10 Safest Airplanes For Private Pilots 

I was looking for a Diamond to be on this list. This is just a parachute ad

They are literally. Yes LITERALLY. the safest planes in the world. The stats aren’t even close. This is a moronic video

That's just sly marketing from Diamond to convince buyers not to make them spend the millions needed to test and integrate a chute to their already-developed aircraft lineup. You need to realise that even though the descent speed is (very slightly) lower in (certain) cases, you still have a forward speed of 110kmh+ to maintain that which is enormous. Your overall inertia is vastly higher than just a vertical component alone. A parachute is better in basically every instance e.g. - mountainous terrain - over water - over a forest - over a city - in a spin, which the Diamonds haven't been shown to be able to recover from - after control system failure - after jammed controls - after structural failure - if the sole pilot is incapacitated - bird strike damaging the wings or tail - electronic failure, seeing as it's an 'electronic' parachute - Loss of visibility (engine failure, bird strike, loss of electrics during a night flight) There is no good reason not to have a parachute in a small aircraft other than needing the extra payload. 99% of the reason they're not more prevalent is cost-averse manufacturers who didn't design a plane for integration with them from the beginning, not wanting to spend the money now that they're becoming demanded and instead they'll come up with nonsense marketing like that. They're very safe planes but ffs it's not safer to omit a parachute.

@@karlfriedrich7758 Strongly disagree. At minimum cruise altitude you will find a safe place to land unless you are flying over the Himalayas. Even over the Rockies there are plenty of valley and rivers. Also cities are controlled air space and GA have tight restriction. This isn't MSFS where you can fly in to Manhattan unless you are a helicopter. Also you never seen a diamond recover from a spin because it's nearly impossible to put them in a spin. The rest apply to the SR22 as well. Accident reports show that either the SR22 were too low to use the ballistic parachute, or the pilot was incapacitated or mentally overloaded.

@@yonghominale8884 again you are looking at it through unreasonably optimistic glasses. Engine failures don't always occur at minimum cruise altitude and I can tell you with certainty there are many places that are unsafe to land just in my country alone, just because you can glide it down doesn't mean you are going to have a safe landing. You cannot seriously think that it's safer to have one shot only at landing into a turbulent, icy river filled with rocks, as opposed to coming down under a parachute with significantly less velocity. Even if you survive the impact you still need to get out before drowning. Flown over jungle before? Tell me you'd be feeling safer impacting trees at 100+kmh stall speed instead of gliding straight down at 20kmh. Come on man this isn't even difficult to find, here's are 4 links at the bottom of this comment to Diamonds that fatally crashed from a spin. Every plane is spinnable and any pilot who thinks they aren't is utterly naive. Besides spinning, any pilot who's argued against a parachute is almost always overly confident in their own skills under pressure as if they're Sully Sullenburger, or fantasises the most perfect failure scenarios ever. They refuse to believe that there are situations outside of their control. All those scenarios at the end which I listed, certainly do apply to the Cirrus too, they also can almost certainly end in a catastrophic accident, however every single one of them can be saved by a parachute. I will never understand the geriatric mindset of people who insist on 'flying it down' like it's somehow a dent on their pride to take an option that's less deadly, and flat out refusing to have a parachute in their plane. It's pretty Darwinian to be honest. It literally just sits there until you need it. It's not like you're wearing a helmet or have to do anything inconveniencing whatsoever. I swear if I mentioned Amsafe airbag seatbelts there'd be a bunch of people jumping in to argue that a regular lap belt isn't bad and airbags are too much extra weight... You're right about mental overload, part of that is from this exact argument where they insist they need to fly it down instead of knowing it's time to pull the chute. It's the same reason passengers are briefed on how to pull the chute so if the pilot is incapacitated, they can pull it themselves. You're welcome to try landing in some of the most inhospitable terrain imaginable or try and fly an uncontrollable aircraft back into the ground. Myself, I'd rather have a parachute sitting there that I can deploy if all else fails that I know will save the lives of me and my passengers. Just this year there have been several mid air collisions. Some of the aircraft were uncontrollable due to wing damage but not totally destroyed, imagine sitting there in that last minute while you're plummetting to the ground, thinking you made a "good decision" not fitting a chute because it's "unnecessary". You can go ahead and do that, everyone else with rational thinking is going to opt for a parachute on their next light plane that literally has no noticable impact on their day to day operations whatsoever, but is worth its weight in gold when you need it. www.kathrynsreport.com/2021/12/diamond-da40-ng-n853l-fatal-accident.html?m=1 aviation-safety.net/wikibase/263673 aviation-safety.net/wikibase/170579 aviation-safety.net/wikibase/225159

