Is it a sin to buy a Cirrus?

[Vaughn]

I had a SR20, easy to fly, efficient airplane except when it comes to maintenance. Engine overhaul cost for the IO-360 is $50k plus unless you get a new one with a Lycoming. CAPS cost varies from $17-20k depending on generation, once timed out plane is unairworthy. If it has Avidyne PFD/MFD be sure it has the $500 a year insurance, repair cost is crazy. The SR20 is really a 2+1, really a dog on climb out but great once in cruise and crazy easy to fly. The 22 rocks and it's crazy easy to fly! Would I take a SR22, sure but for the same money you can get a LOT of Mooney!

Edited May 15, 2021 by Vaughn

[toto]

1 hour ago, Vaughn said:

once timed out plane is unairworthy

Have any Cirrus aircraft hit the 12000 hour airframe limit? I always thought this was an "abundance of caution" thing around composite structures that would be reevaluated as the fleet aged. 

[CoffeeCan]

On 5/14/2021 at 12:02 PM, jaylw314 said:

That's not a particularly useful measurement, since it's confounded by the probability that not all the chute pulls would have resulted in fatal accidents in the first place.  How many other incidents in other aircraft would have resulted in recoveries and "holy s--t!" moments instead of chute pulls?  Given the fact that Cirrus is ostensibly trying to engender a "pull first, ask questions later" mentality, another more likely conclusion from that relative risk increase is that Cirrus pilots, indeed, are behaving that way.  

Well, first thing: it's not a measurement, it's an extrapolation of risk; in other words, an estimate.  Let's not make it out as if 3.5X RR is an actuality. All we can really say with any degree of certainty is that the apparent rate failure of Cirrus aircraft to stay in the air (or on the ground with the shiny side up) is higher than for most other GA aircraft.

But your main point is valid and I agree with it: encouraging folks to pull the chute is probably not helping Cirrus pilots to fly their airplanes as effectively as they could.

[Mooney217RN]

On 3/28/2021 at 2:49 PM, NJMac said:

One of my aviation mentors is pushing me into a Cirrus.  He had 2 mooney's and then 2 Cirrus's.  Being a 5 min flight from Steel also helps with any mx and annuals.   One I'm looking at has TKS and 1080 useful.  It's a pretty compelling value proposition IMO.

As a longstanding Mooney owner and pilot for decades, I say go for it.  What I like about the Cirrus aircraft is that it gets people into planes.  There's a lot I don't like about them, but if it gets you into a plane, do it.

Here's what I don't like - no nosewheel steering, no trim wheel, no prop control (it's a weird linkage), high maintenance costs, higher insurance costs, poor maintenance support from the factory, challenging to get into and out of (far more than a Mooney), chute repack every 10 years, high fuel burn, slower than a Mooney, oddball landing characteristics, no articulating seat.

Here's what I do like - very nice in turbulence, the plane looks good, chicks dig it (I had to get that one in), it's easy to fly, good ergonomics, nifty doors albeit tough to close at times, decent handling characteristics.

If it gets you into a plane, do it.  Don't be fooled by the parachute, it doesn't always work.  I know of two instances where the chute didn't work, one of which ended in a fatality.  I also know of a guy who last week, lost the engine in his SR22 and flew it to the nearest suitable airport - he and his passenger walked away.  The chute isn't a savior or a panacea.

[Mooney217RN]

On 5/14/2021 at 9:05 AM, AH-1 Cobra Pilot said:

This is the only Cirrus that interests me:  https://cirrusaircraft.com/aircraft/vision-jet/

If you want something eye-opening, read the story about the first Cirrus chute user.  I am convinced the guy just wanted to go down in history as the first to use the chute.  Many others use the chute without full effort to try alternatives.  That also goes to show Mooneys are pilots' airplanes; if you prefer Cirrus over Mooney, then...

Read the report about the guy who pulled the chute in Texas but it failed to deploy.  Reason for pulling the chute - electrical failure.  Outcome - the pilot realized that the BRS didn't function properly, and he flew the aircraft to the nearest suitable airfield and landed safely.  The rocket and tether were trailing the airframe as he taxied in.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Mooney217RN said:

As a longstanding Mooney owner and pilot for decades, I say go for it.  What I like about the Cirrus aircraft is that it gets people into planes.  There's a lot I don't like about them, but if it gets you into a plane, do it.

