However it remains a fact that the Cirrus, without a Chute, is not airworthy. Which makes me all the more annoyed to hear BRS quoting 5.8k for a Mooney repack whereas for a Cirrus we are talking minimum double, if not nearly treble that amount – because the Chute is required equipment…..
One reason for the high Cirrus repack price might be that the risers have to be ripped out of the gelcoat? Or do they? It would be a huge job.
The airworthiness of the Cirrus is not predicated on the BRS, but is ENHANCED by it.
No. The chute is standard equipment on the TCDS so is mandatory.
only 2% of flat spins are recoverable
Where is that figure from, precisely? Does it mean that if I do 100 flat spins in my TB20 only 2 will be recovered?
The ultimate approval and proof of superiority of an aircraft design is a purchase and a pilot entrusting the lives of their families to the aircraft….
No… Marketing does that bit (with most products) 
Regards the original Q I would not fit a chute because it would do an AF447 to everyone’s spine.
USFlyer wrote:
dwarfing all other GA prop aircraft sales combined
A reality check
In 2014 Cirrus sold 308 aircraft. The total piston GA aircraft sold was 1378. So, only 22% were Cirrus. Diamond sold more DA40s than Cirrus sold SR22s, as did Cessna with their 172.
Steve6443 wrote:
Which makes me all the more annoyed to hear BRS quoting 5.8k for a Mooney repack whereas for a Cirrus we are talking minimum double, if not nearly treble that amount – because the Chute is required equipment…..
Hang on, that quote was for a Cessna 182, not a Mooney. there is no Mooney which has that model. Simply the quote came from the Mooneyspace forum, where the original poster’s questionaire was pulled from.
USFlyer wrote:
The idea of an all airframe parachute is not about trusting the build of the aircraft. It’s about advancing safety margin for flight over water, mid-air collisions, night flying, fuel emergency with no suitable landing area, engine out on takeoff…
Add to that the still main reason for any airplane accident: the pilot doing something to get him into a situation where only a shute can safe him.
And very obviously, any airplane with that feature will get more confidence by the significant others, who have to approve the purchase and who will most probably be sitting in that plane together with that guy who they’ve seen blunder all over the house…. yes, the shute is a definite increase in safety, but also a very compelling psychological point of confidence. Which in some instances has done the opposite when pilots got OVER confident because of it.
The original question is biased by variations in the depth of answerers’ pockets. Let me propose an alternative version slightly less affected by that:
Given a choice between installing a BRS for €15000 and spending the same amount on advanced recovery training, what would you choose?
If there was a chute which actually worked without infeasible mods elsewhere I would probably buy it, but only after TKS.
Are most Cirrus chute pulls following stalls/spins?
Peter wrote:
Are most Cirrus chute pulls following stalls/spins?
There are no documented spin fatalities for Cirrus. Remember the wing inhibits or prevents them entirely. The FAA agreed with Cirrus that to have a wing that resists or eliminates spins does not require a spin certification…that did not mean Cirrus cannot be recovered from a spin…they have been tested in spins and recover just as easily as any spin certified plane.
Most of the chute pulls for Cirrus are from engine failure and fuel emergencies. BRS claims over 300 lives saved to date. Here are some videos of recent chute pulls, including the one in Arkansas that saved the lives of the Walmart CEO and his passengers. http://www.brsparachutes.com/brs_aviation_home.aspx
No, it’s a mixture of all kinds of scenarios …
- loss of control in IMC, most probably rather spirals than spins
- engine failures away from airports, over water, mountains, at night
- severe icing, loss of control
- some midairs
- two times it was pilot incapicitation
There are no documented spin fatalities for Cirrus.
That’s not correct. There’s a couple that could be called “stall/spin”. Take the one in Florida with the CFI, where they overshot the centerline at low altitude and stalled the aircraft under high g-load in the turn… which resulted in a snap roll and a following loss of control. Not a classic “spin”, but very much the same.
Cirrus/CAPS statistic: 114 survivors (12 serious injuries, 12 minor injuries, 90 uninjured) and 1 fatality
USFlyer wrote:
There are no documented spin fatalities for Cirrus.
How do you get to make such bold claims all the time? That is just not correct, take this 10-turn spin with 2 fatalities for example:
http://www.ntsb.gov/layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?evid=20090218X62344&key=1&queryId=c6e716ae-c173-484c-b909-e31cd6fc7cb7&pgno=1&pgsize=100
Or this spin with fatal:
http://www.ntsb.gov/layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?evid=20060831X01268&key=1&queryId=1449a7cb-5884-4b0d-b4e2-0257cbc68dd7&pgsize=100
USFlyer wrote:
The FAA agreed with Cirrus that to have a wing that resists or eliminates spins does not require a spin certification
This is incorrect as well. The alternative means of spin recovery accepted by the FAA is CAPS, not the wing. What is correct is that with the right procedure, it is possible to get a Cirrus out of a spin.
