Cirrus pilot paid $15,000 for a parachute repack?

FastEddieB said:
It may not be the norm, but it's happened often enough - as reported on COPA - to raise itself above the "mythical".

Scarily, at least a couple have exceeded the $20k mark.
Click to expand...

What on Earth for? The gear is fixed even.
 
DJTorrente said:
Who ****ed in your Cheerios this morning?
Click to expand...

I'm happy as a clam, going to get some espresso in a little bit and go blast around some lakes in my plane.

Just can't help myself when people are so delusional as to do anything and spend any amount if it's for "safety"


Just silly, really
 
I knew you guys were going to be skeptical on the 35k price so I asked him for the maintenance sheet. Granted he did get some upgrades which affected the price in some way but here is the rundown: (This includes labor as well not including tax)

Annual Inspection $3,645
5 Year Hose Replacement $1,900
5 Year Fuel drain Valve Seal rplmt $250
6 Year Prop Overhaul $3,720
Parachute Repack $15,000
Magneto Overhaul $1,700
Muffler Replace $2,280
Replace Ack E-01 $1,750
ELT With 406 Mhz ELT
Avonics Upgrade $4,755

Let me know what you folks think!
 
Yeah James331 I'm a CPA. And to me it makes sense. It's my personal choice. You don't like it, you don't have to own one.
 
Don't get me wrong this is not a Cirrus bashing post. I love Cirrus planes but I didn't realize how expensive maintenance/replacement was. He said I just spend 15k on a repack alone. I would like to be safe, but I feel that 15k could be used for what the plane was intended for. To fly! The more money I dump into the plane, (Just because) the less I can fly it!
 
FloridaPilot said:
He told me that he can drop $35,000 easy on maintenance and extra costs A YEAR!
Click to expand...

I call BS. Some of the items on your list in the other post are 5 and 10 year items, invalidating the 'A YEAR' portion of your first post. Properly amortized / reserved, he isn't spending $35K a year.
 
Last edited:
FloridaPilot said:
I knew you guys were going to be skeptical on the 35k price so I asked him for the maintenance sheet. Granted he did get some upgrades which affected the price in some way but here is the rundown: (This includes labor as well not including tax)

Annual Inspection $3,645
5 Year Hose Replacement $1,900
5 Year Fuel drain Valve Seal rplmt $250
6 Year Prop Overhaul $3,720
Parachute Repack $15,000
Magneto Overhaul $1,700
Muffler Replace $2,280
Replace Ack E-01 $1,750
ELT With 406 Mhz ELT
Avonics Upgrade $4,755

Let me know what you folks think!
Click to expand...

The inspection seems rather steep, given that its a fixed-gear single. ARe they especially difficult to disassemble? Also, $5K of that was for avionics, driving the price down even further. You have to rebuild the prop every 6 years?
 
If it was free I'd rather have a parachute than not have one, but in the real world were nothing is free there are other things where that money is arguably better spent--either on other equipment or training/experience.

The goal, after all, should be to not get ones self in a position where a parachute is needed.

Are there any stats on how many of the Cirrus deployments were the result of "pilot induced" situations? (e.g., if perhaps the pilot had spent that money on more training on experience they wouldn't have needed said parachute? / or chute was deployed but arguably there were better options... such that the aircraft ended up in the trees vs performing an off-airport landing in field right next to those woods)

There's a certain stigma perpetuated by some with the Cirrus that's it's an airplane largely for rich people with more money than skills. Curious if the data would support that (perhaps unfair) reputation.
 
Last edited:
FloridaPilot said:
I knew you guys were going to be skeptical on the 35k price so I asked him for the maintenance sheet. Granted he did get some upgrades which affected the price in some way but here is the rundown: (This includes labor as well not including tax)

Annual Inspection $3,645
5 Year Hose Replacement $1,900
5 Year Fuel drain Valve Seal rplmt $250
6 Year Prop Overhaul $3,720
Parachute Repack $15,000
Magneto Overhaul $1,700
Muffler Replace $2,280
Replace Ack E-01 $1,750
ELT With 406 Mhz ELT
Avonics Upgrade $4,755

Let me know what you folks think!
Click to expand...

If he was flying Pt91, what was actually NEEDED?

Annual OK

But at $3,645!

how beat up was the plane? I hope that wasn't just for the inspection with no snags (outside of the muffler and stuff on the list).



Muffler, that's a little expensive, but OK

Mag overhaul, OK

Repack the canopy, OK
Only because you HAVE to, and I agree with Jesse, it would be nice if you could remove it.

