Mary
Thanks for your concern but I've never had a problem cancelling a flight if something is wrong although I've really been quite lucky in that regard and not had to cancel to many.
As far as my family goes: my wife certainly won't do a PPL course but I live in hope that my daughter may!
I am all to aware of the Vee Tail doctor killer tag. I think it was that which spawned the Beech training program which, in turn, influenced the Cirrus program.
shortstripper
So why are the Cirrus aircraft developing such a reputation for fatalities?
Because people on forums like this perpetuate the myth that they are death traps and ignore the facts.
Can one of those so eager to point out the benefits of being able to deploy a chute tell me why so many fatal accidents have occurred in these aircraft? I'm trying to understand why a safety device that on the face of it seems such an advance hasn't reduced fatalities to almost zero?
Because some accidents lie outside the capability envelope of the system. But more disturbingly, far to many people have not pulled when they should have. Please see the example I quoted earlier.
It strikes me that these aircraft attract a similar type of pilot to past aircraft such as the Beech Bonanza's or Mooney's? I'm pretty sure their fatality statistics didn't build up anything like as quickly as the Cirrus aircraft have though?
I don't have comparative statistics available on that and don't want to make silly generalisations. There have been enough of those already.
What I will say is that the incidence of accidents of all types in Cirrus aircraft can be documented to be significantly lower amongst pilots who are members of COPA and participate in the training and safety initiatives.
Whilst cases have been shown of successful deployment outside the design parameters of the BRS system, you then have to ask why those pilots used them in such a way?
If you're in a stall / spin turning finals and going to die, you'll try anything. Also, pilots under extreme stress are believed to have either forgotten they have it or thought they could make a safe landing and then pulled to late when they realised they wouldn't make it. See the example I quoted.
Cirrus will point out their success in such cases as if that proves how good the system is, but then if a fatality occurs they just wash their hands and say the system was wrongly used.
That is a quite ridiculously unfair and inaccurate statement.
In every case of a fatality under CAPS of which I'm aware it has been deployed below 400 ft except in one case when it was deployed in a dive at over 300 knots after an icing event and the chute ripped off the plane.
Please see the comments about operating parameters in my earlier post. I thought they were fairly clear but will be happy to explain them further if there's any aspect you don't understand.
Ok, as a last ditch possible get out of jail card then great, I'd use it for sure! However, some on here are saying the use of the chute shouldn't be discouraged or once the engine fails you will die unless you pull the handle. No wonder they are being used inappropriately
Can you give me an example of an inappropriate CAPS pull? I can think of one or possibly two that may not have been necessary. Out of 43 successful saves and 87 survivors. Not a bad percentage?
Have I just answered my own question?
Oh yes! To your own satisfaction, you certainly have.