Mid-Air at KBDU

[vontresc]

Sure!! But IFR I have an extra set of eyes looking, and if it's really bad I'll tell them "unable, IMC" if they call out traffic and there's no way to spot it.

That's all fine and dandy, but I bet there's a whole bunch of pilots who rely too much on ATC to point out traffic. And your aeronca without a transponder will only show up as a primary return (just like most sailplanes). Radar, radios, and collision avoidance tech like TCAS, PCAS and FLARM help, but you still have to look out of the window.

 

[dmccormack]

That's all fine and dandy, but I bet there's a whole bunch of pilots who rely too much on ATC to point out traffic. And your aeronca without a transponder will only show up as a primary return (just like most sailplanes). Radar, radios, and collision avoidance tech like TCAS, PCAS and FLARM help, but you still have to look out of the window.

I don't file in the Aeronca, because I rarely fly more than 500' AGL and only 5 mile or better VFR.

Do I rely on ATC to point out traffic? Actually, IFR I rely on them to re-route me or the traffic when IMC.

 

[Everskyward]

OK, fine. I don't know why you think *I* am positing a cause of the accident, because I haven't.

I'm not accusing you of anything personally. I was just speaking generally. I've been quoting you because you have been the one who keeps responding to my posts.

 

[dmccormack]

I'm not accusing you of anything personally. I was just speaking generally. I've been quoting you because you have been the one who keeps responding to my posts.

I do?

 

[sanforce]

Like I mentioned earlier up in the thread, visibility at 3:30pm, a couple of hours after the accident, was very different from our "normal" Front Range visibility. I flew from KBJC to KFNL, over Boulder and Longmont, and it was very difficult spotting traffic co-altitude or lower, due to haze and foggy/cloudy patches hanging in the lower areas. Coming back to KBJC at 4:45, I had the airport in sight at about 5 miles. Sounds like good vis, but normally the fuel tanks at KBJC are visible at 10nm+ ...

Hey gkainz, I did the exact same flight on the same day at nearly the same time! I agree, the visibility sucked. That's why my instructor and I went out East for a few hours before heading back into the Boulder area. At one point, when the sun was setting, I seriously couldn't see more than 2m ahead and below. It was difficult to spot airports at times. We didn't come back until after the sun set, mainly so we could have some beacon visibility.

 

[sanforce]

Re: Towplane/Cirrus mid air in Boulder

This accident will probably spur more interest in requiring TCAs for everybody... yet another gizmo that will mostly distract people from looking outside.

I really wouldn't mind this. Yes, it is another screen to look at. But it also can call traffic over the active COMM. If the glider & tow would have had the capability, who knows what would have happened? Increased safety from technology is a good thing, it just has to be implemented in a way that does not take to much attention away from flying the plane.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Re: Towplane/Cirrus mid air in Boulder

That video was some sort of ultralight/microlight and he went into the taught rope between the plane and the glider.

 

[gismo]

Re: Towplane/Cirrus mid air in Boulder

I really wouldn't mind this. Yes, it is another screen to look at. But it also can call traffic over the active COMM. If the glider & tow would have had the capability, who knows what would have happened? Increased safety from technology is a good thing, it just has to be implemented in a way that does not take to much attention away from flying the plane.

Any plan that requires all VFR aircraft to add $10,000 - $20,000 of avionics will either be a non-starter or the final straw that kills GA. Sure that's no big deal on a new Cirrus but equipping a 1400 lb ragwing taildragger with no electrical system or pretty much any glider with an active traffic avoidance system is just plain crazy.

 

[Jay Honeck]

We didn't come back until after the sun set, mainly so we could have some beacon visibility.

Jeez, I must be getting old. It's a sign of the times, I guess, and how far technology has come (and how much flying has changed since I learned to fly), but I can't remember the last time I needed or used "the beacon" to find an airport.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Re: Towplane/Cirrus mid air in Boulder

That's what I thought the instant I saw the no wing picture. The handful of tow rope attachments I've seen have a release lever inside and are tensioned to come loose if they're yanked on hard enough. Bumping into a rope that's not pulling anything shouldn't be able to tear a wing off or crash the towplane.

The tow release has no self-releasing feature. The tow rope is supposed to have a fusible link in it, calibrated to fail at a given strain.