As for the age stuff, shy of some AD, I'd just replace based on condition for pt91


Still that's $22,625. Or if the mags and muffler were part of the annual, and for over 3k I'd guess they were, you're talking $18,645.

Forget that noise!

Annuals on my skywagon run well south of $1k if nothing comes up and I don't want to do any upgrades and buy any toys.

Normally nothing is really snagged at annual, I tend to catch things before that, and there hasn't even been much to catch.






asgcpa said:
Yeah James331 I'm a CPA. And to me it makes sense. It's my personal choice. You don't like it, you don't have to own one.
Click to expand...

After enough hours, I'd imagine you might change your tune :dunno:



But


Fare enough, it's your money, and if it makes you feel good, just don't be deluded into thinking it makes you, or your pax, that much safer.


From personal experience, tundras, a autopilot, SV and a little backcountry experience would make someone WAAAAY safer, especially if they had to put down off field, compared to a flimsy Cirrus with a chute
 
steingar said:
What on Earth for? The gear is fixed even.
Click to expand...

Was it Rosanne Rossanadana who said, "It's always something!"?

Most years one could say, "That annual would have been pretty reasonable, except for..."

One year my SkyWatch took a dump. $2,700 flat rate repair.

Another year a muffler was internally disintegrating, also not cheap.

Never needed Avidyne repairs, but they are nosebleed expensive. Unless you bought an extended warranty from them, and that may involve indemnifying Avidyne, a whole 'nother can of worms.

Anyway, I sold mine, largely to get away from the "Sword of Damocles" feeling.

But I can see how it can all be worth it for others.
 
jesse said:
$104/month is way too much money for a rocket parachute thing strapped to my airplane. I don't care if the airplane costs half a million and that's a drop in the bucket compared to that cost. Every dollar counts, and that's too many for the benefit.

IMO owners should have the option to not repack or remove the damn thing if they want. Then it wouldn't bother me.
Click to expand...

Depreciate the whole works

Engine TBO is 12 years.

Replace engine controls at TBO? (comparison: Cessna says to but few do it) *An aftermarket PMA control for a 172 may be around $400 but there are few aftermarket PMA parts for Cirrus so likely they will be triple that cost)

Replace all fuel & oil hoses at TBO?

Replace engine rubber vibration isolators at TBO?

Prop TBO is probably 72 months or so.

The 24 volt main battery is ~$400 and lasts roughly 5 years

The ELT battery is likely a lithium that's >$200 and last 3, 5 or 7 years

Is there a standby battery for the glass panel? That's another battery >$400 I'm guessing

Oxygen cylinder hydrostatic test?

Handheld fire extinguisher expiration/hydrostatic test?

24 month transponder and static system test?

Parachute repack?

48 month/500hr slick magneto inspection?

I saw that paint shops quote roughly double the cost of full repaint than for a regular aluminum airplane as the whole works has to be sanded off.

If you were to maintain it by the book, that would be a tough pill to swallow. A helicopter is looking reasonable.
 
Last edited:
I agree that $1.5K/year is fine for the BRS. I disagree with this statement:

The $10k Cirrus annual is a myth
Click to expand...

I know from direct personal experience that $5-8K annuals can and do happen to smaller airplanes with Lyc 360 motors fairly often. So it's certainly well with the realm of possibility that an airplane with a much bigger motor could have a $10K annual.
 
Assuming that to quit flying is not an option and that the financial resources are limited, I also wonder whether the chute provides the best bang for the buck regarding safety.

Even though I like Cirrus planes and the idea of having a chute, I feel that the impact on the peace of mind is greater than the actual gain in safety.
Looking at the accident statistics, the by far greatest safety risk sits in the pilot’s seat. $1,500 / year would buy some nice training for the pilot, which helps him to avoid situations in which he needs the chute in the first place.
What about devices which help increase situational awareness like modern avionics or a terrain warning system? While modern avionics are standard in a Cirrus, it is actually a choice a pilot would have to make if he thinks about retrofitting a Cessna with a BRS.
A lighter plane (the BRS for the 182 weighs 85 pounds) with a better climb rate could also be considered a safety feature.

