4 ms·

The problem with Cirrus is the parachute. Insurance companies don’t like it because instead of half or more of aircraft landing safely on a road or in a field,

The problem with Cirrus is the parachute. Insurance companies don’t like it because instead of half or more of aircraft landing safely on a road or in a field, they are now all write offs. This then adds insurance premiums. We are also now in the position of having to do extra annual training (irrespective of experience) to get insurance because so many amateur pilots are flying Cirrus (I think it’s the new V tail doctor killer, minus the killing). You have been warned: there are better aircraft out there imho. And I haven’t even started on the flight controls (spring feedback is terrible), unstable yaw stability without yaw dampener (pax vomit profusely), and single power lever which decreases rpm with power resulting in an aircraft unable to (easily) slow down (without idle) which is normally done with prop braking. This results in energy problems similar to airlines where rookie pilots who cannot think ahead end up with too much energy. Also these modern long thin glider wing designs trying to get +5kts more can go to hell - they are getting so large it makes ground handling difficult; often longer than the airborne saving. If you want to get there faster, you save time on the ground. A decked out RV-10 is a good alternative.

fibonacc 4y ago
Very interesting point but this chute is seriously making me consider taking flying lessons. Compared to motorcycle, plane is far safer. If an engine fails you can still glide to safety. Failing that deploy this chute. One additional feature safety would be terrain recovery where if it detects you are unconscious, the plane would automatically pull out of the dive or avoid terrain obstacles (like side of a mountain) and place itself in a holding pattern. Taking a step further, the plane would identify nearest field without traffic or powerlines and deploy the chutes to land itself. The last two layers are really nice to haves, its already incredible to have chutes readily available in private jets. Now its tough to argue that flying is inherently dangerous with these extra layers of last resort measures. Having said that I do think cheaper alternatives to this Cirrus jet already exists, nothing wrong with propeller planes either. My goal would be to be able to do bush flying, landing on top of mountain fields, camping for a while and then flying back home.
- dehrmann 4y ago
  At least for commercial flights, takeoff and landing are the dangerous parts, and that's where the chute is least effective. I wonder if it's the same for general aviation.
  - fibonacc 4y ago
    I wonder for those situations where you experience catastrophic failures at low altitude situations where you can't deploy the chutes, whether some type of short burst rockets situated around the plane could activate to "cushion" the plane and orientate it to safety. Sort of like the short takeoff/land rockets used in large military planes.
  - theflyingelvis 4y ago
    As a general aviation pilot it’s my opinion that takeoff and landing are indeed the most dangerous parts of a flight. Takeoff being the most dangerous of the two. Altitude is your friend.
    - dhsysusbsjsi 4y ago
      A wise man once told me: there are three things: Altitude, airspeed and brains. You need two of those things!
- wyager 4y ago
  > Compared to motorcycle, plane is far safer. I looked into the stats before I started flying and iirc this is not the case for private aircraft on a per-hour basis. In fact, private aircraft may have been riskier than motorcycle.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    The key is that something like 90% of pilot fatalities can be traced to pilot fault. 60% of motorcyclists becoming organ donors are not the motorcyclists fault.
bilsbie 4y ago
Which plane of this class do you think is safest today? Also I don’t understand your point about the insurance.
- mlyle 4y ago
  If you pull the parachute, it's very likely to be a hull loss. There are a whole lot of scenarios where you might pull the parachute but have a decent chance of getting down safely. So, the parachute optimizes for occupant survival, but not survival of property. Insurers are in a conflicted scenario here: lowering injury claims but increasing property losses.
  - HPsquared 4y ago
    I wonder if they could add an airbag or something to cushion the landing and save the airframe.
    - dhsysusbsjsi 4y ago
      It’s all about weight. These aircraft are optimising to the last kilogram. If you add 10kg more, that may be 1 less pax, or 15 minutes (34 NM) range.
    - kurupt213 4y ago
      The force of the chute opening is what kills the airframe
  - busterarm 4y ago
    Teslas are in a very similar position and you can get insurance for those. It's a total loss if you need any kind of body work (due to absurdly long wait times and Tesla considering damn near everything on the car structural) or anything related to the battery (due to replacement cost).
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      I heard Tesla insurance is nearly always more expensive than average though?
mannykannot 4y ago
Insurance companies have a great deal of experience in the business of pricing risk. If they could model the risk of insuring Cirrus aircraft as if they did not have parachutes, then a first-cut model for them with parachutes seems well within reach - just assume all in-flight incidents causing damage will be total losses!
kurupt213 4y ago
I thought the p-51 was the doctor killer
FL410 4y ago
Which do you think an insurance company prefers: a full hull loss, or a full hull loss and multiple wrongful death lawsuits? Insurance companies DO love it. Some even waive the deductible if you pull.
rlpb 4y ago
> ...and single power lever which decreases rpm with power resulting in an aircraft unable to (easily) slow down (without idle) which is normally done with prop braking The article is about the Cirrus Vision Jet, not the Cirrus SR22 propeller-driven aircraft.