Here's what I don't like - no nosewheel steering, no trim wheel, no prop control (it's a weird linkage), high maintenance costs, higher insurance costs, poor maintenance support from the factory, challenging to get into and out of (far more than a Mooney), chute repack every 10 years, high fuel burn, slower than a Mooney, oddball landing characteristics, no articulating seat.

Here's what I do like - very nice in turbulence, the plane looks good, chicks dig it (I had to get that one in), it's easy to fly, good ergonomics, nifty doors albeit tough to close at times, decent handling characteristics.

If it gets you into a plane, do it.  Don't be fooled by the parachute, it doesn't always work.  I know of two instances where the chute didn't work, one of which ended in a fatality.  I also know of a guy who last week, lost the engine in his SR22 and flew it to the nearest suitable airport - he and his passenger walked away.  The chute isn't a savior or a panacea.

We look after about 35 Cirrus airframes, in my experience factory support is second to none.

Clarence

[Raymond J1]

Anyway, when you have bought the Cirrus, another question will come : Have I committed a sin ?... So to save confession fees, buy a Mooney right away.

[Ragsf15e]

5 hours ago, M20Doc said:

We look after about 35 Cirrus airframes, in my experience factory support is second to none.

Clarence

Definitely more resources and support than our beloved model... how goes the G1000 waas upgrade?

I saw a cirrus factory test pilot come out and fly an airplane to certify the repair after it was damaged and had to have a significant wing repair done. I love Mooney, but don’t ask for too much support at the moment.

[MikeOH]

On 5/14/2021 at 7:41 AM, CoffeeCan said:

I know a couple of ... owners who are truly disciplined pilots who do good work. But I have long suspected that there is a subset of ... owners who are, as you say, unsafe.

IMHO

[jaylw314]

12 hours ago, CoffeeCan said:

Well, first thing: it's not a measurement, it's an extrapolation of risk; in other words, an estimate.  Let's not make it out as if 3.5X RR is an actuality. All we can really say with any degree of certainty is that the apparent rate failure of Cirrus aircraft to stay in the air (or on the ground with the shiny side up) is higher than for most other GA aircraft.

But your main point is valid and I agree with it: encouraging folks to pull the chute is probably not helping Cirrus pilots to fly their airplanes as effectively as they could.

I think there are a lot of nuances to that position.  I don't think it's automatically a virtue to fly your airplane as effectively as possible--the margin between hitting stuff very hard and having a "holy s--t" moment is too small if you do.  If more Cirrus's are falling out of the sky under chutes, but fewer of their owners have died trying to be "superior pilots" because they've been trained not to try, that would be a good thing, right?  I just wouldn't take the higher incident rate as anything indicative of the quality of Cirrus pilots, even if I share the personal experience of more Cirrus pilots doing and saying things that make my eyebrows elevate than other pilots.

Obviously, the whole question of chute pulling and Cirrus training still raises a lot of controversy as to whether it produces better or worse outcomes, but I would not take it as obvious or simple that one is better than the other.  Insurance companies and courts might value the cost of a death at 10-15 times the cost of a Cirrus airframe, but I'm somewhat more emotionally invested in my survival (and my passengers' survival) than that.  

[Urs_Wildermuth]

I think there are many reasons why a Cirrus may well be a very good proposition to many of us.

The primary has been mentioned early on: If it gets you to fly, then by all means do it.

I'd add: If it gets your wife and family to fly with you and enjoy the experience rather than having to be coaxed into each flight and overcome anxiety, by all means do it.

The latter is a major major factor. I've come across LOADS of pilots who have given up flying or just go for $$burgers alone because their spouses are anxious or flatly refuse. Quite a few are ok flying before they have kids, the moment kids come into the equation, they won't step onto a SEP airplane and more importantly won't allow their kids to do so unless it has that all important way out: The shute.

Cirrus is not the biggest certified GA manufacturer these days for nothing. They have done this right: They have managed to overcome in large extents the single biggest reason why many many pilots are forced to stop flying or fly alone. In that regard: They deserve to be in the position they are now and it is only logical that those who still deny that fact that the shute is the one psychological aspect which directly translates into airplane sales deserve no better than they have fared.

