When the Ercoupe came out in the 1940s, everybody thought it would set a new standard for both simple flying and safety. It was stall-resistant and spin-proof and the controls were interconnected. There were no rudder pedals, just a wheel and throttle to use in controlling the airplane.
When the dust settled, the Ercoupe had a worse safety record than contemporary two-place airplanes. This had little to do with the airplane and a lot to do with the pilots, who thought they couldn’t hurt themselves in one of those.
Small twins had the same problem and when Cirrus announced that it would have an airframe parachute on its SR-20/22 airplanes, I wondered if history would repeat itself.
When examining fatal accident rates per 100,000 hours for various certified airplanes, few stand out as being far removed from the record for all light airplanes. The Cessna P210 and the Piper Malibu/Mirage types have notably bad records or at least they did when the airplanes were being flown a lot. The Cessna 172 and 182 have always had notably good records.
Many thought the Cirrus would have a good record. The SR-20 does but the SR-22 does not. There have been a number of parachute “saves” and if you consider that those would have been added to the fatal accident column if the chute were not there, then the SR-22 in particular has an unfortunate accident history.
Why do you think this is true? Is it because of the personality of the pilots who are attracted to the much more powerful SR-22? Does the presence of the chute lead pilots to attempt things with the airplane that they wouldn’t try without the chute? Is there a mind-set that you can’t hurt yourself in the airplane? Is it because the Cirrus was never spin-tested with the FAA allowing the chute to be the only spin-recovery mode? Or is it something else?
You have the floor.