See http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/certification/guidance/523/523-007.htm#4_0

Dan

 

[sanforce]

I can't remember the last time I needed or used "the beacon" to find an airport.

Actually, I meant so that our flashing beacon could be seen by other traffic and we could see other aircraft lights. The combination of the low sun and haze made westward VFR feel pretty hazardous. So, we just stayed to the East and flew for an extra hour! It was a winning situation in my opinion.

 

[weilke]

Re: Towplane/Cirrus mid air in Boulder

Any plan that requires all VFR aircraft to add $10,000 - $20,000 of avionics will either be a non-starter or the final straw that kills GA. Sure that's no big deal on a new Cirrus but equipping a 1400 lb ragwing taildragger with no electrical system or pretty much any glider with an active traffic avoidance system is just plain crazy.

Given that midairs are such a small proportion of GA accidents, requiring this accross the board would be a colossal waste of money.

If we could spend $1000 per plane to keep people from flying into cr##p weather.....

Wala, maybe ADS-B(ill) will provide all that and more at reasonable prices

 

[Trapper John]

Re: Towplane/Cirrus mid air in Boulder

Any plan that requires all VFR aircraft to add $10,000 - $20,000 of avionics will either be a non-starter or the final straw that kills GA. Sure that's no big deal on a new Cirrus but equipping a 1400 lb ragwing taildragger with no electrical system or pretty much any glider with an active traffic avoidance system is just plain crazy.

How well would TCAS really work in this situation, a busy, uncontrolled airport on a Saturday?


Trapper John

 

[Anthony]

Re: Towplane/Cirrus mid air in Boulder

Any plan that requires all VFR aircraft to add $10,000 - $20,000 of avionics will either be a non-starter or the final straw that kills GA. Sure that's no big deal on a new Cirrus but equipping a 1400 lb ragwing taildragger with no electrical system or pretty much any glider with an active traffic avoidance system is just plain crazy.

X2. Not only the cost, but in high traffic areas even TCAS or TIS is so busy it often gets ignored or turned off.

 

[vontresc]

Re: Towplane/Cirrus mid air in Boulder

There ia an interesting box coming to the US this summer.

Powerflarm

The powerflarm can supposedly provide traffic alerts based on FLARM, ADS/B, and Mode C/S transpoders. The people demoing this device at the SSA convention claimed that it would cost around $1,200 to $1,500. Low cost collision avoidance devices exist, how popular these will be is to be seen though.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Re: Towplane/Cirrus mid air in Boulder

Can anyone say 'Peltzman effect' Look out the dang window. Accept losses when folks don't and move on.

I really wouldn't mind this. Yes, it is another screen to look at. But it also can call traffic over the active COMM. If the glider & tow would have had the capability, who knows what would have happened? Increased safety from technology is a good thing, it just has to be implemented in a way that does not take to much attention away from flying the plane.

 

[vontresc]

Hmm found this interesting article on "See and Avoid"

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=busav&id=news/bca0107c.xml

 

[SteveinIndy]

There is nothing inherently bad or wrong about the Cirrus

Except for its exceptional tendency to burn, the lack of any practical ability to recover from a spin and some seriously deficient structural integrity around the cockpit....I would agree with you. That said, I believe the main problems are Cirrus' marketing tactics and the mindsets of many of the pilots that choose to fly them, both in regards to how the choose to fly it and the hesitancy to deploy the BRS when it could have potentially been of benefit. The issues with the aircraft simply make the chances of survival in a crash less than what you would get with a comparable aircraft that is better designed. If by some miracle you survive the impact, you then have to hope you aren't pinned in the wreckage or otherwise unable to move yourself because, 9 for 10, there will be a fast moving fire coming your way.

 

[MN1965]

If by some miracle you survive the impact, you then have to hope you aren't pinned in the wreckage or otherwise unable to move yourself because, 9 for 10, there will be a fast moving fire coming your way.

I would be interested to know the source of the statistic that 90% of Cirrus crashes result in fire.

 

[sanforce]

Re: Towplane/Cirrus mid air in Boulder

Can anyone say 'Peltzman effect' Look out the dang window. Accept losses when folks don't and move on.

I had to look this one up. I'm still extremely new to this, in every aspect. Of course I understand that a $20,000 piece of equipment isn't going to get put into the majority of GA planes. However, if it were $1000 and required for certain congested areas... it would. Of course, this would be +1 to the regulators -1 to GA and apparently that trend has been happening forever.

