Magnum, BRS, or GRS?

[fatsportpilot]

I don't know much about these recovery systems. I think Magnum is a smaller company and their web presence is crappy, and you have to do repacks more often. BRS is owned by a bigger company and is the most popular because of CAPS. And GRS advertises its transparency in testing and being able to recover at much lower AGL by using a continuous firing rocket to yank the parachute open.

Does anyone have opinions on these or are they all pretty much the same for LSA and only price and repack intervals differ? I fly over risky terrain and I think extra peace of mind is worth it but I don't know which one (assume all are compatible with the plane I get). I read https://www.kitplanes.com/whole-airplane-parachutes/ but does anyone know where I can find more comparisons? I'm leaning towards GRS because they are very upfront about how they operate and test things but I want a second opinion.

[Warmi]

I think both GRS and BRS have quite a bit of history and many saves (although BRS probably most.)

I don’t think anyone here has direct experience with being saved by one of these ( since these are rather rare events to begin with ) but from operational point of view, I own a plane with a GRS parachute and I am due to 9 year repack - it will be $3500 and the way it works is that they order a replacement from factory ahead and you come in for 2 days and they do the swap when it is ready.

[drseti]

BRS has an excellent reputation. Their founder, Boris Popov, is a first rate engineer, who holds the original patent for whole-airframe parachutes. He won the EAA Safety Achievement Award in 1988 (the year after I did). That said, I will admit to being a parachute skeptic. You say you fly over hazardous terrain. If you had no 'chute, I speculate you'd chose a less hostile route!

[Warmi]

BRS has an excellent reputation. Their founder, Boris Popov, is a first rate engineer, who holds the original patent for whole-airframe parachutes. He won the EAA Safety Achievement Award in 1988 (the year after I did). That said, I will admit to being a parachute skeptic. You say you fly over hazardous terrain. If you had no 'chute, I speculate you'd chose a less hostile route!

Are you also a seat belt skeptic ?

Let’s remove seat belts , crumple zones and all other safety devices - after all we all can choose “a less hostile route” ( driving slower, being extra careful, not drinking and driving etc )

I just don’t understand reasoning behind rejecting something that can only improve your chances of survival.

Perhaps I am missing something here ,but are there any downsides to having another safety device like BRS onboard ?

[drseti]

Perhaps I am missing something here ,but are there any downsides to having another safety device like BRS onboard ?

In a Cirrus, no downside at all. LSAs are another matter, because they are useful load challenged already. For the weight of a BRS, I can carry an extra hour of fuel. In most accident scenarios, the extra fuel is a more useful safety device. (Of course there are exceptions.)

[Warmi]

Perhaps I am missing something here ,but are there any downsides to having another safety device like BRS onboard ?

In a Cirrus, no downside at all. LSAs are another matter, because they are useful load challenged already. For the weight of a BRS, I can carry an extra hour of fuel. In most accident scenarios, the extra fuel is a more useful safety device. (Of course there are exceptions.)

Useful load is a problem, that's for sure but I would argue that it is not a problem with concept of BRS/GRS but rather with the LSA category itself in the sense that is forces users to make unnecessary compromises.
Thankfully, this is something that is being look at at right now so hopefully at some this issue will be addressed.

[drseti]

Useful load is a problem, that's for sure but I would argue that it is not a problem with concept of BRS/GRS but rather with the LSA category itself in the sense that is forces users to make unnecessary compromises.

Agreed. Under the present rules, every BRS-equipped LSA I've flown had marginal useful load. Now, I have no problem with BRS being offered as an option. But those manufacturers who provide a chute as mandatory required equipment won't be getting my business!

[3Dreaming]

Useful load is a problem, that's for sure but I would argue that it is not a problem with concept of BRS/GRS but rather with the LSA category itself in the sense that is forces users to make unnecessary compromises.

Agreed. Under the present rules, every BRS-equipped LSA I've flown had marginal useful load. Now, I have no problem with BRS being offered as an option. But those manufacturers who provide a chute as mandatory required equipment won't be getting my business!

The funny thing is, at least one of the manufactures that has it as standard equipment often has a better useful load with the parachute installed compared to those that don't.

[drseti]

Without knowing who that particular manufacturer is, Tom, I'd speculate that they have a carbon fiber airframe. The only other way I know to keep the weight down sufficiently is to build out of flimsy aluminum foil.

[fatsportpilot]

BRS has an excellent reputation. Their founder, Boris Popov, is a first rate engineer, who holds the original patent for whole-airframe parachutes. He won the EAA Safety Achievement Award in 1988 (the year after I did). That said, I will admit to being a parachute skeptic. You say you fly over hazardous terrain. If you had no 'chute, I speculate you'd chose a less hostile route!

