As far as I can tell from the Cirrus website, there has been one failure of the chute to deploy. One too many, but one. Out of 152 Caps events. 129 were successful and thus 23 were failures, including the failure to fire, where the pilot managed to put her down. Good lad. . Of the rest, all 22, each was out of limits. Too fast, too low, too heavy.
It’s a mechanical device with parameters, not a magic wand.So that’s 0.66 %. To be clear, 0.66 % is 0.66 % too high, but that’s the stat.
So, ballistic canopies.
Given it’s a recent integration of technology with only a few companies making the running, I’d say that’s actually quite impressive. And one would hope the more resource is applied, the better the technology, the better the results.
I really don’t get it that a terrific safety device can be perceived as a bad thing by some people. How many new ULMs have ballistic canopies? A lot.
But I’m sure the argument will be it’s a gimmick.
I am trying to keep this thread useful to the OP, before somebody suggests an old Lear which I am sure you can pick up for $500k (and I have a pic of a Lear aileron position transducer which was a cool $30k) 
The point is that the OP already has a TB20 right now, which with the right knowledge is very capable around Europe, so the pro-SR22 argument is a lot narrower than it would be for most others. It is basically almost entirely to do with “spouse approval”. One can do bugger-all night flying in Europe… and how often do you fly over mountains?
Frankly, seeing how lots of others went and how much bang for the buck they got, his best bet is to get a lot more experience (post IR) with the TB20, and then buy a Jetprop
Pig wrote:
But I’m sure the argument will be it’s a gimmick.
I don’t think its a gimmick at all. I think SR22 is a great aircraft, and definitely safer than my TB20 because of the parachute. But, for the next step, I just dont think a parachute would address my concerns about flying over water or mountains. It would definitely make my passengers more comfortable, but im single, have no family, and don’t intend to ever change this situation :) So, anyone flying with me will be doing it purely because they want to (no peer pressure), so are happy with the risks.
Even if the parachute was 100% reliable, why risk landing in water, in potentially rough seas, getting into the raft, waiting for help, etc? id be comfortable having no parachute and an engine that fails 1 in 375000 hours. That is a risk im happy taking. A second engine is also an option, hence the discussion.
Peter wrote:
Frankly, seeing how lots of others went and how much bang for the buck they got, his best bet is to get a lot more experience (post IR) with the TB20, and then buy a Jetprop
I think that makes good sense, although we can negotiate the ‘lot more experience’ bit :)
Most courses seem to have 200h minimum. I think if i add 50-100h of IFR on top, it should be ok? I have been reading around about the Jetprop and it doesnt seem to be much more complex to fly. I feel flying a twin piston is probably a bigger step up than that..
172driver wrote:
At a very minimum, you’d be looking at 500 and even then be prepared for 20-50 hours under supervision and eye watering rates.
That is a valid point also in Europe. I sold the TBM to a PPL below 500h – can’t remember the exact number. He needed to fly under supervision initially.
It’s a mechanical device with parameters, not a magic wand.
So that’s 0.66 %. To be clear, 0.66 % is 0.66 % too high, but that’s the stat.
So, ballistic canopies.
Given it’s a recent integration of technology with only a few companies making the running, I’d say that’s actually quite impressive. And one would hope the more resource is applied, the better the technology, the better the results.
I really don’t get it that a terrific safety device can be perceived as a bad thing by some people. How many new ULMs have ballistic canopies? A lot.
But I’m sure the argument will be it’s a gimmick.
Good post. I fly mostly in a cheap old ICP Savannah microlight and a Bristell B23 Turbo CS23, both equipped with BRS. It just makes flying more enjoyable in a subtle way.
I think the SR22/T is probably the reasonable aircraft to own and the frugal “SET” cost wise vs. capability, to a great extent due to CAPS. That chute is a really powerful “plan B” for a lot of scenarios. Factor in the comfortable cabin, (delightful) modern avionics and versatility overall (high fast touring, slowish into grass fields) the SR22T is unrivaled IMO.
It ain’t cheap but it is compared to a TBM960, a CJ or a Phenom (I also fly those, and the costs are magnitudes higher than any SEP stuff). Unless money is no factor (eg. 50 or 100mm plus) the Cirrus is probably the simplest and most reasonable choice of plane to buy.
For Europe, DA42/62 come close too.
If money is a factor, a TB20 for half the cost of an SR22T is great, though I wouldn’t feel comfortable in IMC over terrain in it.
That is a valid point also in Europe. I sold the TBM to a PPL below 500h – can’t remember the exact number. He needed to fly under supervision initially.
Insurance premium for a recent TBM will be roughly what 100hours in an SR22T cost per year all in.
100hrs in the SR22 costing how much? Someone posted €60k for 200hrs.
Much of the premium will be hull value, so the detail matters massively. One-liners just aren’t possible.
I don’t find that flying a FADEC (single engine lever) twin such as DA-62 is much more difficult than flying a TB20. I might even find that easier. After all, there is one less engine lever on the DA-62 than on the TB20 and very little to worry about them. Like for manual vs automatic cars, I’m not sure a MEP obtained on such aircraft should be valid on a ‘regular’ twin (6-levers one). That’s anyway how I choose to enforce mine.
Maybe some insurers share that thought based on their requirements that are far from insane even for low pilot hours count.
Regarding the Diamond QA issues that can be read in the Diamond forum, I don’t know if they are overrated (people with issues are always more vocal than people without), but I know some operators who seem to be quite satisfied with several aircraft and at least one aircraft that has not had a single glitch in its first year (apart from the latest Austro engine SB sorted in 3 weeks).
I’m not sure a MEP obtained on such aircraft should be valid on a ‘regular’ twin (6-levers one).
Of course it’s valid and there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be. It’s just MEP, 2 levers or 6, it’s not An-225 Mrya.
Regarding the Diamond QA issues that can be read in the Diamond forum, I don’t know if they are overrated (people with issues are always more vocal than people without), but I know some operators who seem to be quite satisfied with several aircraft and at least one aircraft that has not had a single glitch in its first year (apart from the latest Austro engine SB sorted in 3 weeks).
DAI is notoriously well known for being supportive to fleet owners and neglecting private owners. It’s quite logical that the later ones are more active and more vocal on forums. But regardless that, the extent of issues is quite high and quality built for $2M aircraft is below acceptable.