Then again, it is probably easier to spend the money on a chute than to work on one’s own proficiency, what is at the end better than to have neither received advanced training nor to have a chute… ;)
 
FloridaPilot said:
I knew you guys were going to be skeptical on the 35k price so I asked him for the maintenance sheet. Granted he did get some upgrades which affected the price in some way but here is the rundown: (This includes labor as well not including tax)

Annual Inspection $3,645
5 Year Hose Replacement $1,900
5 Year Fuel drain Valve Seal rplmt $250
6 Year Prop Overhaul $3,720
Parachute Repack $15,000
Magneto Overhaul $1,700
Muffler Replace $2,280
Replace Ack E-01 $1,750
ELT With 406 Mhz ELT
Avonics Upgrade $4,755

Let me know what you folks think!
Click to expand...

You can cut some of these costs by:
Hose replacement, shop it out, do the hoses yourself under an A&P.
Prop and magneto overhauls could have been an IRAN.
Instead of muffler replace, sent it out for IRAN.
ELT and avonics upgrade are what they are.


The annual seems high, but it all depends on where you live and who you have do it.

But, yes, ownership can be expensive.
 
jmp470 said:
You can cut some of these costs by:
Hose replacement, shop it out, do the hoses yourself under an A&P.
Prop and magneto overhauls could have been an IRAN.
Instead of muffler replace, sent it out for IRAN.
ELT and avonics upgrade are what they are.


The annual seems high, but it all depends on where you live and who you have do it.

But, yes, ownership can be expensive.
Click to expand...


From experience, repairing exhaust is overrated, get a new acorn HD system and be done with it.
 
I had a 2006 Cessna T182T before the SR22T I have now. After a great report on the prebuy, That airplane had a initial annual that cost $8500. On top of that, there was other items that had to be repaired durring the first year of ownership that totaled another $22k.

The point I am making is that most any airplane can be expensive to own at some point. I learned some hard lessons on the 182 purchase I hope I never repeat. Be diligent.
 
FloridaPilot said:
I knew you guys were going to be skeptical on the 35k price so I asked him for the maintenance sheet. Granted he did get some upgrades which affected the price in some way but here is the rundown: (This includes labor as well not including tax)

Annual Inspection $3,645
5 Year Hose Replacement $1,900
5 Year Fuel drain Valve Seal rplmt $250
6 Year Prop Overhaul $3,720
Parachute Repack $15,000
Magneto Overhaul $1,700
Muffler Replace $2,280
Replace Ack E-01 $1,750
ELT With 406 Mhz ELT
Avonics Upgrade $4,755

Let me know what you folks think!
Click to expand...

Your friend is either getting hosed or he doesn't care. Pressurized twins are in the 3600 buck realm for basic annual cost. This probably isn't a typical year. What other "scheduled" items are due on this airframe?
 
I hear it costs a lot to maintain and tune up a Ferrari. People who own Ferraris like to keep them maintained and in tune. I think your friend's plane will show well against the fleet.
 
The BRS parachute has saved 324 lives to date and they are not the only company making the product. http://www.brsaerospace.com/brs_aviation_home.aspx

Here is a list of manufacturers that have them:
Cirrus
Cessna (STC'ed by BRS)
Flight Design
Pipistrel
Sting
Sirius
Zenith Air
Velocity

Here is when they are to be used:
1) Mid-air collision
2) Single engine power loss over hostile terrain
3) Single engine power loss during night flight
4) Loss of control (due to icing or linkage failure)
5) Low altitude stall-spin
6) Major structural failure
7) Component failure resulting in an unflyable aircraft
8) Pilot incapacitation (heart attack)
9) Overshooting runway The system can function at altitudes under 300 feet AGL for the Cessna 150 (the altitude to which FAA certified the system), and as low as 100 feet for ultralights.
 
If it's $15k for repack what does it cost to replace it? Are these airplanes going to still be flying after 39 years of service or scrap?
 
Whoops - I call "Shenanigans" on the 324 number, if/if that's the count of deployments with survivors. . .I'd think that a lot of those folks would have survived without the chute, if the pilot didn't have the chute option, and had to complete a forced landing, especially in the aircraft with better short-field capability (which clearly doesn't include a Cirrus, I admit)

Again, not knocking it (the chute) as long as I don't have to buy one, and we all understand that it's a big amount of money for a very, very marginal increase in safety. If I had the bucks to buy new, I'd probably not/not consider an airplane with a chute, unless it was an option I could take a pass on.

I'm voting against a high dollar mandate for a very limited use feature; I like that you can buy it if you want it - I just don't want to be forced to buy something that will impact my safety in a negative way.

By negative, I mean I could use that money for proficiency, avionics, etc., that improve my survivability/safety much more than a chute.

I mean, yeah, you might get struck by lightening, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to have a lightening rod installed in your hat.
 
