploying the chute when below a certain level is more likely to get you killed - because you will hit the ground without any pitch or roll control, but still going too fast.
My French isn't marvellous, but I didn't quite see in the news article that the 'chute was deployed and the photo of this unfortunate accident didn't help ?
Were you suggesting it didn't have time to inflate ?
Perhaps with abundant forest below either choice of glide in or parachute was seen as equally risky.
R.I.P.
mike hallam.
