pondering

[John Pleisse]

My next plane will likely be an SR20 (I know, heresy!), but logically, for the same reason one would buy a twin. Critical redundant systems, mainly electric. I wouldn't knock the chute. The low IMC deployment in KY (early, like 2003) sold me. Everybody is opinionated about Cirrus. The now 80 year old examiner who gave me my instrument ride likes them, so do I. They're great airplanes.

[John Pleisse]

The fourth survived chute for Cirrus was a post inspection, detached aileron. 3 engines wouldn't have solved that.

[bnicolette]

The issue the OP raises is whether it is safer to have two engines in case one quits. The Cirrus incidents I have read about have all been situations where the pilot got himself in trouble, such as VFR into IMC, and pulled the chute. I think I can only recall one that might have been an engine issues, that was the ditching in the Carribean about18 months or two years ago, and that might have been a fuel issue. The sole "advantage" of the twin, if you can call it an advantage, is having another engine if one quits. The statistics do not support this as an advantage, nor do they support the turbine engine as an advantage. The latest Nall Report (still the 2010 version), says that mechanical accidents happen in multiengines and turbine engine aircraft in the same proportion as they bear to the total fleet.

I think the market has pretty much voted with its feet on this one. The prices on used twins are about the same as their single engine cousins or often less. Not many people willing to pay for three or four times the maintenance and the 40-60 gph fuel flows, to get a second piston engine.

Yikes is that fuel burn from a Cessna 402 or something? And four times the maintenance?

[fluffysheap]

Fluffy, you should read the last few months of the Aviation Accident reports online, freely available at http://www.ntsb.gov.  I was interested to see 3 or 4 Cirrus incidents in recent months where the parachute was used and all survived. Now, one might argue that the situation could also have been survived in a normal single-engine with a pilot who kept his wits and followed his training, but the fact is the Cirrus chute can be effective.

 

I hadn't seen the recent ones because they're just too new.  Unless there's a specific accident I'm interested in, I don't usually bother with NTSB reports less than about six months old because so many of them have no useful information, often just a blank page.

 

I'm not saying the parachute is utterly useless, just that it doesn't actually save lives often enough to make the Cirrus safer than the average.  And sometimes it turns embarrassments into accidents when pilots pull the handle unnecessarily, although none of these induced accidents have been fatal.

 

The CAPS history page is a good resource, which I hadn't seen.  A summary:

54 attempted activations*

16 saves from mechanical problems (this is admittedly more than I expected; I expected 5-10)

19 saves from pilot error, including flying into bad weather**

2 rocket failures

8 failures due to activating outside the envelope

9 other (no data, midair collision, pilot incapacitation; some of these were saves)

 

The page doesn't count accidents where the system is simply never activated, or is activated after ground impact.  There are a lot of these.  There's also quite good evidence that many of the saves, whether mechanical or pilot error, would have been survivable anyway.  One pilot activated the CAPS because he got lost, and this is counted as a save.  In both cases where the system failed outright, the occupants survived.

 

* There are 249 total Cirrus accidents in the NTSB database, 98 of which have been fatal; but not all Cirrus accidents, including some reported on the CAPS page, are in the NTSB database due to them occurring outside the US

** One of these is counted as a save by the CAPS page, but a similar accident is not considered a save by that page.  I count neither of them as saves.

[DaV8or]

When I start thinking about night flying, mountains or open water, I have to admit that the thought of flying in a single engine piston aircraft is not the most reassuring. So I am now wondering...given enough money, but still within the constraints of a mindful budget, would you guys prefer a twin, or would a single with parachute be the better option (Cirrus)? I'm talking solely from the perspective of reducing risks due to mechanical failure. I don't want to start the age old talk about more training, being more cautious with personal minimums, etc. All things equal, what do you think is a safer and financially sound option?

Stefan

 

So back to the original post... "within the constraints of a mindful budget" is kind of vague, but if budget is an issue, clearly the single with the parachute is much cheaper than the twin. A twin can add a lot of safety... if you train a lot and stay proficient. From a safety and statistics point of view, the parachute is a far safer alternative to the twin for the average 40-75 hour per year private pilot. So IMO, from both a safety and cost perspective of the average private pilot, the parachute is far superior to the twin.

