Cessna 172 down

[idahoflier]

Probably not. Most GA policies have pretty low seat limits. Regardless of fault of their insured, their exposure is capped. So, insurance companies aren't really going to be driving that economic incentive.

I don't think anyone can reasonable doubt that having a parachute is better, all things being equal. The problem is that all things aren't equal. There is a large cost in terms of money, and possible weight (and therefore performance). If we knew which planes would need a chute before hand, then fine. But we don't. So, we pilot owners look at the equation from the stand point of costs vs. percentage change of loss x cost of the loss. It becomes really easy for us to think it won't happen to us, (and most would be correct) so the purchase price and upkeep isn't worth it.

If I thought it was likely that I would be involved in an aircraft accident I wouldn't be flying, so I agree the likelihood of ever needing a parachute is low. That said, as I noted below, if I find myself in a potentially fatal situation I would probably have at least a 73% chance of survival. The parachute is expensive. But it only represents approx. 4% of my GW and 8% of my useful load, that's not that much of a performance penalty...

 

[idahoflier]

Many were presumably CFIT....

Of course. When mountains are involved other than a stall/spin (which a portion were pilot induced approaching terrain) what else would they be?

 

[BillTIZ]

Makes sense, but a flight school has not met the ADS-B mandate yet would give me concern. Unless I'm in discreet mode, there is no hiding from the machine

There are tons of flight schools that have not met the ADSB mandate. It’s going to be real quiet on 2 Jan 2020 with all of them grounded.

 

[BillTIZ]

Very sad. Terrible for the 2 yr old and the mother. Sucks

I know real pilots don't need them.. but after the twinbee crash in Florida that killed people on the ground, and this 172 crash, plus a host of others recently, I'm becoming a bigger and bigger believer that chutes on planes, maybe even especially trainers, aren't such a terrible idea. It won't save every life, but if even 1 in 10 people who spun it, lost orientation, had a power failure, etc., were saved by it then that in my mind makes it worth it

[flame suit donned]

Looks like a go around gone bad, pitch up and stall, no roll off on a wing, to low for chutes.

 

[Sundancer]

I had picked those out since the majority of others were engine failure or power loss.. and the last time this came up there was several people who had said that you don't need a parachute during engine out since a competent pilot can glide down and make it out in one piece..

at the end of the day, a competent pilot in a mechanically perfect airplane doesn't need an autopilot or parachute, but as we know things do go wrong sometimes and it's nice to have the chute. They add weight and complexity to fighter jets, lifeboats and life jackets add weight and complexity to ships, but they become extremely valuable assets when things go south

I've never actually met someone who survived a crash or relatives of a deceased person from a crash who were thankful that a parachute was not on board

???? Have you met survivors or relatives of deceased that were thankful no AP was installed on a loss of control in IMC?

Again, I know they aren't mutually exclusive - my personal call is losing control in IMC is less survivable than an engine failure, at least in a low end, low speed GA aircraft like a 172. You can park a 172 in a drveway, if you land under control, and still walk (maybe limp) away.

If my budget dictated one, but not both, the AP has more utility as a safety measure - in my 172. If I flew a Long-EZ, my choice would probably be diffrent.