Mooney or Cirrus?

[RogueOne]

45 minutes ago, DonMuncy said:

I think this chute vs no chute discussion to be overworked. I think that virtually all of us would take a BRS if it were free, had no weight, and required zero maintenance. Once you take those into account, then it becomes a question of value vs all three of those, and thus a personal decision.

Well duh...

[aviatoreb]

51 minutes ago, kortopates said:

I really don't get why some of you, not just Erik and Ross (if I understand correctly), don't want to give credit to a chute saving someone for being stupid? We have pilots of all abilities, experience and of course poor decision making abilities. Buy we could say that most accidents are the result of pilots doing something stupid. So why would anyone suggest that if a "better or less stupid" pilot could have gotten the plane out of the situation successfully without using the chute, or avoided getting into that situation to begin with,  then that save shouldn't count??? You might as well as claim, stupid lives don't matter. In my mind if it saved a stupid pilot, it saved a life which is the only relevant fact. Its irrelevant to me that that pilot's own stupidity got them into the situation to begin with because their are always going to be pilots that feel that way. Being human is being stupid at times. 

Besides what rogue said - and I agree-

i also think some of the pilots were stupid specifically because they had a cute and may have been more cautious thus not needing a chute if they didn’t have one.  So in that sense it’s a save from a problem it in part created.

please don’t attribute silly things like declaring I (we) don’t worry about even reckless people.  I have literally put my money where my mouth is on this point at risk of my own life and limb in the past.

e

[RogueOne]

46 minutes ago, DonMuncy said:

I think this chute vs no chute discussion to be overworked. I think that virtually all of us would take a BRS if it were free, had no weight, and required zero maintenance. Once you take those into account, then it becomes a question of value vs all three of those, and thus a personal decision.

Beyond that.  Mooney does NOT have a chute.  NOT available.  Title is Mooney vs. Cirrus.  I choose Mooney over Cirrus.  ALL the reasons have been discussed.  Would I choose Mooney “more” if it also had a chute (1980’s retrofit) under your criteria?  Absolutely.

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

I really don't get why some of you, not just Erik and Ross (if I understand correctly), don't want to give credit to a chute saving someone for being stupid? We have pilots of all abilities, experience and of course poor decision making abilities. Buy we could say that most accidents are the result of pilots doing something stupid. So why would anyone suggest that if a "better or less stupid" pilot could have gotten the plane out of the situation successfully without using the chute, or avoided getting into that situation to begin with,  then that save shouldn't count??? You might as well as claim, stupid lives don't matter. In my mind if it saved a stupid pilot, it saved a life which is the only relevant fact. Its irrelevant to me that that pilot's own stupidity got them into the situation to begin with because their are always going to be pilots that feel that way. Being human is being stupid at times. 

Do you believe that 100% of automobile airbag deployment’s would have resulted in serious injury without them? Do you think it would be accurate if the industry suggested that every time an airbag deployed a life was saved? 

I can state with confidence that some low speed airbag deployments cause more injury than they prevent.  Making that statement doesn’t mean that I’m not a proponent of airbags (I am). It merely means that I’m willing to accept reality.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Shadrach

[Shadrach]

On 8/5/2019 at 4:27 PM, M20F said:

Then you would be arguing for the sake of arguing.  

It is clear to me if you have CAPS and use it properly you live. If you want to see it otherwise fair enough but 100% survivability is a compelling statistic to me. 

You didn’t quote his whole post. He was purposely taking each extreme (all pulls prevented fatals/no pulls prevented fatals) to illustrate the point that the truth lie somewhere in the middle and couldn’t be known.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Shadrach

[Shadrach]

On 8/5/2019 at 11:03 PM, Tom said:

But I have no qualms about pulling the chute and being called a puss by the cognitively impaired in society (they too need their dopamine hit...however they get it).

Can you please quote where this has been said?  I haven’t seen it anywhere here. It appears to be an attempt to paint anyone who disagrees with you as some sort of macho, neanderthal that charges through life all balls, dick and no forehead judging others who don’t do the same. If someone has suggested you’re a “Puss” for your position on BRS please point them out as I’m sure many of us would like to take them to task.  If you can’t point to an example then please stop suggesting that’s some significant portion of the pilot population feels this way. I don’t believe they do and you projecting that onto them just makes you look weird.

