BRS

[3Dreaming]

I like the location of the BRS handle on the SportCruiser much more than the contortion inducing location on the CT. Though I guess you could argue having the handle on the panel makes it more likely to snag on something and accidentally deploy. Pros and cons to each I suppose.

I like the handle position of the chute on the SportCruiser as well. Not removing the safety pin before flight there is no fear of snagging or any reason to think about the chute at all... unless you need it!

I remember the guys from BRS talking about an accident where the aircraft had a BRS installed, but it was not used. The accident investigation showed damage to the mounting around the handle from pulling forces, and the pin still in place. This and getting a chance to see what it feels like to pull the handle made me change my mind about BRS systems in small aircraft. Now my Key is located on the same ring as the pin for the chute, so there is no flying without it.

[drseti]

The problem with adding additional weight allowance for safety equipment (and one reason FAA is not likely to relax that limit) is that no one limitation exists in isolation -- they affect others. In the case of increasing maximum gross weight, the penalty is that it may pull the clean stall speed above the maximum limit. Most LSAs stall at 45 KCAS. Remember, the spec is calibrated airspeed, not indicated. For those who claim their LSAs stall at 35 knots, be aware that you're reading the airspeed indicator -- which can easily be 10 knots off when at or above critical angle of attack. Actual calibrated stall speed at max gross weight is almost always near or right at the 45 knot limit.

This is the problem facing Icon now. They got a weight exemption from FAA to be spin resistant, but now they have to redesign the wing to still meet the stall speed limit at max weight. So, one change impacts other specs...

[Jack Tyler]

Dismissing reasons why folks fail to insist on carrying an airframe chute as irrational doesn't mean they don't move the marketplace. Quite the opposite. And Paul's right that weight - as well as initial and ongoing cost - are viewed as two big negatives when the broker pulls out the options sheet.

In addition to Eddie's point about risk compensation, which is even evident in how Cirrus aircraft are marketed, there are other issues that argue against an airframe parachute being quite the salvation it purports to be. One is that the chute system itself has a flight envelope inside of which it will function properly and outside of which it could fail to do so. So there are some events where a chute can (fingers crossed) be the ultimate answer to the problem - e.g. engine loss over hostile terrain. But there are other events - loss of control as e.g. VFR into IMC - where the chute may be unable to deliver on its promise. The pilot who is failing to recover the a/c can't be expected to return the plane to the chute's required envelope. Just a hunch...but I'll bet some portion of chute supporters and chute system buyers believe they are purchasing a complete solution to the ultimate problem. And even if they don't, their spouses might. Spousal influence, I am told, is a big factor in checking the chute box on the options sheet or choosing a chute-equipped a/c. Careful examination of the chute's limitations and the missions intending to be flown might not enter into the equation.

And then there's what the USAF learned: After very expensive classroom plus hands-on, experiential training of every pilot who rides an ejection seat, it found a portion of fatal accidents year after year would have been survivable if the pilot had acted on the training and pulled the handle. This became so consistent an issue that periodic 'ejection seat use' retraining was instituted, according to some pretty experienced fellows who recently discussed this on a Grumman forum I read. The basic problem was pilot denial: 'I got myself into this mess and I'm supposed to - or should be able to - get myself out.' If this seems restricted to macho fighter jocks, remember this is exactly what happens when an unstable or ill-formed approach leads to a bad landing instead of the GA pilot simply doing the go-around s/he was trained to perform over and over during flight instruction and BFRs. And some of the earlier discussion in this thread points to the same historical circumstances with the Cirrus owner population and their retraining.

Human factors and operational limits are two reasons why a chute system isn't 'the' solution to all flight problems. Is it an incremental improvement in flight safety? It would certainly seem so in general terms. But for some pilots more than others, and for only a portion of in-flight issues. Choosing not to put a chute in a weight-limited a/c seems like a reasonable, logical choice to make, just as it is to install one.

[FastEddieB]

Good post.

Here's a link to a post I made in another thread:

http://sportpilottalk.com/viewtopic.php?p=18137#p18137

Many here have read the account before, but there are always newbies around!

[designrs]

Great revisit Eddie. Reminds me of:

1) How much I don't know, as a newbie pilot compared to those with more experience such as yourself.
(I've never even done a real spin... thankfully... but I intend to spin train.)
2) Many profound other factors that go into those incidents (stress, fixation, extreme emotion, etc.) that are not actually felt by "armchair experts" after the fact.
3) Mechanical / bio-mechanical delays or obstructions.
a) In your case the cover and pin that prevented you from pulling the BRS on the simulator.
b) The John Denver incident where supposedly he couldn't reach the fuel tank selector

[designrs]

So what are the general BRS flight envalope limits?
Not enough consideration goes into this by most.

Obviously the major factors are:
1) speed
2) altitude
3) attitude
4) motor off

What else?