 

[gismo]

Re: Towplane/Cirrus mid air in Boulder

There ia an interesting box coming to the US this summer.

Powerflarm

The powerflarm can supposedly provide traffic alerts based on FLARM, ADS/B, and Mode C/S transpoders. The people demoing this device at the SSA convention claimed that it would cost around $1,200 to $1,500. Low cost collision avoidance devices exist, how popular these will be is to be seen though.

There are plenty of other passive traffic detectors already on the market and this one (albeit vaporware at this point) only seems to add receive only ADS capability, something the FAA is actively discouraging. And I can tell you from personal experience that while a truly active traffic detector is helpful, it's no panacea either and like someone already said the benefit goes down when there's a lot of traffic in the vicinity.

 

[dmccormack]

Re: Towplane/Cirrus mid air in Boulder

Any plan that requires all VFR aircraft to add $10,000 - $20,000 of avionics will either be a non-starter or the final straw that kills GA. Sure that's no big deal on a new Cirrus but equipping a 1400 lb ragwing taildragger with no electrical system or pretty much any glider with an active traffic avoidance system is just plain crazy.

I hereby request continued grandfathering.

(No electric, no TCAS, no transponder, no radio, no lights)

 

[gismo]

I would be interested to know the source of the statistic that 90% of Cirrus crashes result in fire.

Or more importantly what percentage of otherwise survivable accidents involve a post crash fire.

 

[Everskyward]

I can't remember the last time I needed or used "the beacon" to find an airport.

I use the beacon quite often, in fact it seems like I used it the other night.

 

[weilke]

Re: Towplane/Cirrus mid air in Boulder

There are plenty of other passive traffic detectors already on the market and this one (albeit vaporware at this point) only seems to add receive only ADS capability, something the FAA is actively discouraging. And I can tell you from personal experience that while a truly active traffic detector is helpful, it's no panacea either and like someone already said the benefit goes down when there's a lot of traffic in the vicinity.

This box comes from the FLARM side of things, a cheap non-transponder based system specifically for sailplanes. The transponder and ADS-B readouts are add-ons.

http://www.flarm.com/

 

[SteveinIndy]

Re: Towplane/Cirrus mid air in Boulder

I would be interested to know the source of the statistic that 90% of Cirrus crashes result in fire.

It was more or less a quote from a comment made a couple of years back by a senior NTSB investigator during lunch. The comment was (as close as I can recall) "I shudder when I hear we have a Cirrus crash because I know 9 for 10, the aircraft is going to be too burned up to tell us much about what happened. About the only time those damn things don't burn is when you run them dry first or crash into water." I'm not sure if it's really 90% of serious crashes, but I'm willing to bet you lunch at Oshkosh this year that it's at least 70%.

For those interested in what kills people in these crashes, here's the full breakdown of Cirrus fatalities in the US; (crashes with survivors are listed as having such):
12/15/2009 SR-22 Missing in Gulf of Mexico
9/11/2009 SR-22 Blunt trauma
7/30/2009 SR-22 Blunt trauma with hypoxia as a contributing factor
6/16/2009 SR-22 Data not available last time I checked
4/28/2009 SR-22 Blunt trauma for both occupants
2/17/2009 SR-20 Blunt trauma
1/30/2009 SR-20 Blunt trauma for all occupants
1/29/2009 SR-22 Data not available last time I checked
11/13/2008 SR-22 Blunt trauma
9/11/2008 SR-22 Data not available last time I checked
8/10/2008 SR-22 Blunt trauma (mid-air collision with Cessna R172K)
4/22/2008 SR-22 Blunt trauma
4/8/2008 SR-22 Blunt trauma
3/20/2008 SR-22 Blunt trauma
3/14/2008 SR-22 Blunt trauma
2/2/2008 SR-22 Blunt trauma
12/30/2007 SR-22 Probably blunt trauma
11/25/2007 SR-22 Blunt trauma
11/21/2007 SR-20 Blunt trauma
12/18/2006 SR-22 Blunt trauma
11/30/2006 SR-22 Blunt trauma
10/27/2006 SR-22 Blunt trauma (crash had two survivors)
10/25/2006 SR-22 Blunt trauma
10/11/2006 SR-22 Blunt trauma (Cory Lidle crash)
9/15/2006 SR-20 Blunt trauma
8/28/2006 SR-22 Blunt trauma
7/11/2006 SR-22 Blunt trauma (survived for three weeks in ICU after crash)
2/4/2006 SR-22 Blunt trauma
1/9/2006 SR-20 Blunt trauma
12/29/2005 SR-22 Blunt trauma
12/11/2005 SR-22 Data not available last time I checked
2/6/2005 SR-22 Data not available last time I checked
1/20/2005 SR-22 "Blunt and sharp force trauma" (impaled by tree branch through chest after being thrown from the aircraft, if I recall correctly)
1/15/2005 SR-22 Blunt trauma
12/4/2004 SR-22 Blunt trauma (1 survivor)
9/10/2004 SR-22 Blunt trauma
4/19/2004 SR-20 Blunt trauma
1/23/2003 SR-20 Blunt trauma
1/18/2003 SR-22 Unknown
11/3/2002 SR-20 Blunt trauma
5/28/2002 SR-20 Thermal trauma, smoke inhalation
4/24/2002 SR-22 Unknown
4/10/2001 SR-20 Unknown
3/23/1999 SR-20 Blunt trauma