Furthermore with regard to “a save is a save”. I have a friend who had an engine failure in an SR22T at night. He had a complete power loss but was in clear VFR at something like 11,500’ (IIRC). He had a 7000’+ foot runway almost directly underneath of him. He elected to dead stick and did so successfully. Had he pulled the chute you would be counting that as a save.  That would indeed be true but executing a successful dead stick was also a save.  BRS would’ve saved his life but it was not needed.

He was indeed chastised by the factory for not pulling...

Edited August 7, 2019 by Shadrach
Awful talk to text translation

[kortopates]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

Every chute pull would not have been a fatal accident without the chute.

Okay, it seems I did misinterpret. In that Hank, Erik, Ross and Scott are essentially echoing the comment I quoted from Hank above.

Although I can agree with that sentiment, that every chute pull would not be necessary for every pilot, but I find it difficult to second guess or deny a pilot that did pull the chute from counting it as a save. I say that fully realizing that we have all seen some crazy saves. One that I recall many years ago, was a new pilot that flew into an area on the east coast with a low marine layer and could not land - yet had plenty of fuel to make it to a VFR destination. But in essence, with myopic vision, the pilot panicked pulled the chute and came  down in the fog while if I recall correctly, used the engine to try to steer clear of some obstacles in the descent. Clearly this would be an example of a wasted or unnecessary chute save that wasn't really necessary. I can't be sure, but I even recall from memory that after the event the pilot or pax was quoted to say something to effect that they proceeded in part with the flight because they had the chute as backup. 

So I don't disagree with any of you that some of these were not necessary at least with a different pilot on board with superior ADM in a less panicked state. But I am going to assume if the pilot pulled it was most likely because that particular pilot at that time believed it was his/her best chance for saving their bacon - so be it. If it can save their life or (most of the time) prevent serious injury, I am all for it. Each time it was successful deployment (such as within the envelope) it made a difference IMO.

Also I don't think the NTSB ever collects enough data on pilot state of mind for anyone to ever do justice to determining if a pilot was truly capable of saving their bacon without the chute, since the majority of pilots will be as brief as possible in providing details; if they're even telling only the truth. 

Sure I'd like to see BRS on Mooney's someday, but I can't see it happening till we see a huge weight loss in the airframe or breakthru in improved lift since we're pretty much at max Vso now. Meanwhile I still prefer my Mooney. Thanks for clarifying but I guess it come down to the fact that as long as it does save lives, its a worthwhile safety device. But given the compromises required, I don't want to give up my very efficient and highly capable Mooney to have a lesser capable and lesser efficient aircraft with one. Nor am I going to knock anyone for choosing to do so. 

Edited August 7, 2019 by kortopates

[aviatoreb]

Just a general few statements.

-If I could choose a Cirrus or a Mooney, I would choose a Mooney, considering same price point.  In fact I did.  Despite the parachute.

-I don't believe that I would be safer in a Cirrus, including factors like how I would likely fly, meaning the missions I would do.

-If I could add a parachute to my 1981 Mooney, at moderate cost, minimal added weight and the STC actually existed - I would. But i don't think all said, it would make me safer.  It might make me feel better.  I know it would make my wife feel better.  ...post script on this one - I did add air bag seatbelt last year.  Minimal weight and moderate cost.

-I like Mooney better.

 

Edited August 7, 2019 by aviatoreb

[kortopates]

21 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Furthermore with regard to “a save is a save”. I have a friend who had an engine failure in an SR22T at night. He had a complete power loss but was in clear VFR at something like 11,500’ (IIRC). He had a 7000’+ foot runway almost directly underneath of him. He elected to dead stick and did so successfully. Had he pulled the chute you would be counting that as a save.  That would indeed be true but executing a successful dead stick was also a save.  BRS would’ve saved his life but it was not needed.

He was indeed chastised by the factory for not pulling...

Very similar to that is the Cirrus guy that had a engine out over the CO Rockies, somewhere between 12-14K in the winter time and had to make a snap decision of what to do. He rightfully (for him) chose not to pull and instead dead stick it on to the top of flat mesa above 9K (IIRC) because he thought if he did pull the winds would pull him away from the flat mesa and down the cliff into much less hospitable terrain. He landed with his wife on board on top and came pretty close to the edge in the snow with relatively minor damage.  I thought that pilot set the bar as a great example of what the ACS refers to as managing the startle response! I don't think the factory tried to chastise him for not pulling.