Would I get a Cirrus if I had the financial possibility? Yes. Quite possibly an early model without G1000 in order not to be fully dependent on Garmin for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ upgrades, but a G2 with the Avidyne flight deck, DCF90 AP and two off the shelf navigators, I would be tempted, primarily for the reason I mentioned. I have a 4 year old daughter and have not flown my own airplane since she was born, as my wife is anxious. VERY anxious, total change of person to who she was before. Before, she flew with me just fine, since, no way. Chances are they will never fly with me in the Mooney or any other small airplane, but quite possibly would if they know they have that chute.

And frankly, it is very hard to argue against the obvious safety gain of the shute. Those guys in the midair last week would be dead for sure, so would some others. Pull early pull often may be looked at as cowardness or bad airmanship even, but it does in 99% of cases have a clear and predictable ending: Plane broken, can be replaced, lifes saved cannot.

My alternative would be a twin, but then again, those cost even more to maintain than a CAPS equipped Cirrus and you do not get the safety aspect for pilot incapacitation and those kinds of fears people have.

The Aviator in me still sais, Mooneys are superior in almost every factor. The pilot in me loves the way my Mooney flies, the economy of my C Model and the fact that I can afford it, whereas I never will be able to buy even a J model, let alone a Cirrus, which is in the >150k range. So I will remain a Mooneyac for the rest of my flying, but that may well be very soon to an end if it means choosing between time with your family or without them.

 

 

[aviatoreb]

4 hours ago, Urs_Wildermuth said:

I think there are many reasons why a Cirrus may well be a very good proposition to many of us.

The primary has been mentioned early on: If it gets you to fly, then by all means do it.

I'd add: If it gets your wife and family to fly with you and enjoy the experience rather than having to be coaxed into each flight and overcome anxiety, by all means do it.

The latter is a major major factor. I've come across LOADS of pilots who have given up flying or just go for $$burgers alone because their spouses are anxious or flatly refuse. Quite a few are ok flying before they have kids, the moment kids come into the equation, they won't step onto a SEP airplane and more importantly won't allow their kids to do so unless it has that all important way out: The shute.

Cirrus is not the biggest certified GA manufacturer these days for nothing. They have done this right: They have managed to overcome in large extents the single biggest reason why many many pilots are forced to stop flying or fly alone. In that regard: They deserve to be in the position they are now and it is only logical that those who still deny that fact that the shute is the one psychological aspect which directly translates into airplane sales deserve no better than they have fared.

Would I get a Cirrus if I had the financial possibility? Yes. Quite possibly an early model without G1000 in order not to be fully dependent on Garmin for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ upgrades, but a G2 with the Avidyne flight deck, DCF90 AP and two off the shelf navigators, I would be tempted, primarily for the reason I mentioned. I have a 4 year old daughter and have not flown my own airplane since she was born, as my wife is anxious. VERY anxious, total change of person to who she was before. Before, she flew with me just fine, since, no way. Chances are they will never fly with me in the Mooney or any other small airplane, but quite possibly would if they know they have that chute.

And frankly, it is very hard to argue against the obvious safety gain of the shute. Those guys in the midair last week would be dead for sure, so would some others. Pull early pull often may be looked at as cowardness or bad airmanship even, but it does in 99% of cases have a clear and predictable ending: Plane broken, can be replaced, lifes saved cannot.

My alternative would be a twin, but then again, those cost even more to maintain than a CAPS equipped Cirrus and you do not get the safety aspect for pilot incapacitation and those kinds of fears people have.

The Aviator in me still sais, Mooneys are superior in almost every factor. The pilot in me loves the way my Mooney flies, the economy of my C Model and the fact that I can afford it, whereas I never will be able to buy even a J model, let alone a Cirrus, which is in the >150k range. So I will remain a Mooneyac for the rest of my flying, but that may well be very soon to an end if it means choosing between time with your family or without them.

 

 

That is a very relevant discussion Urs, and speaks to the emotional appeal of a parachute, and surely it is that which drives sales, along with some other factors.

Interestingly I had an opposite reaction a few years ago.  There was a point about 7 or 8 years ago before I started investing a lot more into this plane in terms of restoring it to its much newer more modern appearance as it snow.  I mentioned to my wife that well maybe we might also consider a different airplane like a Cirrus and the parachute.  Her immediate reaction was to say that she thought told her that the airplane still flies and could be landed without the engine and that she doesn't want to come down with a parachute. OK!  So I invested in upgrading my then current and still current Mooney!