As for the number of fires, give me a while to pull the data together. Normally 10-20% (variability depending upon the inclusion or exclusion of airliner crash data; if anyone wants more specific data on this, let me know and I will pull it together) of fatalities in aircraft crashes are due to fire or the toxic products associated with fire. I'm not home at the moment so I can't exactly drop what I'm doing.

It possibly points to serious issues with the structural integrity of the passenger compartment of the aircraft as being the more serious issue with survivability rather than the fuel tank issue. I am not saying the fuel tanks are the problem- they are A problem, one of several. What I will say is that if you don't address the obvious issue with fires now (at the same time the other issues are dealt with), you will see a shift in the mortality while not seeing an overall decrease in morbidity and mortality even if you were to correct the structural issues related to cockpit integrity.

What would happen is if you increase the integrity of the cockpit, etc and left the fire issue unaddressed it would give those who don't believe safety improvements are of value ammunition to use because the mortality would still be higher than with other aircraft, just with a different source ("See! All those expensive changes and the aircraft is still killing people at the pretty much same rate!"). Safety is not a zero sum, all or nothing sort of affair. Several problems, several solutions and saying "Oh well, most people don't live to burn alive anyhow" is not a valid argument from a safety standard, even if it is technically true.

 

[sanforce]

Re: Towplane/Cirrus mid air in Boulder

Blunt trauma

Are all of these "Blunt Trauma" incidents where the chute operated but the decent rate was still great enough to kill the pilot? I'm asking because my father flies an SR22 and it would be a good thing to tell him to unload all the extra weight if he ever needs the CAPS.


edit: I'm sure he would already know if that was the case. He is an avid COPA (Cirrus Owners & Pilots Association) member, which is a dedicated Cirrus group/forum.

 

[weilke]

Re: Towplane/Cirrus mid air in Boulder

He is an avid COPA (Cirrus Owners & Pilots Association) member, which is a dedicated Cirrus group/forum.

Dedicated ? They are a cult

 

[SteveinIndy]

Re: Towplane/Cirrus mid air in Boulder

Are all of these "Blunt Trauma" incidents where the chute operated but the decent rate was still great enough to kill the pilot? I'm asking because my father flies an SR22 and it would be a good thing to tell him to unload all the extra weight if he ever needs the CAPS.

No....well, at least not most of them. I know of four or five fatalities where the aircraft came down under the CAPS, one of which was due to an overloaded aircraft in the hands of a friend of mine. Everyone else survived except the pilot who died at the hospital. There's a reason why a weight and balance check before every takeoff is your friend.

EDIT: At least one of the fatalities was associated with deployment of the CAPS at too high of an airspeed. Just brought this up for the sake of full disclosure and to avoid the appearance of bias.

People seem to forget that pulling the handle doesn't necessarily mean your going to make it, although in most cases it certainly improves your chances. I'd want the damn thing deployed before impact even if it wasn't going to save me just so it doesn't start a fire when it deploys, as it does frequently, on impact like a shotgun shell struck with a ballpeen hammer.