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

I really don't get why some of you, not just Erik and Ross ...So why would anyone suggest that if a "better or less stupid" pilot could have gotten the plane out of the situation successfully without using the chute, or avoided getting into that situation to begin with,  then that save shouldn't count??? You might as well as claim, stupid lives don't matter. In my mind if it saved a stupid pilot, it saved a life which is the only relevant fact. 

I was thinking about where this statement came from.  And it is a misunderstanding between us.

So my assertion is that it is not saving anyone's life if it may be causing the problem in the first place (in addition to what Ross asserts).  I am not saying that parachute airplanes should not exist, but just not willing to say it saved anyone if it might have been part of causing the problem in the first place.  Best I can think of for comparison is low tar cigarettes.  I hate saying that low tar cigarettes are saving people's lives.

[kortopates]

1 minute ago, aviatoreb said:

I was thinking about where this statement came from.  And it is a misunderstanding between us.

So my assertion is that it is not saving anyone's life if it may be causing the problem in the first place (in addition to what Ross asserts).  I am not saying that parachute airplanes should not exist, but just not willing to say it saved anyone if it might have been part of causing the problem in the first place.  Best I can think of for comparison is low tar cigarettes.  I hate saying that low tar cigarettes are saving people's lives.

Thanks for clarifying. But we can say the same of each technological improvement. Take onboard satellite weather for example. Too many people relied on it without doing proper preflight planning and/or tried to use it tactically rather than strategically and got caught. Its still an incredible improvement for us - one I would feel naked without these days. Maybe they'll say the same about parachutes 50 years from now - or not. 

[Greg Ellis]

58 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Can you please quote where this has been said?  I haven’t seen it anywhere here. It appears to be an attempt to paint anyone who disagrees with you as some sort of macho, neanderthal that charges through life all balls, dick and no forehead judging others who don’t do the same. If someone has suggested you’re a “Puss” for your position on BRS please point them out as I’m sure many of us would like to take them to task.  If you can’t point to an example then please stop suggesting that’s some significant portion of the pilot population feels this way. I don’t believe they do and you projecting that onto them just makes you look weird.

Furthermore with regard to “a save is a save”. I have a friend who had an engine failure in an SR22T at night. He had a complete power loss but was in clear VFR at something like 11,500’ (IIRC). He had a 7000’+ foot runway almost directly underneath of him. He elected to dead stick and did so successfully. Had he pulled the chute you would be counting that as a save.  That would indeed be true but executing a successful dead stick was also a save.  BRS would’ve saved his life but it was not needed.

He was indeed chastised by the factory for not pulling...

And kudos for him for flying his plane and not becoming the passenger along for the ride.  A Chute pull totals the Cirrus I believe.  His plane, after repair of the engine, meant the plane lived to fly another day.  And he was uninjured.  I have heard that the landing under the chute is not an easy one and could be quite violent with possible injury.  He was able to walk away without a scratch.

[Shadrach]

4 minutes ago, Greg Ellis said:

And kudos for him for flying his plane and not becoming the passenger along for the ride.  A Chute pull totals the Cirrus I believe.  His plane, after repair of the engine, meant the plane lived to fly another day.  And he was uninjured.  I have heard that the landing under the chute is not an easy one and could be quite violent with possible injury.  He was able to walk away without a scratch.

Not only did it fly again but it was under warranty. No damage, no out of pocket expense. Just the inconvenience of a mandatory unplanned stop.

[aviatoreb]

40 minutes ago, kortopates said:

Thanks for clarifying. But we can say the same of each technological improvement. Take onboard satellite weather for example. Too many people relied on it without doing proper preflight planning and/or tried to use it tactically rather than strategically and got caught. Its still an incredible improvement for us - one I would feel naked without these days. Maybe they'll say the same about parachutes 50 years from now - or not. 

I agree in principle But it’s not a thought experiment.  There is a reason the bulk safety statistics are not dramatically better for cirrus. Counter what one would guess.  Not all technology seems to be the same relative to human behavior.

[Hank]

8 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

I agree in principle But it’s not a thought experiment.  There is a reason the bulk safety statistics are not dramatically better for cirrus. Counter what one would guess.  Not all technology seems to be the same relative to human behavior.

