DA40 vs. Cirrus SR20

The ramblings of our community of aviators.

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

User avatar
Colin
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:37 pm
First Name: Colin
Aircraft Type: DA42
Aircraft Registration: N972RD
Airports: KFHR
Has thanked: 319 times
Been thanked: 527 times

Re: DA40 vs. Cirrus SR20

Post by Colin »

The Reno accident (one of the first Cirrus fatalities) was a *terrible* example to select. If the chute had been pulled when the current pilots are TAUGHT to pull it, that pilot would be alive. Well, maybe not STILL, but he would have survived that particular flight.

It *was* a good example, I thought, of how the chute led people to launch into conditions which they would have have otherwise.
Colin Summers, PP Multi-Engine IFR, ~3,000hrs
colin@mightycheese.com * send email rather than PM
http://www.flyingsummers.com
N972RD DA42 G1000 2.0 s/n 42.AC100 (sold!)
N971RD DA40 G1000 s/n 40.508 (traded)
User avatar
pietromarx
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:52 am
First Name: Peter
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: NZZZ
Airports: KWHP
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 156 times

Re: DA40 vs. Cirrus SR20

Post by pietromarx »

TimS wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:34 pm I love how people cherry accidents :)
You pull the chute outside design envelop, you are now in a test plane.

Tim
I guess I'm the "people" you're referring to, but actually it was chosen entirely on purpose to make a point: the parachute was there for EXACTLY the situation described: saving lives when the airplane is outside of the design envelope. (BTW, even spinning a Cirrus puts it outside of the design envelope.)

Putting a caveat on your safety devices is there for corporate liability ("hey, sorry you're dead, but don't sue us."). Makes the lawyers happy, but doesn't actually do the thing that the customer thought it would ... in this case, save their life.

The issue here isn't the pilot; it is the manufacturer. They made the marketing promise (caveated carefully by their lawyers) and sold it.
User avatar
pietromarx
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:52 am
First Name: Peter
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: NZZZ
Airports: KWHP
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 156 times

Re: DA40 vs. Cirrus SR20

Post by pietromarx »

Colin wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:33 pm The Reno accident (one of the first Cirrus fatalities) was a *terrible* example to select. If the chute had been pulled when the current pilots are TAUGHT to pull it, that pilot would be alive. Well, maybe not STILL, but he would have survived that particular flight.

It *was* a good example, I thought, of how the chute led people to launch into conditions which they would have have otherwise.
Colin ... that's the point of the parachute ... to convince people that they can be saved even when things go awry. Except it is just another airfoil and one that is rather less controllable and more fragile than the wings of the airplane itself.
User avatar
AndrewM
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 2:05 pm
First Name: Andrew
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N897KC
Airports:
Has thanked: 73 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: DA40 vs. Cirrus SR20

Post by AndrewM »

Colin, could not agree more with your statement.

We can all "cherry pick" out of the accident databases. The Reno accident example aside, another example, more recently was an SR22 that went down late January going from Aspen to Vail (2017 model I believe). They reported an issue with the air speed indicator, decided to pull the chute and survived with no injuries. I find this case interesting as I was traveling from Denver to Vail around that exact date and time.

The flight I was on (United) was delayed close on 4 hours due to the weather. When we launched the captain came on saying the weather was still bad, they would try and get us in but in all likelihood the chances were greater than 50% we would be returning to Denver. Anyhow, we made it in. I was chatting with the 1st officer before the door opened, and she was telling me that 4 commercial flight before us had all gone missed, gone to their alternates, and we were simply lucky to get in.

I was watching foreflight regularly during the delay... had not much else to do. Why on earth did an SR22 launch in those conditions and think they were safe?? Because of the chute? I think they were nuts to launch.

However, despite some decision making they will likely reflect on for quite some time, if they did not have the chute in those conditions 2 people would most certainly have perished.

Even with a FIKI plane I am too much of a wimp to launch in those conditions. However, if I was out one day and the engine quit, I would like a chute as an option, despite how much I love the DA40.

Just my 2 cents.
Soareyes

20 vs. 40 Parachute Comments

Post by Soareyes »

Posting in the public forum because I am not a member.

Regarding certain comments in the SR20 vs. DA40 thread:

In the 2006 Norden, CA crash, the chute was pulled in an iced up dive from 16,000 feet at an estimated 340 KIAS. The chute separated from the airframe. So yes, there is an upper limit to the maximum speed the parachute can be successfully deployed. But it has been pulled successfully at speeds as high as 190 Kts (2011 Bennett, CO) and 187 Kts (2010 Horton, UK).

The referenced 1700 fpm (about 20 mph) descent rate under canopy is in the pre-2014 SR22 models, at maximum gross weight. Starting in 2014 Cirrus went to a larger parachute as part of a gross weight increase. The newer planes come down at 1,300 fpm.

See this video from AOPA showing quite a bounce when the plane under canopy hits the ground: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJO6j3eP0Tk

Regarding the parachute and wind speed at ground level, if you knew the low level winds were high and you had the plane under control and you had some good fields beneath you, landing into the wind on the field of your choice could well be preferable to pulling the red handle. It is nice to have options.