I'm actually surprised they quoted $7000. I went up last Friday in a friend's SR22, and he said it was going to cost him about $20k to have a repack done next year. Most websites quote between $12-$15k to have it done.

@@BryanBalak I believe it. 10% Inflation? More like 200%…

$7,000 is nothing over 15 years especially if you consider it part of your maintenance costs compared to what it offers. That's not even the price of a single tank of fuel that you have to set aside in a year.

Still more expensive that a car, but look at Texas Colt aircraft.

i was about to point that too : most of cirrus fatalities are stall-spin on final ... looks like the commentator is under some influence ...

Because they're harder to spin but have very bad spin recovery characteristics once in one. Most of those spins occurred at altitudes way too low to deploy a parachute and pilot error is a major factor in all of that too. Driving a car 200kph in the wet with a set of brakes and tyres not up to the job isn't the fault of the airbag for not saving the driver when he inevitably crashes.

​@@karlfriedrich7758That is not the same, you literally said yourself it recovers badly. It's driver error to hit the wall, but when the car is hard to drive, you can't just point to driver error and call it a day. The car's characteristics played their part.

@@NotASeriousMoose if you read my original comment again you might understand it better. The overwhelming majority of stall-spins occur on approach or departure and well below 400ft. There is next to no recovering that even in any other plane unless you're extremely lucky. Whether the Cirrus has a parachute or not is completely irrelevant to the original commenter's statement because it didn't contribute to the accidents nor could it even save the plane in that scenario. Stalls are absolutely pilot error, the pilot is entirely responsible for maintaining safe speed and knowing their aircraft's characteristics. The Cirrus is forgiving up to the stall, other planes stall and instantly dump a wing so yes they can give a false sense of security near the stall, but again, that's not the main point. My point is that whether or not the plane has a parachute has next to nothing to do with its survivability in a stall-spin like the original comment said because the stall-spin accidents occur below the usage envelope. Again, my analogy stands true. An airbag can't save your life in a 200km/h impact because it's outside of its usage envelope. "Despite having airbags, there's no shortage of people dying in 200km/h impacts" the airbag has absolutely nothing do with the fatality, it's entirely the driver's fault for putting it in that situation. Contributing factors might be bad weather and bald tyres but the leading factor is driving at 200km/h despite knowing your car's handling and how you'll not be able to recover if something goes wrong.

@@karlfriedrich7758 You are spot on mate, you can have all the so called safety features in the world but they are useless the moment you are outside of their tolerances. Nearly all stall fatalities are on take off and landings so how is a chute gonna help in that situation. You are correct imo.

Two engines doubles your probability of an engine failure. You are then left with a difficult to fly aircraft (thrust on one side and drag on the other side). There are lots of videos that cover twin engine aircraft that have ended up crashing when one engine fails.

...you know you can get the throttle stuck at full power, right? Or a frozen control surface. There are problems that a second engine doesn't help with.

C90 is my choice. To bad it's discontinued

@@danfernandez6100 If I flying in weather, at night, over inhospitable terrain or water, I prefer 2 engines, period!

Is it so stewie 😼😼😼

Well good thing your evaluation of people doesn’t fucking matter

Totally Disagree

No

I'm trying to copy watch mojo? You better be out...

@@Dwaynesaviation if you don't think so, you're delusional. I'm not even the first to make that comment. You went from wanting to be informative to noticing the views spiked on the MOJO format.

Dude what are you talking about??…. Dwayne has a ton of videos with this style

The majority of ranking videos in the past decade of youtube have been the same style as this. Just because watch mojo has the most subscribers doesn’t mean that he’s copying them.

So what if this is style is similar to Mojo? It's not like Mojo came up with that style. Dwayne, Keep doing what your doing.