fibonacc 4y ago

Very interesting point but this chute is seriously making me consider taking flying lessons. Compared to motorcycle, plane is far safer. If an engine fails you can still glide to safety. Failing that deploy this chute. One additional feature safety would be terrain recovery where if it detects you are unconscious, the plane would automatically pull out of the dive or avoid terrain obstacles (like side of a mountain) and place itself in a holding pattern. Taking a step further, the plane would identify nearest field without traffic or powerlines and deploy the chutes to land itself. The last two layers are really nice to haves, its already incredible to have chutes readily available in private jets. Now its tough to argue that flying is inherently dangerous with these extra layers of last resort measures. Having said that I do think cheaper alternatives to this Cirrus jet already exists, nothing wrong with propeller planes either. My goal would be to be able to do bush flying, landing on top of mountain fields, camping for a while and then flying back home.

dehrmann 4y ago
At least for commercial flights, takeoff and landing are the dangerous parts, and that's where the chute is least effective. I wonder if it's the same for general aviation.
- fibonacc 4y ago
  I wonder for those situations where you experience catastrophic failures at low altitude situations where you can't deploy the chutes, whether some type of short burst rockets situated around the plane could activate to "cushion" the plane and orientate it to safety. Sort of like the short takeoff/land rockets used in large military planes.
- theflyingelvis 4y ago
  As a general aviation pilot it’s my opinion that takeoff and landing are indeed the most dangerous parts of a flight. Takeoff being the most dangerous of the two. Altitude is your friend.
  - dhsysusbsjsi 4y ago
    A wise man once told me: there are three things: Altitude, airspeed and brains. You need two of those things!
wyager 4y ago
> Compared to motorcycle, plane is far safer. I looked into the stats before I started flying and iirc this is not the case for private aircraft on a per-hour basis. In fact, private aircraft may have been riskier than motorcycle.
- bombcar 4y ago
  The key is that something like 90% of pilot fatalities can be traced to pilot fault. 60% of motorcyclists becoming organ donors are not the motorcyclists fault.

bilsbie 4y ago

Which plane of this class do you think is safest today? Also I don’t understand your point about the insurance.

mlyle 4y ago
If you pull the parachute, it's very likely to be a hull loss. There are a whole lot of scenarios where you might pull the parachute but have a decent chance of getting down safely. So, the parachute optimizes for occupant survival, but not survival of property. Insurers are in a conflicted scenario here: lowering injury claims but increasing property losses.
- HPsquared 4y ago
  I wonder if they could add an airbag or something to cushion the landing and save the airframe.
  - dhsysusbsjsi 4y ago
    It’s all about weight. These aircraft are optimising to the last kilogram. If you add 10kg more, that may be 1 less pax, or 15 minutes (34 NM) range.
  - kurupt213 4y ago
    The force of the chute opening is what kills the airframe
- busterarm 4y ago
  Teslas are in a very similar position and you can get insurance for those. It's a total loss if you need any kind of body work (due to absurdly long wait times and Tesla considering damn near everything on the car structural) or anything related to the battery (due to replacement cost).
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    I heard Tesla insurance is nearly always more expensive than average though?

mannykannot 4y ago

Insurance companies have a great deal of experience in the business of pricing risk. If they could model the risk of insuring Cirrus aircraft as if they did not have parachutes, then a first-cut model for them with parachutes seems well within reach - just assume all in-flight incidents causing damage will be total losses!

kurupt213 4y ago

I thought the p-51 was the doctor killer

FL410 4y ago

Which do you think an insurance company prefers: a full hull loss, or a full hull loss and multiple wrongful death lawsuits? Insurance companies DO love it. Some even waive the deductible if you pull.

rlpb 4y ago

> ...and single power lever which decreases rpm with power resulting in an aircraft unable to (easily) slow down (without idle) which is normally done with prop braking The article is about the Cirrus Vision Jet, not the Cirrus SR22 propeller-driven aircraft.