Unfortunately, no. BRS scrapped that project a few years ago.

Lots of Cirrus deployment videos but I have never seen one for a Cessna 182 or 172.

@@DougGoodrich How do you know it works?

In principle it should work the same way it does on the Cirrus. But if you're looking for guaranteed safety your in life, piloting a small plane probably shouldn't be on your list of things to do.

Not in the DA-62 but you can get a system for a Kitfox.

@@DougGoodrich is this the same system in a Cirrus? I like both the DA-62 and the Cirrus SR-22T but am leaning towards the Cirrus over the Diamond simply for the parachute. With the Kitfox, I want to get a Series 7 STI and would also like a parachute in it too. After I get my license and the Kitfox purchased, I’ll be in touch. The planes and the GA license will be my retirement gift to me.

@@j.r.777 It's the same basic system by BRS Aerospace. Variations are to chute size (based on gross weight) and attachments.

DA62 is not experimental

I'll answer the question your impact is still going to be much less than with out 😂

Pull the chute and impact the ground safely.

$13k approx

This is a 182 😮

It's not for any Cessna retracts.

Don't think this effect the Cof G more like effect the amount of luggage you can carry

C of G DEPENDS COULD DIFFER ON TWO OF THE SAME AIRCRAFT, DEPENDING ON WHAT Has BEEN INSTALLED AND WOULD BE WORKED OUT AFTERWARDS NORMALLY

C of G is calculated on and aircraft, and is not fixed

Huge

The parachute will help the C of G. 182s are nose heavy.

As Aviators there are so many things we buy, procedures we follow, and things we think about just in case the unexpected happens. But that is why flying is so safe.

Correct, it’s nothing but false sense of security, spend your time and money on training and plane maintenance, just look at real statistics

@@billjones3071 So flying over mountainous terrain with nothing but boulders and trees and nowhere to land. Training only and hope you have a miracle happen, or pull the handle when your engine goes out.

@@billjones3071My biggest worry is always an engine out. Seems like a great option to me compared to randomly hoping I have a safe emergency landing spot.

Speed limits for employing the shoot or ?

@@alexp.6406 i agree. How often does it need servicing/repacking?

Maybe your most likely accident is stall/spin base to final! This addresses engine issues that are not the result of poor pilot procedure execution. The rest is up to the pilot.

And on take off

@@user-ik3mk5vi8m The use of a parachute is considerably more complicated than it appears. AVweb posted an article 5 years ago titled "Are planes with parachutes really safer?" It is really worth reading, and you can easily find it by searching KZfaq. My own advice is to get some time in an old taildragger and practise stalls and spins (above 5000 ft). This will help you develop the muscle memory needed to recognise incipient stalls, and prevent going onto a spin. Remember, flight depends on airflow remaining in conact with the upper surface of the wing. Once you have stalled the wing, the airflow is no longer in contact with the wing, and you cannot control the plane with the aerolons (sp?). You need to pracise to recognize the mushy feeling of the controls, and to immediately point the nose down and increase power to avoid going into a stall/spin accident. These are usually fatal for everyone on board.

Wrong.

That's likely true. But at 10,000 to 15,000 dollars to replace, a flight school with several trainers would be out a big pile of money when it came time to replace them. And a few days down time.

@@kilopapa1449 I agree. Someday when I own my own Cessna this will be first upgrade I get ♥️

I own a Cessna 182. I can slow it down and land it at about 46 knots. It's true that there are places I've been that a parachute would have been safer than and attempted landing. However, when flying over the mountains a couple of times I realized that if you pull a parachute you have absolutely no control over where you land. You can be put down on the edge of a cliff which would put you in a worse position than trying to land the plane in a valley. I have contemplated installing one in my 182. It would decrease useful load, increase my stall speed, and perhaps induce me to take chances that I otherwise wouldn't. Additionally there have been failures of these devices and if you plan on them and there is a failure it's probably a lot worse than trying to land. Cirrus aircraft have a higher stall speed than high wing Cessnas. If you train well I'm not sure how much more safety this system affords in a Cessna 182. I am willing to be proven wrong however.

The problem is the majority of crashes are not at high altitude, but taking off, or landing, or what they call CFIT controlled flight into terrain, due to bad weather, were you cannot use it in anyway, but yes if you flying at altitude, then it does make sense, considering the high costs involved for installation

Not in favor of any more mandatory safety regulations. Don't need the government to protect me more.