Another Cirrus BRS deployment:

Are these things finally starting to pay off?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?T2EF52EF7

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

Are these things finally starting to pay off?

Well, perhaps they are paying off with no injuries, but keep in mind that
hull insurance is much more expensive than liability insurance and keep in
mind that chute deployments seem to virtually assure totalled Cirrus
airframes.

What volume of chute deployments will turn the Cirrus into the safest GA
airplane but ironically economically non-viable to insure?


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote:
What volume of chute deployments will turn the Cirrus into
the safest GA airplane but ironically economically
non-viable to insure?

That depends on how many pilots get trigger happy about pulling the
'chute in otherwise recoverable situations. If the sum of 'chute and
non-'chute accidents produces a total loss rate higher than for similar
aircraft, that would certainly cause high insurance rates.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

That depends on how many pilots get trigger happy about pulling the
'chute in otherwise recoverable situations.

This will certainly happen. (And in fact would probably be the right
decision: why risk a dead-stick landing in a field that may be full of
rocks or gopher holes or worse, when you can float down instead?)

The criminal justice system has found that "electronic handcuffs",
which confine an individual to house arrest, and which were supposed
to cut down on the prison population, did no such thing. Instead,
judges began sentencing folks to house arrest instead of putting them
on probation.

That's the problem with softer alternatives: they're apt to increase
the wrong side of the equation. In this case, increasing cracked-up
planes rather than decreasing fatal crashes.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...
What volume of chute deployments will turn the Cirrus into the safest GA
airplane but ironically economically non-viable to insure?

As Dan says, it depends on the nature of why the BRS is deployed. However,
the system is sold as a "the airframe is already a total loss anyway"
recovery item, so one would hope that a pilot would NOT use it when the
airframe wouldn't have been a total loss. Generally, when the BRS is
deployed, the net loss to an insurance company should be LESS, not more,
than it otherwise would have been, even with a destroyed airframe (since
there will be recoverable parts of the airframe, engine, and avionics, to
offset the payout).

Add to that the savings in medical expenses or death liability, and I can't
imagine that having a BRS installed would ever wind up creating an airplane
that's not a viable insurance risk.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

airframe wouldn't have been a total loss. Generally, when the BRS is
deployed, the net loss to an insurance company should be LESS, not more,

It depends how it is deployed. Suppose a Cirrus pilot panicks in VFR on top
of an overcast an pulls the chute when he could have done a successful ASR
approach or VFR weather were within range?

Add to that the savings in medical expenses or death liability, and I
can't
imagine that having a BRS installed would ever wind up creating an
airplane
that's not a viable insurance risk.

Hull insurance is more expensive than liability insurance for a Cirrus (and
just about all airplanes worth $150K+), so I do not think the medical
expenses or death liability are much of a factor.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...
It depends how it is deployed. Suppose a Cirrus pilot panicks in VFR on
top
of an overcast an pulls the chute when he could have done a successful ASR
approach or VFR weather were within range?

What's that got to do with anything? Until you demonstrate that a
significant number of deployments will fall into that category, it's
irrelevant. A simple possibility is insufficient.

Furthermore, your example is pretty odd too. A pilot who is qualified to
fly an ASR approach is unlikely to use the parachute, and one who is
unqualified to is better off using the parachute. Similarly, if VFR weather
is within range, and the pilot knows about it, I can't imagine he'd use the
parachute; conversely, if he doesn't know about it, it doesn't matter WHERE
the VFR weather is.

The presence or absence of a parachute is completely irrelevant to your
examples, even if one acknowledges a pilot might use the BRS in a situation
where damage to the airframe could have been avoided.

Hull insurance is more expensive than liability insurance for a Cirrus
(and
just about all airplanes worth $150K+), so I do not think the medical
expenses or death liability are much of a factor.

Again, you are ignoring statistics, and looking only at single incidents.
The reason that liability insurance is less expensive is not that the
payouts are smaller. It's that they are less frequent. More importantly,
the BRS is likely to only be used when medical or death payouts are nearly
guaranteed, and in those situations, I assure the insurance company would
rather pay for the airframe.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Furthermore, your example is pretty odd too. A pilot who is qualified to
fly an ASR approach is unlikely to use the parachute, and one who is
unqualified to is better off using the parachute. Similarly, if VFR
weather
is within range, and the pilot knows about it, I can't imagine he'd use
the
parachute; conversely, if he doesn't know about it, it doesn't matter
WHERE
the VFR weather is.

I think we probably agree on when the parachute SHOULD be used. It is
indeed unknown if that is when it WILL generally be used in practice. It is
possible -- though by no means a fact -- that the Cirrus could attract a
certain demographic of pilot experience and mission profile which will lead
to "false" deployments of the chute in a situation which could be handled
conventionally.

It will be interesting to see the details as information on these accidents
become clear. Purely on a statistical basis, the odds seem likely to me
that 2 airplanes out of a fleet of 1,000 could develop unsolvable doomsday
scenarios requiring chute deployment on the same weekend -- but I cannot say
there is any real basis to that than gut feeling. We need to wait for the
details.

payouts are smaller. It's that they are less frequent. More importantly,
the BRS is likely to only be used when medical or death payouts are nearly
guaranteed, and in those situations, I assure the insurance company would
rather pay for the airframe.

You are correct that the parachute SHOULD only be used in those situations;
whether that turns out to be so in practice is unknown at present.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

keep in
mind that chute deployments seem to virtually assure totalled Cirrus
airframes.

Actually, the 1st Cirrus deployed under chute (Lionel Morrison's last year) was
repaired, exhibited at AOPA and back flying.
Initial reports of the two latest deployments indicate minor to moderate damage
to the airframe. Even if the airframe is not repairable, there should be a high
salvage return on the avionics ,engine, interior & other undamaged parts.

I think the highest cost to an insurance company is medical/death payments,.not
hull repair. Hull insurance cost is a small percentage of hull value, and thus
pretty high on ANY high value aircraft.

John

"ISLIP" wrote in message
...
keep in
mind that chute deployments seem to virtually assure totalled Cirrus
airframes.

Actually, the 1st Cirrus deployed under chute (Lionel Morrison's last
year) was
repaired, exhibited at AOPA and back flying.
Initial reports of the two latest deployments indicate minor to moderate
damage
to the airframe. Even if the airframe is not repairable, there should be a
high
salvage return on the avionics ,engine, interior & other undamaged parts.

I think the highest cost to an insurance company is medical/death
payments,.not
hull repair. Hull insurance cost is a small percentage of hull value, and
thus
pretty high on ANY high value aircraft.


Yep, I agree with that. I remember several years ago when I went to purchase
my first Mercedes. I was concerned that because the car was $80k, the
insurance premiums would be considerably above what I had paid on other
cars. I mentioned this to the dealer, and he told me that the insurance
rates would be equal to or less than any other car I would buy because the
Mercedes was so safe. The insurance companies don't care much about having
to repair or even total out a car, regardless of it's cost, because the real
expense for them is with injury and death settlements. An $80k car is
nothing compared to a million-dollar injury/death situation, and they would
rather insure an expensive but safe car than a cheap but potentially
dangerous one. As it turns out, the dealer was right, and my insurance
quotes were between 10% and 20% less than what I was paying for my previous
car.

I would imagine that the Cirrus would be along the same lines. If anything,
insurance costs for these planes should wind up well below average, as the
injury/death statistics begin to accumulate in their favor. Totaling or
fixing a hull, even on an expensive plane, is nothing compared to having to
fix a person.