Mountains, forest, and vineyards. Sometimes there are no less hostile options. And not to mention the possibility of medical concerns. I trust the fuel and oil pipes in my engine more than I trust my arteries and veins. Without a parachute, a stroke can be a death sentence. Not that I think I have a very high risk or I wouldn't be flying, but it is always a possibility.

Without knowing who that particular manufacturer is, Tom, I'd speculate that they have a carbon fiber airframe. The only other way I know to keep the weight down sufficiently is to build out of flimsy aluminum foil.

I think Bristell keeps weight down by building out of more thin aluminum but they compensate by having extra flush rivets so their structural capacity is still good. And I talked to the US distributor and he said that they plan on raising the MTOW to up to about 1500 lbs when MOSAIC 2023 is out because it has the structural capacity for that (assuming that FAA does raise the weight limit).

[JimParker256]

TLDR version: Given the engineering changes required to make a parachute landing "safe" for the seated occupants, and the very low "crash speed" (minimum controllable airspeed) of my LSA, I personally elected to NOT pursue the whole-airplane parachute. Detailed thinking below...

I thought about putting a whole-airplane parachute in my RANS S-6ES, with the idea that having the 'chute on board might help my wife feel more comfortable flying with me (she's a very nervous flyer). So I got to wondering about what it would take, and how much of an impact it might really have...

The only "reference" I could find was a statement on the Cirrus website that under CAPS deployment, the aircraft will be descending vertically at approximately 17 knots (19.56 mph – let's call it 20 mph for simplicity). The Cirrus is designed around this, with seats having a "crush mechanism" that reduces the g-forces from a near-vertical impact. My RANS Coyote II – not so much... The seat frames appear to be designed to hold the occupant reasonably securely in place, but would need to be redesigned to absorb vertical G's. How many of the LSA designers have actually done that engineering work? Based on what I've seen, I suspect it's approximately 0%... We tend to think about "horizontal" crash forces, not "vertical" ones.

So if I were going to install a whole-plane parachute, the seats would need to be re-designed, and the space below the seats would need to be kept clear of anything that might "penetrate" if the seat were vertically crushed. And lest you think this might be easily handled, consider that until you actually deploy a parachute and see what attitude the airplane takes on as it comes to earth, you really have no idea what forces you need to be absorbing with your seat design. The Cirrus lands significantly nose-low, so the landing gear does almost nothing to arrest that 20 mph vertical descent rate...)

OK, so assuming the engineering aspects are handled, what are the pros and cons for the parachute? When would I generally pull the chute? Well, if I lost a wing (or tail component) in flight, the parachute would be the best option under any circumstances I can imagine. But there has never been an in-flight breakup of an RANS S-6 to my knowledge, and I know that Randy Schitter's engineering has accounted for well above "normal" flight parameters. I can further lower the risk of an in-flight breakup by avoiding flight near thunderstorms, avoiding flight in high wind-shear conditions, etc. Not perfect, but certainly a risk-mitigation strategy, as Dr. Paul pointed out.

But what about an engine failure over hostile terrain? Well, let's assume I've pulled the chute. The chute manufacturers basically tell us to expect to be descending vertically at approximately 20 mph vertically (about 1700 FPM). With no parachute, my airplane has a power-off vertical speed of about 900 fpm (roughly 10 mph vertical speed) at minimum controllable airspeed (35-45 mph). It's a lot lower rate of descent at 65 mph, but we're talking about the "final impact" here...

Would I be better off dropping faster at lower ground speed under a chute, or descending more slowly with somewhat higher ground speed? I believe the answer varies depending on location. If I'm landing in a densely populated area (downtown major city, for instance), the parachute sounds best, until you realize I will be "blowing with the wind" and could easily wind up smacking into the side of a building that might collapse the chute, or getting the chute hung on a roof-top, parapet, fire escape, flagpole, etc., and then falling to the ground anyway. Likewise, I could be blown into power lines... Or {insert your particular nightmare scenario here})...

By comparison, with no chute I would be descending at 35-45 mph, and could fly paralleling the "valleys" of whatever terrain is below me (city canyons or mountain canyons). I still have the power line issue, but at least I stand a small chance to see and avoid them. And given the option to touch down rolling at 35-45 mph with very little vertical velocity, I'd rather trust the steel tube fuselage structure and seat belt + shoulder harness in a 35-45 mph crash landing than to trust my engineering skills in designing crush-survivable seats for the parachute landing. (Those canvas slings in Cub rear seats? Can you spell "paraplegic"?)