I totally get the emotional appeal.  I do not think that I for one would be one bit safer over all with a parachute.  Why?  I simply do not fly at night or low IFR in my single engine piston.  I probably would with a parachute in all reality.  That would give me a little more utility, which is great, but I think in return I would end up reducing the safety margin that a parachute might give me (maybe) by then adding some more risky flying.  I fly day vfr or day mvfr (in ifr) only.

Emotional appeal - and I don't mean to open it all up - but I guess it already is - we live on the water in a beautiful house by the river and we kayak and canoe almost daily.  Canoe's per hour of exposure have a worse statistic of death (by drowning) than small ga.  No one blinks for a second taking on that risk.  No one looks at me funny if they see me out on the water on a sumy day with children in a canoe or thinks I am a crazy thrill seeker.  But it is worse than small ga.

[LANCECASPER]

40 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

.Emotional appeal - and I don't mean to open it all up - but I guess it already is - we live on the water in a beautiful house by the river and we kayak and canoe almost daily.  Canoe's per hour of exposure have a worse statistic of death (by drowning) than small ga.  No one blinks for a second taking on that risk.  No one looks at me funny if they see me out on the water on a sumy day with children in a canoe or thinks I am a crazy thrill seeker.  But it is worse than small ga.

That may be true, and it’s a interesting analogy, but completely impossible to prove. The county I grew up in, in Northern Minnesota, had over 1000 lakes, just that one county. At any given time during the summer who knows how many canoes were out on each of those lakes, not to mention the rivers and streams? Just one per lake in that county is 1000. At some times there were dozens, maybe over 100 at a time on the bigger lakes. I’m sure there must have been drownings, especially tourists who weren’t familiar with canoes, but I can’t remember any. I remember some from swimming. 

[Urs_Wildermuth]

55 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

I totally get the emotional appeal.  I do not think that I for one would be one bit safer over all with a parachute.

I never thought I actually would give this much of a thought, for the very same reasons your wife said rightly that yea, the plane will fly. Personally I see the shute as a definite improvement of safety in some conditions in which I simply won't fly right now: Night and low IMC. SEP for me, this is a no go as in all those cases, if that 40 year old engine calls it quits, I have no real way of avoiding a crash. And as unfortunately we have seen, in recent times, we have lost a few of our membership to situations which would have ended differently with a shute. Not least the one which really hit me hard: The loss of the Acclaim Ultra in a massive fire after an otherwise fine emergency landing.

However, it is not only "you" who feels safer. It's those with you as well. Not only can the engine fail or heaven forbid the wing fall off (possibly due to a mid air or something similar). But the one human being able to fly this plane can fail too. And then it is not the plane's fault.

In general we have to realize that often enough people who fly with us or who otherwise "give" themselfs to trust in our skills may have rational or irrational fears we do not grasp and in some times maybe even better not grasp. Fact is: Stuff like BRS or the recent "autoland" button are a HUGE matter to many passengers. And for a good many of us, that can well turn into a "to be or not to  be" decision.

Personally I have not much interest in any past time if my family will not take part. And I hear this from many people. So if that chute makes them come along as opposed to flying being a one person hobby on the cost of family time, the shute it will be for most.

 

As for the analogy with other perceived dangerous past times:

Humans are absolutely lousy risk assessors. But unfortunately, in our decision process, whether we do something or not, perceived risk is the driver, not statistics. And the perceived risk of GA is often blown way out of proportion, yet it is that which makes or brakes confidence for many people.

 

as for the QED: all we need to look at is sales. Cirrus has outsold the entire certified market. Yes, these are nice planes but no, that is not why. It's the shute.

I remember that old commercial for the first sugar free chewing gum where a small boy makes commercial for it and sais how he loves it. But in the end, he sais why: Because it is the only gum his mother will let him have. Nowadays, BRS/CAPS equipped planes are the only ones many non-flyier spouses will let their flying partners have. And I guess while many know better, they want their spouses on board, so there we go.

 

 

[KLRDMD]

6 hours ago, Urs_Wildermuth said:

My alternative would be a twin, but then again, those cost even more to maintain than a CAPS equipped Cirrus and you do not get the safety aspect for pilot incapacitation and those kinds of fears people have.

I've actually looked at this and it appears to be pretty close to a wash financially between feeding and maintaining a second engine and prop versus maintaining the 'chute, line cutters, etc.

