As I accumulated experience, I have come to believe that for me, personally, there are almost no realistic (meaningful risk) circumstances when I would use one.
Mid-air, or other loss of control surfaces?
Engine out over inhospitable terrain?
Engine out at night over unknown terrain?
Activation by non-pilot passengers with pilot unconscious?
Why WOULDN’T you use the chute in these cases? You would be choosing likely death over likely survival.
Otherwise, I find little to quibble with in your post. You speak the truth and make a lot of sense. Thanks for posting.
I’m a low time pilot, flying an SR20. I hope I would ALWAYS enter the cockpit prepared, cautious, and serious for any flight. I would hope I would obey my own personal minimums.
Here’s how I rank utility of safety feature in the plane I fly (not all exclusive to Cirrus):
All features of the MFD (Robust GUI Engine monitoring capability, Amazing situational awareness capability, GUI positional awareness, TAWS Integration, TrafficWatch integration, Fuel Management, Normal & Emergency Checklists, StormScope & XM WX)
Dual Garmin 430s, GMA 340 Audio panel, dual NAV radios, Dual GPS, dual PTT (all the 430 features available and that integrate with the MFD; 430 checklists, flight plan, robust approach & databases, position and situational awareness and forecasting, reminder messaging, etc.)
STEC autopilot, integration with PFD and Flight Director
Inflatable Four-Point Restraint Safety Belt with an Integrated Airbag Device
Modern Cockpit design with modern safety designs integrated in that design.
PFD w/HSI display detail and display bug capabilities
Back up analog instruments and back up analog engine gauges
CAPS Whole Plane Parachute
I strive to be safe. All of these features can help with flight management and better decision making skills. Thus, many of these features and probably many mechanical designs culminate into the “Safest Plane Built” marketing message. Everyone seems to key in only on CAPS. Cirrus has led the way successfully selling all of the TAA features that everyone now takes for granted in most any brand new aircraft.
The plane culminates about every logical safety feature available for a small aircraft. It is inherently built safely. There have been no air frame or engine defect accusations. Cirrus addressed an issue on the brakes and modified the door safety. CAPS adds one more possible “out” for some events (and has worked successfully). The plane is safe. The Cirrus fleet must safely outfly the rest of the 4 place or less fleet. My aircraft is only 13 months old and already has 415 hours. It has been all over the US at one point. I don’t feel I am flying enough (I currently have 183 hours and received my PPL in July).
CAPS and all of these other capabilities will bite you when used to push the envelope (e.g. TKS into Ice, StormScope and XM WX to “thread the needle”, CAPS to make a “GO” out of an otherwise “NO GO”, overdependancy of the a/p or other automation features,etc). Cockpit technology should not change personal minimums. I suspect the success of the 496 and all of its features will embolden the entire GA fleet to expand their missions this exposing us to more accidents in the long run. Hopefully the Cirrus community can lead the way to safely understand TAA better just as Cirrus has led GA to successful implementation of glass cockpit capabilities.
The relatively few attempts I’ve seen to put statistics on the fatal accident rates suggest the Cirrus in fact has a meaningfully higher fatal rate/hour flown, than the rest of the GA fleet (maybe 50% higher or more).
Hi Dave,
Many of us have wondered about those stats. So - we did some math. It suggest that indeed the Cirrus fatals/hours were higher for several years, but fell considerable in recent years. One can speculate that the emergence of programs like CDM and CPPP may have had an impact. The best numbers we have say that in 2005, the Cirrus fleet fatals/hour were slightly below the GA average. Certainly not where one would expect given the plane’s safety features, and clearly you are right, there are far too many accidents where “stupid pilot tricks” were involved.
I’m not aware of anyone trying to do the 2006 number yet, but clearly the recent accidents are tragic as well as frustrating.
As a COPA community, all I guess we can do is to continue to reach out in positive ways to encourage, cajole, invite, etc. Cirrus pilots to participate in safety activities and programs which will improve the safety performance of the fleet. Some things COPA does awfully well in that regard. Some things are a work in progress. Hopefully, the COPA community and the Cirrus community will see continuous improvement in accident rates as a result of these efforts. The alternative to improvement really sucks.