 

For me personally, it is a moot point. I can't afford either. I try to reduce risk by avoiding night flight, flight over large bodies of water, mountains and forests. Obviously one has to fly over some of these things sometimes, but planning routes and times to avoid them is IMO the best survival strategy for those of us that can't afford a parachute, or an extra engine.

[romair]

The point of this was not to start a debate about how much safer you can be with recurrent training, conservative decision making, etc. It is merely an acceptance of the fact that engines do and will fail. It is less likely to be the thing that kills you in the scheme of statistics (compared to VFR into IMC or loss of control), but mechanical failures of some sort is up there in terms of accident causes. If the weather is nice, you are high enough, and there are good suitable places to put the airplane down, then yes, our training will have value. If you are in significant IMC, if it is a night flight, you are over water, or over mountains, no matter how much training you have, your chances of survival significantly decrease once you experience mechanical failure. I love my Mooney, but in the short 2 years that I've had it, I almost had my dual magnetos case fall out of the engine even though it was 2 months out of annual at Don Maxwell and the securing mechanism complied with the most recent AD. It is events such as that one which make me ponder...

I totally disagree with the opinion that a second engine or a parachute does not add safety in the specific circumstances I mentioned above. Further, if you currently avoid flying in those circumstances, I think it would open up more opportunities to enjoy flight. Most of us probably do enjoy flying at night, or over open water, but we don't do it due to risk avoidance. I plan on owning my airplane for the next 4-5 years, save some money, and then maybe move on to something else that would allow me to make those flights, while adding another layer of safety to both myself, and my passengers.

A Barron B55 with mid-time on the engines can be had for about 150K. Assuming you fly for another 5-6 years on those engines, then overhaul them, and fly another 10 years on the newly overhauled engines, you are looking at flying for about 15 years spending about 360k in fuel (200 hrs/yr, 25 gph, 15yrs), and another 80k in the overhauling of engines, with a total operating cost of 420k, and a total cost of around 600k. 

One the other hand, I expect that 5 years from now, a Cirrus SR 22 Generation 5 could be had for about 350K, mid-time engine. Again, assuming you will fly about 15 years, needing to overhaul the engine, you are looking at 230k in fuel cost (avg of 5.5 dollars/gallon), plus another 40k in engine overhaul so that's a total of 270k total operating cost, and total cost of about 630k.

As you can see, the total cost over 15 yrs is about the same. The Cirrus definitely would have the advantage of being a much newer airplane with glass cockpit, FIKI, turbo, air-conditioning, etc. The Barron does have a second engine .

[ArtVandelay]

 

As you can see, the total cost over 15 yrs is about the same

Not quite, you will recover some of the cost of the airplane when you sell it, so you should only include the depreciation of the plane itself as a cost.

[bnicolette]

Not quite, you will recover some of the cost of the airplane when you sell it, so you should only include the depreciation of the plane itself as a cost.

 

That is one problem with the Cirrus but at an entry point at which Stefan is looking at the "bulk" of the depreciation has been absorbed by the previous owners.

[John Pleisse]

Posted Today, 11:08 AM

Bnicolette, on 15 Feb 2014 - 2:09 PM, said:

That is one problem with the Cirrus but at an entry point at which Stefan is looking at the "bulk" of the depreciation has been absorbed by the previous owners.

 

I agree...they are not built anywhere as well as a Beech or Mooney, but they are now a tremendous value. 2003 SR20, 1600TT, 2 X430W, 55X, Sandel, Avidyne screen repair, CAPS repack, $99k, ready for your OH. That's value. $130k...go fly for 10 years on your engine.

[John Pleisse]

Lest we forget, there are many countries in the world that require two engines at night, over populated areas and IFR.

[DaV8or]

We LOVE our Mooney.

However, having flown Part 135 in very well maintained Baron 58s with KLN-89s (back then that was a state of the art GPS) ... I would prefer the Baron and a second engine for over water and mountainous terrain.

 

But here's the real crux of the matter- would you still prefer the Baron if you had the minimum FAA training for part 91 twin ops and did about 40-60 hours a year total? The accident record suggests that the average part 91 operator is far better off with the parachute. Do you agree?