Chutes are not necessarily "no-brainers". To my way of thinking, it's an expected monetary value question...

(Incremental cost of chute + 10-year repacks + cost of actually using the chute) * (probability of pulling the handle)

compared to

(cost of not using the chute) * (probability of being in a situation where you would otherwise pull the handle)

This may come out in the chute's favor but it is not a "no-brainer". I suppose those who say it is a no-brainer probably insert infinity into the bold item above - because that one includes their life - but they would also probably equate the two probabilities while I would not. There are situations where people pull the handle because they have the handle not because their life is truly in danger so I'm asserting that the two probabilities are not identical.

Also, the fatality rate of Cirrus aircraft are not zero in any case. They are so far only marginally lower than the rest of the fleet although with their new training I'd expect those rates to go lower in the future. So there should be a component of the value your life on both sides of the equation. So if you set that value to infinity then you'd never fly (or do anything else).

It's more complex than some Cirrus drivers give it credit for. If it were really a no-brainer then we'd all be flying with parachutes on our backs and with bail-out doors. Yet we don't. Because it isn't a no-brainer.
 
Last edited:
and lets not forget.....:nono:

(probability of pulling the handle) ≠ (probability of being in a situation where you would otherwise pull the handle)
 
For those struggling to understand the value of the all-airframe-parachute consider the 'advances' made in car safety since the 1950s.

In those days you had non-padded steel dashboards, no seat belts, no ABS & autonomous brakes, leaded gasoline, no rack & pinion steering, no crush zones, no GPS, no head restraints, no all-wheel-drive, no electronic stability controls, no forward collision avoidance, no adaptive headlights & side-mirrors, no backup cameras, and no cell phones to call for help.

The theory and application of advanced navigation, safety and materials will end up in aircraft. It's just a matter of time.
 
d5by5 said:
The BRS parachute has saved 324 lives to date
More marketing BS. Their website lists that as every person in an "aircraft" when a chute was pulled. That includes ultra lights et al.

If you do little math and a couple of assumptions, average of 2 persons per chute pull and the last few years of GA accident/fatality info, you get a number more like 29 lives saved.

I divided the 324 in half for 162 accidents (I'm at work and wont go look up total incidents now). the GA rate for fatal accidents from 2005-2010 was 18.2%. So if there were 162 accidents with BRS equipped planes and the fatality rate held - that's 29 to 58 people saved (18% of 162 is 29 - 2 persons per pull saved = 58).

I see a number that there are 6,000 cirrus aircraft delivered. Since newer models are cheaper to repack lets use $10,000 for that number. That is $60,000,000 in repacks over a 10 year period. Or about $1,000,000 - $2,000,000 per person saved, just in 1 repack cycle. :hairraise:

That is a lot of money. I need to get into the ballistic chute repack business.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
and lets not forget.....:nono:

(probability of pulling the handle) ≠ (probability of being in a situation where you would otherwise pull the handle)
Click to expand...

well it isn't written perfectly, but the idea is that given the identical situation in two different aircraft, one of which is a Cirrus, some percentage of those situations are recoverable without a parachute.
 
rocketflyer84 said:
Are there any stats on how many of the Cirrus deployments were the result of "pilot induced" situations? (e.g., if perhaps the pilot had spent that money on more training on experience they wouldn't have needed said parachute? / or chute was deployed but arguably there were better options... such that the aircraft ended up in the trees vs performing an off-airport landing in field right next to those woods)

There's a certain stigma perpetuated by some with the Cirrus that's it's an airplane largely for rich people with more money than skills. Curious if the data would support that (perhaps unfair) reputation.
Click to expand...


Here is a list of all the chute pulls in a cirrus.
https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safety_programs/w/safety_pages/723.cirrus-caps-history.aspx
 
Stewartb said:
I hear it costs a lot to maintain and tune up a Ferrari. People who own Ferraris like to keep them maintained and in tune. I think your friend's plane will show well against the fleet.
Click to expand...

I saw a Cirrus in Yankton SD over the weekend that had half the paint sanded off the RH wing, missing the nose wheel fairing and looked like it hasn't move for a year or two.

(Tick tock goes the clock on that chute repack requirement)

IMHO if these airplanes sit and get behind on maintenance, they will be even less likely to be rescued from storage.
 
Cirrus Specific:

As of 14 August 2015 there have been 53 saves with 107 survivors in aircraft equipped with the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS).
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Here is a list of all the chute pulls in a cirrus.
https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safety_programs/w/safety_pages/723.cirrus-caps-history.aspx
Click to expand...

