Wearing a parachute for cross country.

[Bob Martin]

Just get a 4 seater that you like.
Take another pilot along when you fly with her!
Otherwise enjoy flying.

[Toddsanderson]

Originally Posted by rmarshall234

Same here. As in post-crash fire. As soon as I bail out I take that concern right out of the equation. In fact, I can use smoke from the fire to determine wind direction for landing

As a professional in the parachute business, this discussion of parachute or not amuses and concerns me. Parachutes save lives, airplane crashes kill people. I know of SIX successful bail outs from last year alone. That is SIX guys that were able to go home and kiss their wives and hug their kids. I wonder how many died in RV crashes last year..

I'm with you 100% here. When I was flying the Iskra there was not even a thought to what I would do if I had a fire, engine failure, or loss of control. I was pulling the ejection handle and floating under the canopy. The plane was sold to the insurance company at that point.

[Toddsanderson]

Originally Posted by Bob Martin

Just get a 4 seater that you like.
Take another pilot along when you fly with her!
Otherwise enjoy flying.

Problem is that the pilot has to be on the same schedule as me and I have to get them home. The Citation or airlines makes more sense there.

[rvbuilder2002]

Originally Posted by rmarshall234

I wonder how many died in RV crashes last year..

I am not going to argue fore or against full time use of a chute when flying, but when discussing stats and other details as part of that decision process, we should consider the full scope not just small bits.....

Regarding the above question -
What should really be asked is how many died in RV crashes last year where the availability of a chute would have allowed for a different outcome?

My opinion is that it would have been very very few... if any at all.
Anyone reading through NTSB reports will quickly see that most all accidents occur in the context of situations where a chute would have been of no use even if the occupants had them.

So, I'm not saying they have no value.... clearly in certain specific circumstances they can mean the difference between surviving or not, but those specific circumstances are very rare.

[rockwoodrv9]

I would look at the 10. It has to be easier to get the doors open than the canopy. Ride in both. I have heard the 10 is similar to the Cirrus, but still has the fun of flying left in.

[bobmarkert]

Here are some pics of how I?ve cut my rails. It has never been a problem even on the windiest days but I do NOT keep the canopy stoped at the cuts. Concerning the discussion that there?s a lot of forward pressure on the canopy my intent would be to slow down to just above stall speed or even stall it if I can?t get it back. However I suspect with adrenaline it won?t be an issue! This is all just theory of course. I hope I never need to create a data point!

[terrykohler]

It's one thing getting disoriented in a plane with a BRS, pulling the handle, and not having to think about the relatively minimal damage the plane will likely do to persons or things on the ground. It's quite another to bail out of a perfectly good aircraft (leaving your spouse behind?) with no thought of what potential damage the bird will do on impact.
In fact, my own experience tells me that most penetration into IMC occurs during the takeoff/climb-out and approach/landing phases, where there's more likely to be some population density. If you bail out then, you probably have a greater chance of scoring some kills with your unmanned bomb. Enroute and above the weather (like most instrument flights), not so much if you decide to exit.
If I'm flying aerobatics, I want a chute on (just in case the plane suddenly becomes "unflyable"). Otherwise, unless I'm often flying over inhospitable territory, the plane needs to be flown or floated to the ground.
With that in mind, to the OP, I would suggest if your wife really likes the big, red handle overhead, you need to learn to like the plane that carries it. Otherwise, take the Citation - it's a great option and one that most of us would envy.
Terry, CFI
RV9A N323TP

[bobmarkert]

All good points but my particular situation puts me over the uninhabited and unlandable Rocky Mountains a LOT of the time (I live in the Denver area). That?s why my wife is on a static line ... have her unbuckle, jettison the canopy, roll inverted and push... see ya on the ground honey! I rode on real ejection seats a lot in my military career. Those decisions need to (and have been) made on the ground at zero airspeed. If I was building a -10 I would absolutely consider a BRS system.

[Toddsanderson]

I appreciate the responses. I just can't do another Cirrus. I'm still kicking around a 14 or 10, and maybe BRS is an option on either of them. The Citation is great, but 20 trips a year at $10k each is just ridiculous.

[DanH]

Originally Posted by bobmarkert

... have her unbuckle, jettison the canopy, roll inverted and push... see ya on the ground honey!

If I did that to Ms. Patti, I'd have to avoid her for a least a week...