Below 500' AGL neither a second engine nor a 'chute will help you most of the time. After that you have one option in a Cirrus and more options in a twin. But you have to be proficient in a twin for it to be safer. For me, that's flying at least 100 hours a year and running scenarios on every takeoff and landing as well as often in cruise. You don't have to think much with a Cirrus and there are people that need that.

Edited May 16, 2021 by KLRDMD

[aviatoreb]

5 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

That may be true, and it’s a interesting analogy, but completely impossible to prove. The county I grew up in, in Northern Minnesota, had over 1000 lakes, just that one county. At any given time during the summer who knows how many canoes were out on each of those lakes, not to mention the rivers and streams? Just one per lake in that county is 1000. At some times there were dozens, maybe over 100 at a time on the bigger lakes. I’m sure there must have been drownings, especially tourists who weren’t familiar with canoes, but I can’t remember any. I remember some from swimming. 

I agree - I have no idea how they would develop such a statistic on canoe's since while its easy to get the numerator - number of deaths drowning or otherwise, how the heck do they get the denominator - number of hours?  But there are claimed stats out there on the subject, and it is the kind of thing actuaries do.  And they claim numbers worse than small ga.  I would presume that the bad outcomes in canoes are either due to drinking and boating, and or, not wearing a life preserver - but well - just as in flying, one can do things to improve stats.

Another thing people around here do which turns out to be very dangerous - but I forget the numbers -' is snowmobiles.  Every year in these northern counties someone either breaks through the ice, runs into a tree or runs into a car and has a and outcome on their snowmobile.  Likewise hunting.  All good honest outdoorsmen activities, but not without risk.  But this same people who do those things look at us askance when we see we fly.

[aviatoreb]

Just now, KLRDMD said:

I've actually looked at this and it appears to be pretty close to a wash financially between feeding and maintaining a second engine and prop versus maintain the 'chute, line cutters, etc.

Below 500' AGL neither a second engine nor a 'chute will help you most of the time. After that you have one option in a Cirrus and more operations in a twin. But you have to be proficient in a twin for it to be safer. For me, that's flying at least 100 hours a year and running scenarios on every takeoff and landing as well as often in cruise. You don't have to think much with a Cirrus and there are people that need that.

As far as running scenarios - even in a single engine piston its a good idea. AND remember that for most of us, a large fraction of take off's is at our home airport, so especially there have a plan what you might do if the worst happens on take off.  At what altitude you just go straight ahead and try for the runway. At what altitude go straight ahead and aim for something.  At what altitude I turn 20 degrees left and aim for a field just outside the gate.  Etc.

[CoffeeCan]

25 minutes ago, Urs_Wildermuth said:

 

As for the analogy with other perceived dangerous past times:

Humans are absolutely lousy risk assessors. But unfortunately, in our decision process, whether we do something or not, perceived risk is the driver, not statistics. And the perceived risk of GA is often blown way out of proportion, yet it is that which makes or breaks confidence for many people.

 

as for the QED: all we need to look at is sales. Cirrus has outsold the entire certified market. Yes, these are nice planes but no, that is not why. It's the shute.

 

 

 

I agree completely on the ability of human beings to assess risk. Humans routinely accept terrible risk ratios without blinking if the activity or equipment involved is something they are familiar with. As an ER physician I have seen this at work every day of my career. Yet other activities/equipment that they are comfortable with due to familiarity, but are actually significantly more dangerous than GA, scare people to the point of terror.

Example:  the media is constantly harping on the "unacceptably high" numbers of people injured or killed with firearms every year. Occasionally they will point out that firearms kill more people than motor vehicle accidents, but that gets shot down (pun intended) pretty quickly when suicides are taken out of the data pool, so we aren't hearing that as much any more. However, when you look at MVC's from the ER perspective, they have a much larger impact on the health and well-being of Americans than firearms. 

It is a rare day in my moderately busy ER that I don't take care of at least one MVC-injured person. On most days there will be several MVC injuries, most of which are not life-threatening, but significant nonetheless. On the other hand, even though my ER is in a fairly violent south Texas city, I only see a half dozen gunshot wounds per year. Again, most of these GSW's are not life-threatening. I've discussed this with other trauma physicians, and we all have noticed that the media greatly downplays the impact of MVC's on the nation's health while it exaggerates the impact of GSW's and "gun violence". 

The same analogy applies to MVC's vs GA accidents. People who do not fly are not accustomed to airplanes as they are to motor vehicles. It's simply a familiarity issue. You can show them graphs and charts until you're blue in the face, but the emotional factors in their risk assessment will overwhelm your facts every time. 