Dedicated ? They are a cult

*insert snide comment of your choice about cult compound fires here*

 

[Everskyward]

Re: Towplane/Cirrus mid air in Boulder

For those interested in what kills people in these crashes, here's the full breakdown of Cirrus fatalities in the US;

Don't you need to compare the numbers to some other airplane for your statistics to have any meaning as far as structural integrity is concerned?

 

[gismo]

Re: Towplane/Cirrus mid air in Boulder

Are all of these "Blunt Trauma" incidents where the chute operated but the decent rate was still great enough to kill the pilot? I'm asking because my father flies an SR22 and it would be a good thing to tell him to unload all the extra weight if he ever needs the CAPS.

AFaIK the only times the descent under canopy generated enough force at impact to seriously injure the occupants was when the touchdown occurred in/on water which negates the energy absorbing capability of the landing gear. There have been other incidents where the CAPS was deployed and fatalities occurred but I believe most if not all of those incidents involved deployment outside the CAPS enevelope (i.e. too fast and/or too low) and in those cases it wasn't the deployment that caused the injuries but rather the ineffectiveness of the chute.

 

[SteveinIndy]

Re: Towplane/Cirrus mid air in Boulder

Don't you need to compare the numbers to some other airplane for your statistics to have any meaning as far as structural integrity is concerned?

The reason I posted that list was simply to answer the question about whether people live to see the fire that so often follows a Cirrus crash.

I have looked at such a comparison because I am writing a journal article on it which should be being submitted to the journal it is being written for within the next couple of months. Because to post it here would violate the clause most journals have about "all material must not have been previously published" that comparison in any detail will have to wait.

Suffice to say that if you look at the crude accident rate vs fatal accident rate between 1/1/1999 and today (in just fifteen minutes of digging on the NTSB website), you find this:

Cirrus (all models)
71 non-fatal crashes
56 fatal crashes
126 crashes total, 44.4% fatal

Mooney (all models)
272 non-fatal crashes
91 fatal crashes
363 crashes total, 25.1% fatal

Cessna 172 (all models)
1523 non-fatal crashes
227 fatal crashes
1750 crashes total, 12.9% fatal

Piper PA-28 (all models)
748 non-fatal crashes
224 fatal crashes
972 total crashes, 23.0% fatal

RV-6/RV-6A (built by amateurs)
76 non-fatal crashes
38 fatal crashes
114 total crashes, 33.3% fatal

Lancair (all models, built by amateurs)
64 non-fatal crashes
51 fatal crashes
115 total crashes, 44.3% fatal

Diamond DA-20
33 non-fatal crashes
3 fatal crashes
36 total crashes, 8.3% fatal

Diamond DA-40
10 non-fatal crashes
3 fatal crashes
13 total crashes, 23% fatal

In other words, the only thing with a similar crude rate for fatal crashes out of all crashes for that type is something cobbled together in someone's hangar or garage. It's interesting to note also the the highest rates are among composite aircraft, although this could be simply a function of higher performance despite the difference in the rate for Mooneys.

 

[SteveinIndy]

Re: Towplane/Cirrus mid air in Boulder

AFaIK the only times the descent under canopy generated enough force at impact to seriously injure the occupants was when the touchdown occurred in/on water which negates the energy absorbing capability of the landing gear.

Also extremely rough terrain seems to negate the utility of the energy absorption from the landing gear.

There have been other incidents where the CAPS was deployed and fatalities occurred but I believe most if not all of those incidents involved deployment outside the CAPS enevelope (i.e. too fast and/or too low) and in those cases it wasn't the deployment that caused the injuries but rather the ineffectiveness of the chute.

To quote one of my friends who flies Cirrus aircraft, "too fast, too late and/or too heavy" is what killed those people.

 

[weilke]

The ratio is meaningless without taking absoluted numbers and usage into account. Every low-speed runway excursion by a student in a 172 or DA20 will drive down the ratio of deadly accidents.

If you hit a mountain or fly into a thunderstorm, you are just as dead in a 172 as you would be in a Cirrus.

 

[SteveinIndy]

The ratio is meaningless without taking absoluted numbers and usage into account. Every low-speed runway excursion by a student in a 172 or DA20 will drive down the ratio of deadly accidents.

If you hit a mountain or fly into a thunderstorm, you are just as dead in a 172 as you would be in a Cirrus.

