DA50 vs The World

[mfdutra]

I THINK (but dont know) that the parachute is largely a marketing thing that gives people the illusion of safety and helps you convince a skeptical spouse. I THINK (but dont know) that the parachute fuels bad ADM as a makes people think that it is safe to do x,y,z because a parachute will save them. I THINK (but dont know) that many/some of the situations you might pull the parachute in a Cirrus you would actually be better off flying your way out of.

The data was clear that the Cirrus was less safe.... but that gap has been closed? somewhat closed? by Cirrus aggressively training people to use the CAPS.

The bottom line is that I am an engineer and I believe in data. So everything I said was without data.

To me an airplane that doesnt want to kill you (the DA40NG for sure!) is better than an airplane that wants to kill you but has a parachute.

I think you are conflating parachute, Cirrus and pilot ADM. There's years of clear data that the parachute works very well, so it's no longer a matter of opinion.

It's likely true that many pilots are taking stupid risks because they have a parachute. But you can say the same for cars with ABS brakes, stability control and airbags. There's nothing wrong with those tools, but you have to own your ADM. You wouldn't buy a car without airbags because airbags make you an aggressive driver.

Stats are clear that the DA40 has a better safety rate than any Cirrus. But you have to look closer to understand why. Most accidents are pilots killing the airplane and not the opposite. I own a DA62 and had a Cirrus for a couple years before. I'm fine and safe flying both. But I have to own my safety, not blame the airframe.

As other people said above, you can't underestimate the safety of a second engine. If you have a power loss over difficult terrain, water or IMC, a twin will bring you to an airport, if you are a competent twin pilot. A parachute will bring you safely to the ground (from a kinetic energy perspective). On a DA40/50, it's a Russian roulette, plain and simple. You may find a good place to land and roll out safely. Or not.

Honestly, I wouldn't buy a DA50, with the 62 being just a bit more expensive and MUCH more airplane.

[Flyben]

The reason I choose to buy an DA50 is a simple one, I simply like the fact, that it is more spacious than the DA40NG.
I don't always fly myself, Most of the time when I fly for business I use an pilot and if i want I can sit in the back even together with an co-worker.
If there wasn't such a long leadtime on DA62 I might bought that one. But for now I'm more than happy with the DA50

[alanhawse]

For anyone that has ordered or is flying a DA50, I'm wondering why you selected the aircraft? What were the elements of the plane or the company that factored most in your decision?

1. I wanted to buy a DA62 but my wife wanted a single

That's unfortunate. If you can afford $1M+ for a new DA50, a DA62 for only slightly more money nicely addresses most of the DA50's shortcomings -- with the same spacious fuselage and similar systems/components/wings. Compared to a DA50, a DA62 has:
- the safety of 2 engines for flying over inhospitable terrain/water, or just a single engine failure
- no need to constantly switch between wing fuel tanks, or manage cowl flaps
- engines with a decade more industry experience (although Austros no longer use Mercedes cores)
- about 300 lbs more payload, including a forward baggage compartment for easier management of CG
- much greater range with 86 gal JetA instead of 50 gal, with nearly the same fuel burn
- about 15-20 knots faster cruise airspeed

I bought my DA62 before the DA50 became available, so I didn't have to decide between them -- but found the DA62 to be a much better performing and useful airplane.

Yup... you got everything in that argument correct...

Im based at 27K... why dont you fly down here and convince my wife

Perhaps a DA62 is next... though I'm really kinda thinking a PT6 plane next.

[Rich]

Second engine vs. parachute are not equivalent.

A second engine and a ballistic parachute share some common considerations:
- A very small percent increase in the likelihood that the occupants will complete a given flight unscathed. (safety improvement).
- Additional maintenance expense. (negative).

A second engine is helpful in one and only one potential inflight event: the loss of power of a single engine. For the most beneficial scenario no aircraft damage at all. Even then the flight may or may not wind up completing the flight to the intended destination.

