I think you are right. I think the Columbia/Cessna 350/400 might have a marginally better accident/fatality rate than the SR22. As I noted above, I think that is driven by the fact the 350/400 flies better and more intuitively than the SR22.rwtucker wrote:ihfanjv,
Your comments prompt me to take another look inside the last Nall and the latest data. The last time I looked, the Cirrus and the Columbia/Cessna were not comparable. In spite (or perhaps because) of the BRS, the Cirrus had more serious accidents and fatalities.
The BRS parachute does not cause accidents. There is one documented case an attempted parachute deployment that failed to deploy and the pilot then proceeded to land safely. I believe there were one or more attempted chute pulls that were "beyond the design limits" of the parachute that then resulted in fatalities. I think there are no examples of the parachute deploying resulting in a fatality.
Said another way, the ideal would be the 350/400 with a BRS, with the 350/400s handling characteristics, and with the SR22s useful load (or more). But, that plane does not (yet) exist.