True...hence why I said crude rate. But then again if you look at the fact that Cirrus aircraft are used as trainers (especially the SR20s) then that still rasies the question why the rate is SO MUCH higher. I could see 10% or maybe 15% difference but a rate three and a half times that of the Cessna 172 is probably more than just watered down data.

Also why would a higher performance aircraft, the Mooneys for example, which you aren't going to see student pilots in very often but is still just as likely to get ahead of a pilot who isn't on his toes (and to do so with much less time to react because of greater performance and without the benefit of the 'chute) still have a crude fatal crash rate 56% of the Cirrus aircraft? That is why I included higher performance aircraft in the data here: because you are not going to see them used in training for the most part so you're not going to have the dilutional effect of low-speed ground loops and such nearly as often.

 

[weilke]

You are missing Bonanzas, 210s and PA46 in your analysis.

Mooneys range from C-model puddlejumpers to the AcclaimS. Your analysis should be limited to 231 and up.

 

[Everskyward]

Re: Towplane/Cirrus mid air in Boulder

It's interesting to note also the the highest rates are among composite aircraft, although this could be simply a function of higher performance despite the difference in the rate for Mooneys.

Aren't Diamonds also composite?

 

[SteveinIndy]

OK....to break it out....

Mooney M20J
74 non-fatal crashes, 17 fatal crashes, 91 total; 18.68% fatal

Mooney M20K (231)
37 non-fatal crashes; 13 fatal crashes, 50 total; 26% fatal

Beech Bonanza 36, all variants (traditional tail)
128 non-fatal crashes; 75 fatal crashes; 203 total; 36.9% fatal

Beech Bonanza BE35 (V-tail; data from 1962 to present...just for the sake of argument)
2942 non-fatal crashes; 910 fatal crashes; 3852 total; 23.62% fatal

Beech Bonanza BE33 (traditional tail)
61 non-fatal crashes; 20 fatal crashes; 81 total crashes; 24.7% fatal

Cessna 210
336 nonfatal crashes; 110 fatal crashes; 446 total crashes; 24.7% fatal

Piper PA-46
63 nonfatal crashes; 38 fatal crashes; 101 total crashes; 37.6% fatal

Cirrus SR20 (the comparable aircraft for training purposes to the Cessna 172 according to Cirrus reps)
17 non-fatal crashes; 14 fatal crashes; 31 total crashes; 45.2% fatal

Cirrus SR22
50 non-fatal crashes; 41 fatal crashes; 91 total crashes; 45.1% fatal

Aren't Diamonds also composite?

Yes, which is another confounding thing that came up in the course of the research for my paper. It may be the particular way composites are used or the specific composites that explains the difference in rates or perhaps that composites are only a wise choice for materials in low-performance aircraft at least when it comes to safety critical parts (read as: cockpit).

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Re: Towplane/Cirrus mid air in Boulder

edit: I'm sure he would already know if that was the case. He is an avid COPA (Cirrus Owners & Pilots Association) member, which is a dedicated Cirrus group/forum.

That's a good thing - Active COPA members, statistically, are much less likely to crash their Cirri. Not because they're COPA members, mind you, but more likely because they're the type of pilots who continue to learn and have an active commitment to safety (unlike your average Type-A Cirrus crasher).

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Except for its exceptional tendency to burn, the lack of any practical ability to recover from a spin and some seriously deficient structural integrity around the cockpit....I would agree with you. That said, I believe the main problems are Cirrus' marketing tactics and the mindsets of many of the pilots that choose to fly them, both in regards to how the choose to fly it and the hesitancy to deploy the BRS when it could have potentially been of benefit. The issues with the aircraft simply make the chances of survival in a crash less than what you would get with a comparable aircraft that is better designed. If by some miracle you survive the impact, you then have to hope you aren't pinned in the wreckage or otherwise unable to move yourself because, 9 for 10, there will be a fast moving fire coming your way.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The Cirrus is perfectly capable of recovering from a spin as well as any other no-intentional-spins single. They wanted the chute anyway, and by getting the FAA to allow the chute as an alternative, they didn't have to go through the full battery of spin tests, thus saving them both time and money on the certification.

Also, every GA company should market like Cirrus, or GA will be dead soon. I think it's more the personalities that gravitate toward such a plane than it is the marketing itself.

100% agree, though, that there have been many instances where the BRS would have saved the day if the pilot had only pulled the handle at the right time.