As technology improves to make an activity (choose one) safer, the humans doing that activity modify their behavior to include more risk, resulting in little to no safety improvement. 

Welcome to the discovery of Human Nature!

[Mufflerbearing]

So the question is Mooney or Cirrus.  For some reason, I want to spell that circus.  Anyhow, I am under contract buying my first plane.  I have looked, studied, and stalked this forum and others for better education in what I was getting into. What plane to buy certainly was on top of the list.  I have decided to buy a Screaming Eagle with all of the bells and whistles that I would put into a plane.  Luckily, I have found the unicorn airplane for me.  I love the looks of a Mooney, the efficiency, the speed and did I already say the looks?  I have looked at the Cirrus and some of my friends have them, but they just weren't for me.  I think it is like race cars.  Now, just follow me.  Years ago, after attending or running 60 high performance track events this one particular year, I had witnessed 6 totaled cars.  That was a high car count for any year.  The thing was, every car had the electronic babysitters on.  It gave a false sense of security.  Physics still applies!  I had one driver in a Porsche GT3, which is an awesome car, that I rode with and the lights on the dash were light up like a Christmas float!  He went through the brakes in no time as the car was working so hard to save him.  He was relying on the electronic systems to make him faster.  I told him to slow down, turn off the electronic babysitters and learn how to drive.  As you can imagine, that conversation didn't go over very well.  I want to learn how to fly everything.  But I want to fly it.  I want to plan my trips with weather in mind.  Maybe I am just a control freak, but there is certain satisfaction in accomplishment.  Does having a chute change the behavior of a pilot?  Maybe.  I bought a Mooney instead of a Cirrus.  The chute just isn't that important to me.  I do get where they are selling the dream and I am glad they are.  It helps our sport.  Kind of wish Mooney did a better job of it too.

[Guitarmaster]

I will take two engines over a chute.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[RogueOne]

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Can you please quote where this has been said?  I haven’t seen it anywhere here. It appears to be an attempt to paint anyone who disagrees with you as some sort of macho, neanderthal that charges through life all balls, dick and no forehead judging others who don’t do the same. If someone has suggested you’re a “Puss” for your position on BRS please point them out as I’m sure many of us would like to take them to task.  If you can’t point to an example then please stop suggesting that’s some significant portion of the pilot population feels this way. I don’t believe they do and you projecting that onto them just makes you look weird.

Furthermore with regard to “a save is a save”. I have a friend who had an engine failure in an SR22T at night. He had a complete power loss but was in clear VFR at something like 11,500’ (IIRC). He had a 7000’+ foot runway almost directly underneath of him. He elected to dead stick and did so successfully. Had he pulled the chute you would be counting that as a save.  That would indeed be true but executing a successful dead stick was also a save.  BRS would’ve saved his life but it was not needed.

He was indeed chastised by the factory for not pulling...

And an airframe was not totaled.

[Tom]

3 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Can you please quote where this has been said?  I haven’t seen it anywhere here. It appears to be an attempt to paint anyone who disagrees with you as some sort of macho, neanderthal that charges through life all balls, dick and no forehead judging others who don’t do the same. If someone has suggested you’re a “Puss” for your position on BRS please point them out as I’m sure many of us would like to take them to task.  If you can’t point to an example then please stop suggesting that’s some significant portion of the pilot population feels this way. I don’t believe they do and you projecting that onto them just makes you look weird.

Furthermore with regard to “a save is a save”. I have a friend who had an engine failure in an SR22T at night. He had a complete power loss but was in clear VFR at something like 11,500’ (IIRC). He had a 7000’+ foot runway almost directly underneath of him. He elected to dead stick and did so successfully. Had he pulled the chute you would be counting that as a save.  That would indeed be true but executing a successful dead stick was also a save.  BRS would’ve saved his life but it was not needed.

He was indeed chastised by the factory for not pulling...

1.  The statement "a save is a save" is like saying "gee, your newborn child is cute" when in fact it looks like an alien mutant (as they all do as newborns).  We make such statements as a matter of expediency as stating to the contrary is just pointless.  If you think that anyone goes to bed at night genuinely believing that 100% of chute pulls are indicated/necessary...I have a bridge to sell you.  No one believes this, not even Cirrus people.