A parachute could potentially address loss of engine power plus various other scenarios: mid-air collision, pilot incapacitation, inflight airframe failure, electrical system failure, etc. Pulling the chute likely means you're nowhere near any airport - maybe not even civilization.

And neither has proven total shielding from any of the kinds of failures above.

[mfdutra]

Agreed. I'd love to have a twin with a parachute.

[Soareyes]

We all hope the DA50 will turn out to be the safest, most reliable plane out there. Time will tell. Since you made a comment about the parachute:

8. No parachute - safety

Why? This airplane would be much more appealing with a parachute option.

This is a super complicated topic. It is very debated on both sides. I have no data.

I THINK (but dont know) that the parachute is largely a marketing thing that gives people the illusion of safety and helps you convince a skeptical spouse.

It used to be debated. Compared to ten years ago I find hardly anyone anymore who disagrees that parachutes save lives. There is also nothing wrong that they help sell airplanes and help convince reluctant spouses to fly.

Some data: As of Feb. 2024 there have been 126 Cirrus chute pulls and 253 survivors. So far, when when the parachute was deployed higher than 1000 feet agl and slower than 200 knots indicated, no person has died.

I THINK (but dont know) that the parachute fuels bad ADM as a makes people think that it is safe to do x,y,z because a parachute will save them.

The parachute certainly made me feel safer while flying at night, over inhospitable terrain and with fog over the state of Georgia for hundreds of miles in every direction as it so often is when we are flying north from Florida.

To me an airplane that doesnt want to kill you (the DA40NG for sure!) is better than an airplane that wants to kill you but has a parachute.

Excellent point.

Personally, I want two engines, a parachute and AutoLand.

[Rich]

Some data: As of Feb. 2024 there have been 126 Cirrus chute pulls and 253 survivors. So far, when when the parachute was deployed higher than 1000 feet agl and slower than 200 knots indicated, no person has died.

Not accurate. I can think of one offhand. Granted, they would not have survived anyway:

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/72377

The point is, it's no guarantee.

[Rich]

I THINK (but dont know) that the parachute fuels bad ADM as a makes people think that it is safe to do x,y,z because a parachute will save them.

There are enough cases of Cirri pilots pulling CAPS in low-level maneuvering and dying to support that hypotheses. A false sense of security.

The parachute certainly made me feel safer while flying at night, over inhospitable terrain and with fog over the state of Georgia for hundreds of miles in every direction as it so often is when we are flying north from Florida.

Another false sense of security. Have you not seen "Deliverance"?

It's unfortunate that almost all data points come from Cirrus incidents. Stall-spins and CFITs are virtually all fatal - no help there. It seems lately most successful deployments are SR22 engine problems. Last year in the US: 8 Cirrus fatal accidents. One an apparent suicide. 1 fatal Diamond accident. FWIW, both makes had 13 non-fatal accidents. 2 of the Cirrus fatals mentioned low-level CAPS deployment, another had chute separation - maybe a high-speed deployment. One of the non-fatals had a cruise altitude CAPS deployment. This may or may not have been required to save the occupants. But i'm sure BRS/Cirrus will claim it as a "save".

[Soareyes]

Some data: As of Feb. 2024 there have been 126 Cirrus chute pulls and 253 survivors. So far, when when the parachute was deployed higher than 1000 feet agl and slower than 200 knots indicated, no person has died.

Not accurate. I can think of one offhand. Granted, they would not have survived anyway:

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/72377

The point is, it's no guarantee.

OK, above 1,000 ft, slower than 200 IAS and NOT ON FIRE.

[alanhawse]

I knew that I would press everyones hot button when I wrote
parachute - safety

I started to not put it in my comments because I didn't really mean to turn this into
VI/Emacs
Mac/PC
Python/Ruby
Ford/Chevy
Porsche/Ferrari

Oh well.

On a happy side note... my 50 with my tail # flew in London yesterday... hopefully that means they think they are going to deliver it soooooooon!