Interesting. Early on I'm seeing a lot of things resulting from 'pilot error' rather than catastrophic mechanical failure.

Several early on were "autopilot induced stalls" aka the pilot wasn't paying attention and thought their fancy computerized plane would just take care of everything.

Quite a few from icing. Again, a plane doesn't fly itself into bad icing.

Others from disorientation in IMC.

Later on it's mostly from major mechanical failures.

So, granted this isn't a scientific study, it would appear that early on yes there were a lot of pilots making bad decisions or not flying the airplane well that were really the root cause of the deployment. Those later on that are more technical would be more legit 'saves' IMHO.
 
FloridaPilot said:
I met a Cirrus pilot today and he told me that he just dropped $15,000 for the 10 year parachute repack. He told me that you have to do it every 10 years because spin recovery is non existent in a Cirrus This is on top of all the maintenance it needs and the engine work. My apologies if this has been spoken about before. I just couldn't find it on this website.

I know owning an airplane is an expensive hobby but are there airplanes with comparable performance, (Or a little less) that has less expensive maintenance? He told me that he can drop $35,000 easy on maintenance and extra costs A YEAR!
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what it costs. For a lot of us, yes, it's worth every penny. To my family it's worth it. I live in LA where the landing options are: Dense urban areas, 10,000' mountains with steep cliffs, and cold Pacific ocean. Having a parachute makes flying in challenging areas less risky and puts my mind at ease just a bit.

If you don't believe it, check out the latest Cirrus accidient statistics...best in GA even though it's a fast plane that's used frequently in bad weather.
 
And in the past several years there has been a push through COPA and Cirrus for more stringent training. There are CPPP programs, web based training programs etc. Other than Bonanza's in my limited experience there isn't the wide range of training options that Cirrus has. (Although the ICS apparently has several programs as well).
 
So James551 do you actually have hours in a 22? If so how many? For me it's the most comfortable single engine I've ever flown. My wife hates flying, even commercially. And my wife loves the 22 and she is put at ease by the chute. As the commercial goes:

Cost of chute: $14,400
Value of wife flying with
me because of installed chute: Priceless
 
Last edited:
If and when I step up it will most likely be to a Cirrus. My wife loves those things. I won't fly one because I know I'll buy one if I do.
 
I don't get the hostility.

It's an option, some people want it. Good for them that they have the choice!

---

Hey, Brian-with-a-Y - What's that plane in your avatar?
 
SCCutler said:
I don't get the hostility.

It's an option, some people want it. Good for them that they have the choice!

---

Hey, Brian-with-a-Y - What's that plane in your avatar?
Click to expand...

Cirrus SR 23
 
Newer airplanes like the Cirrus and the Cessna 400 have lengthy inspection requirements. They also have some FAA-driven Airworthiness Limitations (like the 'chute repack and rocket replacement) that force the owner to spend money periodically. The 400, for example, has a 25,000 hour airframe life. After that, it's junk. What is the cost per hour for that limitation? These are expensive airplanes to buy, and expensive to maintain. They're not your old 182. We look after a 400, and it takes many hours to get through all the stuff. Nice airplanes, but not cheap. Ferraris of the air, someone said. Yup.

We had a Cirrus SR20 in a flight school that had been previously 'chuted. When the 'chute deploys it pulls suspension cables out from just under the skin, ripping great chunks of the skin off and sometimes removing a door in the process. This one had landed among some rocks and got bashed up underneath. It was rebuilt at the factory, cost $140K, which was beyond the resale value we could get out of it.

That chute is only useful in some situations. It won't save somone who fools around at low altitude, showing off, and stalling and spinning in. It won't save the guy that goes VFR into IMC and slams into a tower or some granite. It won't save an airplane that crashes on takeoff or landing. Remember the midair a few years ago between a glider tug and a Cirrus? Pulled the 'chute and had a nice, slow, fiery descent while they all burned alive. If the midair had been a bit more violent, the occupants and pieces of the airplane would have been launched into the open air, where the 'chute would just be another part of the falling wreckage.
 
In the midair, I believe both occupants jumped out of the plane.
Out of options :(
 
Stewartb said:
I hear it costs a lot to maintain and tune up a Ferrari. People who own Ferraris like to keep them maintained and in tune. I think your friend's plane will show well against the fleet.
Click to expand...


Good one.

Like I've said before, Cessna's are beer, Cirrus are wine, and Citation's are champagne.

If you have to ask ... :sigh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top