So, yeah, I can see the emotional security a parachute-equipped Cirrus gives may be a huge factor for many people. 

[CoffeeCan]

5 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

I don’t want a Cirrus, personally, but I am truly dumbfounded by some of the “hate” that has been cast their way and the way of their pilots in this thread.  If any dumbassery took place in this accident it was surely the fault of this individual pilot and not his airplane.  
 

blue, I don't see any "hate" directed at Cirrus airplanes or their pilots here, just an  honest discussion of the possibility/ probability that the Cirrus parachute and training system may 1) be selective for timid people who would otherwise not become pilots, and 2) encourage people to fail to execute normal aviation problem solving. If you read more than that into this discussion, I think you may be overreading. 

Edited May 16, 2021 by CoffeeCan

[Urs_Wildermuth]

3 hours ago, CoffeeCan said:

the possibility/ probability that the Cirrus parachute and training system may 1) selective for timid people who would otherwise not become pilots, and 2) encourage people to fail to execute normal aviation problem solving.

I think it has been very long reckognized that this may be a factor, even though I personally think it is dwarfed by the "spouse effect" of the shute.

[aviatoreb]

4 hours ago, CoffeeCan said:

blue, I don't see any "hate" directed at Cirrus airplanes or their pilots here, just and  honest discussion of the possibility/ probability that the Cirrus parachute and training system may 1) selective for timid people who would otherwise not become pilots, and 2) encourage people to fail to execute normal aviation problem solving. If you read more than that into this discussion, I think you may be overreading. 

I have met at least one opposite of timid cirrus pilot - a bullet proof personality who launches into the worst stuff pleased as can be he has a parachute.  I think there’s all types.  Good bad and ugly.

[Schllc]

I don’t care for the cirrus but don’t really have anything bad to say about the airplane that wouldn’t be considered preference and or opinion. 
I will say that I believe the existence of the parachute in the airplane, induces different decisions from some pilots. 
That is just human nature. Knowing the parachute is a “fail safe”, undoubtedly causes some people to do some things they may not have done without the parachute. 
I went through the official cirrus training. They focus almost exclusively on the use of the autopilot and the parachute. 
Take from that what you will, it isn’t opinion, it’s a fact. 
Maybe it’s the most effective way to train their pilots, I’m not qualified to determine the efficacy or validity, but I prefer more focus on flying the airplane. 
bash away...

[MikeOH]

2 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

..., not all Mooney pilots are cheapskates, either.  

OMG

Say it isn't so!!

[aviatoreb]

1 minute ago, MikeOH said:

OMG

Say it isn't so!!

It’s ok Mike - he didn’t mean you...

[Urs_Wildermuth]

3 hours ago, CoffeeCan said:

Humans routinely accept terrible risk ratios without blinking if the activity or equipment involved is something they are familiar with. As an ER physician I have seen this at work every day of my career. Yet other activities/equipment that they are comfortable with due to familiarity, but are actually significantly more dangerous than GA, scare people to the point of terror.

Exactly.

There is a German saying: "What the farmer doesn't know, he won't eat" applied to food picky people. But this principle is very significant for risk assessment as well. In some instances very appropriately so, in others totally inappropriate.

For flying, the fear of flying in general is a prime example of this. People are generally uncomfortable with situations where they relinquish control to others. In an airplane, often enough the feeling of claustrophobia comes in addition, as they are in an enclosed space which moves beyond their control. The more people know about flying, the less they are afraid.

So it is only natural that pilots who know flying and their airplane will accept the risk of flight very differently than a person who has no knowledge or trust in flying.

Spouses often see their significant other fail in tasks they deem easy, repairing things at home, stressy situations elsewhere and simply do not have the confidence that someone they regards as inept in other things important to them may be up to flying an airplane, which to many of them is something they are scared of even if Chuck Yeager was flying them. Parashutes in a psychological sense are the ultimate safety factor, so if they must, then please with a plane with a shute. Otherwise, forget it.

I think Mooney massively missed the bus on that one. Remember when the M10 was announced? First questions everyone asked was about the shute. When they said no to that, interest in this plane completely collapsed. Even here on Mooneyspace, the M10 was never discussed in any way which indicated remote interest.

 

IMHO designing new GA airframes for family use without a shute is pointless.