There’s also a Europa XS equipped with a BRS – the PH-GOO.
I would not say that in a scenario where the pilot lost control in IMC due to icing, turbulence, vertigo – the aircraft and pilot are fully functional.
Also there were many engine failures, some midairs and some other scenarios which could not have been survived without CAPS. Also many engine out off airport emergency landings result in fatalities.
Your comparison between the SR22 and the Cessna Ttx pilot is not valid. Every engine failure over the Alps at night, or most, would result in fatalities – and there have have been a couple of CAPS cases over high mountains, and in almost all cases nobody was hurt.
From my POV this is a no-brainer: if you have the choice between aircraft of similar mission capabilities and price point, one has a chute the other one doesn’t, of course you buy the one with the chute.
I am trying to restrict the chute debate to the discussion about attitudes to risk.
If I think I might lose control in IMC due to vertigo, I am not going to get inside a plane and fly it in IMC! And anybody who does needs their head examined. So this possibility (while maybe resulting in a lot of chute pulls) probably doesn’t feature in the pilot’s risk assessment. Well, if it does, that is probably not something the mfg wants to advertise!
IMHO, what pilots fear most is an engine failure. What their spouses fear most is
Now, since a pilot having a serious heart attack might not be able to pull the chute, that leaves us with engine failures as the major risk factor as perceived by the pilot. How many of the 200+ (?) SR22 chute pulls were engine failures?
70 Cirrus CAPS cases
23 of those were engine failures (including loss of engine power)
2 of those probably (no) fuel related
1 one of those engine still running but no oil pressure
Peter wrote:
I am trying to restrict the chute debate to the discussion about attitudes to risk.
OK, Peter, I’ll bite. The acceptance of risk increases with the quality of the systems you are managing. Nothing to do with aviation, this is a general observation. Therefore yes, IMHO you will take somewhat more risk in a BRS-equipped airplane than in a ‘classic’.
Peter,
more experienced pilots than you have lost control of their airplane due to vertigo. And you never know when it will happen. There gave been SEVERAL airline accidents due to spatial disorientation.
PS:
Statistics show that between 5 to 10% of all general aviation accidents can be attributed to spatial disorientation, 90% of which are fatal.
(Source: FAA)
Peter wrote:
When did you last visit an ultralight exhibition?
Why do weight-shift kites or planes with a gross weight under 500 lbs need a parachute? Anyway, the example I gave was a high-performance, high altitude, pressurized experimental with a 300ktas cruise. An aircraft with a half-million dollar commercial-grade Pratt-Whitney turbine engine. Not something that skims the rooftops.
I hope that someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that all ULM pendulaire used for training in France have to be equipped with a chute.
As for fixed wing, it clearly depends on speed, or rather, the square thereof. A 40 kt CFIT in an aircraft built to FAR 23 is close to 100% survivable. At 90 knots it is probably close to zero.