Disclosure: I have owned three Diamonds and one Cirrus.
Last edited by TimS on Thu Feb 27, 2020 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Moved to thread
User avatar
ultraturtle
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:46 pm
First Name: Rob
Aircraft Type: DA62
Aircraft Registration: N62KZ
Airports: KAAF
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 180 times

Re: DA40 vs. Cirrus SR20

Post by ultraturtle »

TimS wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:34 pmI love how people cherry accidents :)
You pull the chute outside design envelop, you are now in a test plane.

Tim
AndrewM wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 8:47 pm
Consider the case of 21 KT wind at the surface. In the Cirrus chute, you crunch uncontrollaby at 1700 fpm and 21 KT ground speed into whatever obstacle happens to be in your path. In the DA40 "Shaking Leaf" scenario, you steer into the wind and continue to fly the aircraft around any obstacles, touching down at that same 21 KT ground speed, but at less than half the vertical velocity of the Cirrus in chute.
All very true, however if I was in IMC over mountains or other difficult terrain, or water, a chute to pull is a very good option to have.
Pull the chute well within the design envelope, yet over mountainous terrain, you face an iffy chance of survival. I do not know if numbers have been updated, but as of 2017, only 86% (49 out of 57) of Cirrus chute pulls culminated in a non-fatal result. - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28539144

Over water, I get. Thing is, you'll never find me flying single engine outside of gliding distance to land. No way I would risk complete hull loss - chute or no chute.
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 4592
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
First Name: Rich
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N40XE
Airports: S39 Prineville OR
Has thanked: 145 times
Been thanked: 1180 times

Re: DA40 vs. Cirrus SR20

Post by Rich »

A chute thought experiment:

There have been 7 total fatal DA40 accidents in the US. If all DA40's had been equipped with a chute, 3 of those fatal accidents could very likely have been non-fatal. A 4th (Dec. 2010) seems likely to have been some sort of pilot incapacitation, so it's less clear the pilot was capable of taking any such action. A 5th (the very first fatal DA40 accident) is also somewhat uncertain, as it was a loss of control on an instrument approach - likely too low for a chute to have helped. It's my guess that those 7 fatal accidents might be something like 3-4 over this period of 18+ years if the DA40s all had chutes.

This assumes, of course, that nothing about the DA40 or its pilots was affected by the presence of the chute. More rearward CG, higher empty weight, and the theoretical tendency of pilots to perhaps take more chances given its presence are obvious possible negative factors.

There are several non-fatal DA40 accidents wherein a chute might have been pulled, were it available, yet it proved unnecessary. I view with skepticism the count of "saves" quoted by BRS, as it's not a given that every chute-pull was required to avoid fatal injuries.
2002 DA40-180: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5
User avatar
pietromarx
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:52 am
First Name: Peter
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: NZZZ
Airports: KWHP
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 156 times

Re: DA40 vs. Cirrus SR20

Post by pietromarx »

Saving those lives would be terrific and a very strong argument for the parachute.

Just as a topic to discuss, though, I believe the issue is that the availability of parachute should not be (or have been) used to remove other safety features (like spin recovery).
User avatar
Ian Sage
2 Diamonds Member
2 Diamonds Member
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2018 12:29 am
First Name: Ian
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: NONE
Airports: KAPA
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 36 times

Re: DA40 vs. Cirrus SR20

Post by Ian Sage »

Colin wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:33 pm It *was* a good example, I thought, of how the chute led people to launch into conditions which they would have have otherwise.
As I detailed in an earlier post in this thread Cirrus is (or has been in the past) very proud about the number of new pilots that purchase a Cirrus as their first aircraft. Which means these new pilots have many new spouses and children who are also new to flying and aircraft ownership. Having spent a great deal of time at Cirrus gatherings I can assure you that many (possibly most) of these new pilots decided on their Cirrus because of the parachute. Many influence heavily by their spouses refusal to get in a small plane without a parachute. Depending on how you look at it this is the very definition of "led people to launch into conditions which they would have have otherwise" mentioned by Colin above.
Soareyes

Re: DA40 vs. Cirrus SR20

Post by Soareyes »

"I do not know if numbers have been updated, but as of 2017, only 86% (49 out of 57) of Cirrus chute pulls culminated in a non-fatal result. - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28539144"

The fatals referenced in that article must include the one high speed pull above 300 kts and the low altitude pulls where the parachute didn't have time to fully open. The article concludes; "The substantial increased odds of a fatal accident when CAPS was not deployed demonstrated the effectiveness of CAPS at providing protection of occupants during an accident."

As of 16 September 2019 there have been 92 successful chute deployments with 186 survivors in aircraft equipped with the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS). No one has died when the CAPS system was deployed higher than 1000 feet above ground and slower than 200 knots indicated.

Back to the original post, I say get the DA40 over the SR20. This same question gets asked on the Cirrus forum now and then. Without fail, us ex-DA40 flyers over there will always point out that the DA40 is statistically safer than an SR with a parachute and is one of the sweetest handling, most forgiving aircraft ever made. I miss mine.
Post Reply