To be honest, the BRS is no big deal -it's really there in the Cirrus to get the manufacturer around some handling deficiencies (the spinning characteristics don't, I understand, comply with the certification standards).
Not true. The BRS system was included as standard because Alan Klapmeirer was involved in a midair and pressured his brother, Dale, to make it standard. Dale wanted to make it an option. Once that decision was made, it was decided to save money by using the Equivalent Level of Safety provision to reduce certification cost. A limited spin series was conducted for European certification which the Cirrus passed with no issues.
I'm with Genghis on this one. In 35 years of flying, I have never once thought to myself "gosh, I wish I had a parachute right now", and this include the jumper flying I did, where they made me wear one!
For me the main times I think about the chute is night and over low overcast.
One half of the Cirrus accidents I can think of, involved fatalities, and the 'chute could not have helped even were it to have been deployed.
I don't know if the 50% number is correct but I agree in principle. The BRS system is useful in only a subset of instances. It will not help if you fly into the side of a mountain. More importantly, it won't help in a base to final stall incident.
I can say that no pilot I know has ever suffered any of those at a severity which made deploying a 'chute something they would consider. A freak accident could as likely result from a failure of the 'chute to deploy!
I have. I also had a friend die because he tried to make the airport rather than pull. He staled just shy of the runway. Listening to his 9 year old daughter talk about missing her dad was tough.
These systems are heavy, expensive to buy, and expensive to maintain.
Very true. Just like a second engine, more seats, a bigger engine, thESE are very valid reasons for not wanting the system. Aircraft are a tradeoff of many things and BRS is one of those tradeoff decisions. For example, you need to budget about $1,000US/yr for the 10 year refit.
Even if a forced landing is necessary, statistics show that arriving in a reasonably clear area, under control at a low speed has a rather good outcome in terms of survival.
This is one area where I like the BRS system. While survivable, many off airport landings result in severe injuries. Take your car and drive over a field at 100km/hr. Now imagine being on small tires without shocks. The record of BRS is very good as far as injuries. Also, the record for off airport landings is bolstered by planes with low stall speeds. The percentage of accidents that result in fatalities goes up almost linearly with stall speed. The SR22 has a 59kt stall speed. In many ways it is much closer to a C310 than a C172.
BRS works well above 200m and has worked at much lower altitudes. Actual deployments have succeeded at 180kts although 133 indicated is the POH number.
The psychology of the BRS system is interesting whether you like it or don't. To the people enthralled by it I want to remind them that it is not a cure all and doesn't apply to a wide variety of accident scenarios. On the other hand, those against it talk about spin accidents as if being spin certified would make a difference. Twins aren't spin certified but people don't seem bothered by that. A stall in the pattern is too low for spin recover to be an issue. Stall recovery is what is important and the Cirrus has excellent stall recovery characteristics.
The vast majority of Cirrus chute pulls have been in circumstances where there was no need to use the chute.
I strongly disagree with this. What I see is more a case of people not pulling when they should have.
I agree with the training comments on TAA aircraft but there is also the issue of making sure you know how to use what you have. A good autopilot can really help if you get into trouble and know how to use it. As an example of not knowing your aircraft I like the NASA report where the pilot busted class B because a message covered his GPS screen and he didn't know how to clear it. You need to fully know the systems.
With respect to Cirrus, an interesting statistic is that 22% of accidents involve IMC as opposed to 5% for Diamond. If you go to Flightaware.com and look at planes in the ATC system you see a lot of Cirrus aircraft. This is a fast, cross country plane and the accident record reflects that. Someone once said "You don't buy a twin to fly circuits." You don't get an SR22 to just take local flights in good weather. I tell people that the SR22 is dangerous because it is fast and comfortable. When I transitioned, my "awakenings" were:
1) Need for approach planning. About 20nm out I start planning altitude and consider reducing power.
2) Weather. Even a fun practice flight involves a serious look at weather since it is easy to wind up far from where I started.
3) Speed management especially on landing. At 3400lb max gross and about 80 kts over the numbers there is a lot of kinetic energy on landing. Combine that with small tires and springy gear (no shocks) and you see you can't be sloppy.
As for the combined throttle/prop control on the Cirrus, you can get the same effect as a prop control when the throttle is wide open but you do have less flexibility elsewhere. From 2500 RPM to 2700 RPM the "throttle" is really fully open ant it is just a prop control. I have a very slow SR22. Why I don't know. I get about 160kts @ 10.5GPH at 17K' and about 167kts at 15 gph at 5000'.