I think the meaningful question would be whether a parachute-equipped airplane is safer than the same plane would be without a parachute....The big question is "safer than WHAT."...
This. I'm not in the anti-chute crowd. I flew an LSA with a chute when I was teaching down at 5C1 and frankly I started flying that airplane more at night than the Cessna 172s I had access to.I think the meaningful question would be whether a parachute-equipped airplane is safer than the same plane would be without a parachute.
I'd say there are a couple of things Berto leaves out there.
The big question is "safer than WHAT." While I'll buy some of his analysis that CAPS made the Cirrus safer, the Cirrus has a higher accident rate (chute pull or not) than comparable aircraft.
Another thing he omits from his analysis is that while the Cirruses are getting safer, so is the overall trend in the industry, so it's not clear how much to apportion to the chutes or the better education of the pilot to pull it...
Of course a parachute equipped plane is safer than the same plane without a parachute - I mean thats just common sense.
I flew an LSA with a chute when I was teaching down at 5C1 and frankly I started flying that airplane more at night than the Cessna 172s I had access to.
I have an interesting dilemma.
I learned to fly in an SR20. I have no problem with the decision making re pulling the chute in the Cirrus. What is causing me some thought is the decision making around the Chute pull in my Sling.
Final approach speed in the Sling is 58kts, it stalls in a very benign fashion with no wing drop. The factory test pilot actually says you don't need to pull the chute as "she'll mush in at 38-40kts" which is "more survivable than a vertical descent under the chute"
My gut feel is that the chute is safer - at least the chance of flipping over is almost negligible... But the Sling also doesn't have the 25G seats that the Cirrus has.
Anyone with some thoughts?
I have an interesting dilemma.
I learned to fly in an SR20. I have no problem with the decision making re pulling the chute in the Cirrus. What is causing me some thought is the decision making around the Chute pull in my Sling.
Final approach speed in the Sling is 58kts, it stalls in a very benign fashion with no wing drop. The factory test pilot actually says you don't need to pull the chute as "she'll mush in at 38-40kts" which is "more survivable than a vertical descent under the chute"
My gut feel is that the chute is safer - at least the chance of flipping over is almost negligible... But the Sling also doesn't have the 25G seats that the Cirrus has.
Anyone with some thoughts?
I'd say there are a couple of things Berto leaves out there. The big question is "safer than WHAT." While I'll buy some of his analysis that CAPS made the Cirrus safer, the Cirrus has a higher accident rate (chute pull or not) than comparable aircraft.
Another thing he omits from his analysis is that while the Cirruses are getting safer, so is the overall trend in the industry, so it's not clear how much to apportion to the chutes or the better education of the pilot to pull it.
I do admit there is a lot of irrational criticism of CAPS. Some of it is just humor, but some is a bit more hostile than that. Oddly, I see an interesting parallel in another safety feature. I'm a woodworker. A bit over a decade or so ago a new saw came on the market that had an electronic circuit that detected when someone might be touching the blade and it fires a chunk of aluminum into the blade which not only stops its revolution in a few degrees but forces make the blade mount drop it into the table.
You see the same opposition to the SawStop that you see on the anti-CAPS crowd.
I’ve read a handful of first hand accts from CAPS users. It’s no picnic. Sounds like being in an office chair and being dropped from about 6 feet. Most needed a chiro, a few hurt their back, cracked a rib, etc. there are psych issues too, though that is prob true after every GA crash. Not really a CAPS data point.
But, again, 100% survival rate. When we have a bad day up there, it’s nice to know you have a last resort option with a 100% survival rate (when used within envelope—aka pull early).
The injuries mentioned were normal envelope pulls, he also mentions a number of pulls that have been outside of the envelope and those resulted in fatalities, typically for being too low.But the question is were these injuries within the normal operating envelope of the parachute or were these deployments of last resort ( which of course is nice option to have - nothing really to lose )
... I don’t know, I would rather take my chance with a broken gear.
What sort of psych issues?
I've landed a plane off-field. My only psych issue was high-fiving my passengers for our having b*tch-slapped the grim reaper and not a scratch on any of us (and no shoulder harnesses!). I can't say I suffered any PTSD, although I did develop a penchant for high-horsepowered planes afterwards.
Perhaps my advanced dunning-kruger is blocking the feelings I should be feeling.![]()
Run into a wall as fast as you can, then see if you get hurt. Most people can run about 12 to 14 mph. 40 knots is 46 mph. If you could guaranty a controlled landing, on a smooth surface with no obstacles to run into then your instructor is correct. But add a tree or a rock into the equation, or a cartwheel on a soft surface, then I think you are safer with the chute.
Cirrus instigated a brilliant training program when they saw the accident rate being early-Bonanza-like. They did a great job (and it continues today), both preventing some accidents from happening, and instilling the idea that if something goes very wrong, pull the chute.Bingo. Safer than what?
Have a look at the chart below. To my knowledge every Cirrus piston airplane ever sold is equipped with a CAPS parachute system. At least in that respect every Cirrus is essentially identical, and therefore every Cirrus airplane should be more or less "equally safe" compared with every other Cirrus airplane in the fleet.
So if the "planes with parachutes are safer", and every Cirrus is equally safe, what's the explanation for the declining fatal accident rate, and more recently the declining number of annual CAPS deployments, even as the Cirrus fleet size expands? Are the newer Cirrus planes with parachutes that much "safer" than the older Cirrus planes with parachutes?
Or does that significant statistical improvement actually have bugger all to do with the plane, or the parachute - both of which are just dumb machines.
View attachment 75692
Cirris isn't, but that's a bad anology. BRS certainly has done plenty of lobbying to mandate the use of chutes in various circumstances. They, like the SawStop owner, have an effective monopoly on the technology. BRS bought out their only competitor a long time ago. SawStop has only recently gotten some viable competition. Felder has just announced a new (possibly superior) feature.I'm a woodworker as well and the difference is the Cirrus isn't lobbying the government to make the CAPS system mandatory on all airplanes but I see your point. I've read all those arguments ad nausium and I still have my twin Jet setup. Two Jet table saws bolted together with a common fence.
BRS bought out their only competitor a long time ago.
I have an interesting dilemma.
I learned to fly in an SR20. I have no problem with the decision making re pulling the chute in the Cirrus. What is causing me some thought is the decision making around the Chute pull in my Sling.
Final approach speed in the Sling is 58kts, it stalls in a very benign fashion with no wing drop. The factory test pilot actually says you don't need to pull the chute as "she'll mush in at 38-40kts" which is "more survivable than a vertical descent under the chute"
My gut feel is that the chute is safer - at least the chance of flipping over is almost negligible... But the Sling also doesn't have the 25G seats that the Cirrus has.
Anyone with some thoughts?
Another way to look at this question is "At what point is it appropriate to make the decision to stop flying the airplane?".
That is the essence of the dilemma posed by the factory test pilot, who is suggesting his/her preference to keep flying the airplane, versus pulling the parachute, at which point you as the pilot are have relinquished any remaining control over the outcome.
I think this same dilemma was one of the reasons for the poor fatal accident record Cirrus developed up to about 2010/11. It's the CIrrus training, and recurrent training, to deal with that exact dilemma and their systematic decision making structure which has resulted in the dramatic improvement in the fatal accident rate.
But those same statistics from Cirrus refute some of the claims the CAPS fans here keep making.
...I think your phrasing, "at which point you as the pilot are have relinquished any remaining control over the outcome.", is part of the problem. In reality, you are taking control of a situation that developed either: through your own fault or due to circumstances you have no control over...