2.  So Ross...if we ran an experiment where we took 100 different pilots in 100 same-type airframes....up to 11k feet over an airport at night and killed the engine...what percentage of the pilots do you fully believe will successfully touch down and stop on the runway?  What percent will undershoot?  Will run off the end?  What percent will end up completely off the airfield?
So run that experiment again, except do it during the daytime.  What are your results?  So run the two experiments again, except this time you get to train the pilots to your heart's content prior to the experiment.  What are your results?
I'm not asking you to publish your answers, but you ought to understand that the number is not 100% in any scenario and you ought to thus understand where the factory is coming from.  

3.  Not per se withstanding the above specific engine-out scenario.....the incessant harping on the "see...see...you don't need the chute in situation XYZ" really misses the end-result goal here...saving lives.  Such harping completely neglects statistics like.....your risk of dying landing off-airport is 3 times higher than on-airport.  Such harping neglects to respect that a fire erupting during your accident sequence makes you 20 times more likely to die.  These two factors alone should encourage the thinking man to in an engine-out to pull the chute unless landing on a runway or other certainly clear flat landing area is assured (or course after running checklists, etc). 

On the subject of the thread....Cirrus is a plane with a big engine and a small wing that needs a chute in an engine-out scenario as the touchdown speed is so high so as to put it in the grim part of the speed vs survivability at touchdown/impact curve.  Not as true with older/lighter/slower Mooneys.

[MIm20c]

I feel like this discussion is another I can’t have it so it must be junk. The chute is just another tool in your arsenal, use it or don’t.  If your family walks away who cares what other “true pilots” think. 

[RogueOne]

1 hour ago, MIm20c said:

I feel like this discussion is another I can’t have it so it must be junk. The chute is just another tool in your arsenal, use it or don’t.  If your family walks away who cares what other “true pilots” think. 

More like: I can’t/don’t have it so I don’t care...

[RogueOne]

1 hour ago, MIm20c said:

I feel like this discussion is another I can’t have it so it must be junk. The chute is just another tool in your arsenal, use it or don’t.  If your family walks away who cares what other “true pilots” think. 

I have never met a “true pilot” that you speak of here.  I have just met pilots and non-pilots...

[RogueOne]

2 hours ago, Tom said:

1.  The statement "a save is a save" is like saying "gee, your newborn child is cute" when in fact it looks like an alien mutant (as they all do as newborns).  We make such statements as a matter of expediency as stating to the contrary is just pointless.  If you think that anyone goes to bed at night genuinely believing that 100% of chute pulls are indicated/necessary...I have a bridge to sell you.  No one believes this, not even Cirrus people.

2.  So Ross...if we ran an experiment where we took 100 different pilots in 100 same-type airframes....up to 11k feet over an airport at night and killed the engine...what percentage of the pilots do you fully believe will successfully touch down and stop on the runway?  What percent will undershoot?  Will run off the end?  What percent will end up completely off the airfield?
So run that experiment again, except do it during the daytime.  What are your results?  So run the two experiments again, except this time you get to train the pilots to your heart's content prior to the experiment.  What are your results?
I'm not asking you to publish your answers, but you ought to understand that the number is not 100% in any scenario and you ought to thus understand where the factory is coming from.  

3.  Not per se withstanding the above specific engine-out scenario.....the incessant harping on the "see...see...you don't need the chute in situation XYZ" really misses the end-result goal here...saving lives.  Such harping completely neglects statistics like.....your risk of dying landing off-airport is 3 times higher than on-airport.  Such harping neglects to respect that a fire erupting during your accident sequence makes you 20 times more likely to die.  These two factors alone should encourage the thinking man to in an engine-out to pull the chute unless landing on a runway or other certainly clear flat landing area is assured (or course after running checklists, etc). 

On the subject of the thread....Cirrus is a plane with a big engine and a small wing that needs a chute in an engine-out scenario as the touchdown speed is so high so as to put it in the grim part of the speed vs survivability at touchdown/impact curve.  Not as true with older/lighter/slower Mooneys.

Must keep beating dead horse!  Must...gasp...Keep...spasm...Beating...

                                                                                                                              Dead...

                                                                                                                                           Horse.

[RogueOne]

Face palm to the interpretations (with agenda) on this thread.

Just friggin’ answer if you would rather have a Mooney or a Cirrus.

Judus Preist.

[RogueOne]

MOONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!