The great thing about the E-LSA and EAB (experimental amateur-built) categories is that YOU, as the builder, get to decide for yourself whether or not a whole-airplane parachute makes sense for YOUR airplane, YOUR flying activities, etc. As for me, I figured that if I could make about as good a case against the 'chute as for it, and my wife wouldn't be any happier flying with the 'chute than without it. I decided I would trust Randy Schlitter's design, and do my best to keep the airplane as light as possible. (Which, by the way, also serves to reduce the vertical velocity at MCA... Win-win!)

In the S-LSA world, you have similar options available to you. If you feel a chute would reduce risk and thus make your type of flying safer, you can choose an S-LSA that provides that capability. If you don't see much advantage to it, given the low landing speeds of most LSA, you can choose an S-LSA that doesn't have the chute, and likely offers more useful load. Your money, your choice!

When I discussed this with my wife (leaving out everything except "would you be more comfortable in the plane if we had a whole-airplane parachute?"), her answer was that with the slow landing speeds of the RANS S-6ES (versus the 55-65 mph "crash speed" of a heavier certified plane) she didn't think a parachute would make her feel any better about it at all.

Your mileage may vary, but then, you get to make your own decision about it!

[Warmi]

You reasoning seems absolutely sound to me but let me put it this way ... if you have a chute onboard , all of your options regarding handling emergencies via gliding all the way to the ground are still very much available to you + you have the ultimate option of pulling the chute if everything else fails, at the cost of additional 40-50 lbs.

As far as I am concerned, it is case closed right there ..

GRS chute in action...

https://youtu.be/MQjxpwzigN4

[JimParker256]

You reasoning seems absolutely sound to me but let me put it this way ... if you have a chute onboard , all of your options regarding handling emergencies via gliding all the way to the ground are still very much available to you...

Right up to the point where you pull the chute. They you just became a passenger. If you find yourself drifting into a building or power line, you have zero control over the outcome. I guess that I personally am more comfortable with Bob Hoover's advice: "Fly the plane as far through the crash as possible."

... + you have the ultimate option of pulling the chute if everything else fails, at the cost of additional 40-50 lbs.

As far as I am concerned, it is case closed right there ..

I'm really not trying to talk anyone into or out of the idea of having a whole-airplane emergency parachute for their plane, just articulating my decision-making process that led me away from that decision for my airplane. To me, the additional useful load is something I'll use almost every flight. But if having the chute available weighs differently in someone else's risk analysis, I understand why they might go that route as well. I'm happy to see the options available, especially in the LSA world, where I choose to "play"... Anything that brings more people into aviation is a "good thing" in my book!

[fatsportpilot]

The point about seats designed for vertical impact is a good one. I will need to ask the manufacturer. The Bristell (which is one of the planes I am seriously considering buying) has flimsy seats to save weight. The back rest is "free floating" and is held in by gravity and friction from a person leaning back. They advertise it as some kind of feature but it's obvious that it's just a weight saving trick.

The reason I would use it would be only if I could not make a power off landing such as medical conditions, serious loss of control, mid air, or something that would mean my option is between deploying parachute or falling from the sky. If I'm flying up high and the engine quits then I'll probably be fine in most conditions except over the worst terrain but that's never happened to me before and as far as I know I could panic.

Also things like this https://www.aviation.govt.nz/assets/Upl ... ations.pdf

[Warmi]

The point about seats designed for vertical impact is a good one. I will need to ask the manufacturer. The Bristell (which is one of the planes I am seriously considering buying) has flimsy seats to save weight. The back rest is "free floating" and is held in by gravity and friction from a person leaning back. They advertise it as some kind of feature but it's obvious that it's just a weight saving trick.

The reason I would use it would be only if I could not make a power off landing such as medical conditions, serious loss of control, mid air, or something that would mean my option is between deploying parachute or falling from the sky. If I'm flying up high and the engine quits then I'll probably be fine in most conditions except over the worst terrain but that's never happened to me before and as far as I know I could panic.

Also things like this https://www.aviation.govt.nz/assets/Upl ... ations.pdf

GRS chutes descent at about 14 mph arriving as if dropped from a height of 1.8 m and are designed to have the plane land horizontally using landing gear as its cushion ( which is the only structural part of a typical LSA designed to actually absorb large impact forces )
Sufficient to say, as far as available data indicates, there has never been a deployment that resulted in a serious injury due to a successful chute deployment.

Personally ,if given enough reasonably clear space to land, I would always opt for a normal emergency landing but ... if you are out of options, even most skillfully executed emergency landing will result in about 35-45 mph forward velocity impact which is much more likely to result in a serious injury than the chute based 14 mph vertical descent alternative.