[snaproll]

My take on BRS.. Last resort use only... Midair, structural failure, bird strike blinding pilot, heart attack, etc. Have had two complete and three partial engine failures in my life and have never scratched an airplane. Taught to always look for a place to land on any flight. Now have my first BRS equipped airplane and have not changed my flying habits.

[MovingOn]

.......

[Jack Tyler]

"Have had two complete and three partial engine failures in my life and have never scratched an airplane. Taught to always look for a place to land on any flight."

Given all the chute talk and the dire circumstances that lead to its use, Snaproll's comment (above) is worth a bit of reflection. I've had two complete engine failures, each with two passengers aboard, one even over the water off the coast of South Carolina, and I too have left not a scratch - on the a/c or the passengers. This isn't about great pilot talent. It's about one of the statistics we don't have and would benefit from knowing: the percentage of successful landings after some kind of major incident in flight. We don't know how many loss of control (e.g. VFR into IMC) recoveries have been made, how many friendly farmers have provided some gas to an embarrassed pilot and even how many crumpled wings and collapsed landing gear have been hauled into hangers before anyone (official) was the wiser. We only know the 'bad side' of in-flight emergencies.

If we reread some of the tradeoffs, pro's and con's of equipping an a/c with a chute that are discussed above and then fold in the additional 'fact' that half of all unintended landings due to a failure of some kind do not result in a NTSB report, it might take a bit of additional bloom off the chute's rose. Is that number close to 'half'? I wish I knew. But with 200,000+ aircraft of all types in the U.S., 20,000,000 flight hours/year estimated and far less than 2,000 GA a/c accidents per year, it's not a stretch to estimate that half of all in-flight emergencies end in a successful outcome. Or at least it seems that way to me.

[snaproll]

So what are the general BRS flight envalope limits?
Not enough consideration goes into this by most.

Obviously the major factors are:
1) speed
2) altitude
3) attitude
4) motor off

What else?

Fairly new to BRS's (have Magnum 601) but my understanding is;
Speed 138MPH or less
Altitude - Recommend 500 Ft minimum if your falling out of the air
Attitude - Anything other than an inverted flat spin
Motor - Off

You don't have to be a great pilot to handle a forced landing - just keep a cool head, find a suitable place to land or crash land, and the main object is to be able to walk away as aircraft damage is not the issue - survival is...

[designrs]

From what I hear with my limited experience, the main objective of a forced landing (besides walking away) is to get the speed off, be into the wind, without stalling the plane. A perfect feild is nice, but you never know. Get the speed off and whatever you encounter or crash into will be minimized in impact force.

[dstclair]

So what are the general BRS flight envalope limits?
Not enough consideration goes into this by most.

Obviously the major factors are:
1) speed
2) altitude
3) attitude
4) motor off

What else?

Fairly new to BRS's (have Magnum 601) but my understanding is;
Speed 138MPH or less
Altitude - Recommend 500 Ft minimum if your falling out of the air
Attitude - Anything other than an inverted flat spin
Motor - Off

You don't have to be a great pilot to handle a forced landing - just keep a cool head, find a suitable place to land or crash land, and the main object is to be able to walk away as aircraft damage is not the issue - survival is...

GRS is slightly different with the minimum altitude being 270'.

[MrMorden]

If I'm careening toward mother Earth, I'm not really going to worry about whether I'm high enough...I'm going to pull the chute.

I think nobody really knows what the minimum safe deployment altitude is, and I'm sure it varies wildly with aircraft speed and attitude. I don't think there are enough chute pulls with CTs to know the real-world answer. But I seem to recall BRS deployments successful below 100 feet in other models (Cirrus?). Likewise I know there was a successful deployment of a Cirrus BRS at 184 knots, when the max official speed is 130 knots.

If you need the chute, pull it regardless of airspeed/altitude. If you are out of control or unrecoverable anyway it's not like it's going to make things worse, and it likely will save your bacon.

[MrMorden]

GRS is slightly different with the minimum altitude being 270'.

I thought I read it was 60 meters (~185ft) for the GRS. It's a very nice system.

[dstclair]

GRS is slightly different with the minimum altitude being 270'.

I thought I read it was 60 meters (~185ft) for the GRS. It's a very nice system.

It's 65 meters (~215ft) which is based on a 3.8 second opening time. The US distributor uses a more conservative opening time of 5 seconds which gives you the 270'. This number also is a worst case scenario since at 270' you would be descending at over 3000fpm to need this much altitude.

Assuming a controlled deployment where you are on best glide, which for me gives around 10fps descent, I'd need 50' for full deployment.

I spoke with the designer several years ago about when to pull it. He basically said, whenever you think you need it since it fully deploys in under 5 seconds. The chute can also function as an airbrake in an emergency. I see this potential if you have an engine out, picked a short field that had obstructions at the far end (barn, trees, etc.) and you are landing way too long.