Impossible Turn

Talk about airplanes! At last count, there are 39 (and growing) FAA certificated S-LSA (special light sport aircraft). These are factory-built ready to fly airplanes. If you can't afford a factory-built LSA, consider buying an E-LSA kit (experimental LSA - up to 99% complete).

Moderator: drseti

User avatar
snaproll
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 12:11 pm
Location: Southern California - OXR

Re: Impossible Turn

Post by snaproll »

One last thought... The BRS in most LSAs compared to the Cirrus is like comparing oranges and apples.. In the LSAs, the BRS is an option - and a great one. The BRS is required in the Cirrus for airworthiness, i.e.. FAA approved Airworthiness Limitation. The Cirrus is grounded without the BRS operational and up to date. As much as I love the Cirrus design and performance, the presence of flight characteristics which are unrecoverable required a BRS or a re-design to certify - hence they chose the BRS. The BRS was developed by Boris Popov in 1980. Last word...
BrianL99
Posts: 314
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: Impossible Turn

Post by BrianL99 »

snaproll wrote:One last thought... The BRS in most LSAs compared to the Cirrus is like comparing oranges and apples.. In the LSAs, the BRS is an option - and a great one. The BRS is required in the Cirrus for airworthiness, i.e.. FAA approved Airworthiness Limitation. The Cirrus is grounded without the BRS operational and up to date. As much as I love the Cirrus design and performance, the presence of flight characteristics which are unrecoverable required a BRS or a re-design to certify - hence they chose the BRS. The BRS was developed by Boris Popov in 1980. Last word...
That's like comparing a factory build BMW 3 series, with a home built dune buggy ... they're both legal to drive, but if the goin' gets tough, I know which one I'd rather be in and it's not the dune buggy.

I think your analogy is more like comparing broccoli to a cantaloupe ... they can both be eaten, but the similarity ends there.
User avatar
FastEddieB
Posts: 2880
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Impossible Turn

Post by FastEddieB »

snaproll wrote:As much as I love the Cirrus design and performance, the presence of flight characteristics which are unrecoverable required a BRS or a re-design to certify - hence they chose the BRS.
I do believe that's an Old Wive's Tale, of at least overstated.

The Cirrus has demonstrated spin recovery in other countries. The Klapmeiers simply chose not to go through that testing for US certification, since the FAA accepted the BRS as providing an equivalent level of safety.


During the certification of the SR20, Cirrus and the FAA focused on a way to decrease the number of spin accidents. Adopting a cuffed wing design developed by NASA reduces the likelihood of a stall or spin occurring in the first place. The outboard section of the wing is set at a lower angle of attack, providing superior slow flight and stall handling characteristics. Aileron authority is increased in a stall, because the outboard wing’s airflow is better preserved in a post stall condition.

The NASA cuffed wing design and CAPS were developed independently of each other, but when combined, provided a potentially safer airplane than traditional standards for certification regulated. The NASA cuffed wing design will help pilots to avoid stall/spin events, but if controls are misused and a spin is inadvertently entered, CAPS provides a way for the pilot to recover, even if they are not proficient in spin recovery procedures. Any time a Cirrus pilot experiences a loss of control or spin, the use of CAPS is required...The FAA granted Cirrus an Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) for the spin recovery requirement of the certification regulations.


Source: http://cirrusaircraft.com/static/img/CAPS_Guide.pdf
Fast Eddie B.
Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA
CFI, CFII, CFIME
[email protected]
User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Impossible Turn

Post by MrMorden »

snaproll wrote:One last thought... The BRS in most LSAs compared to the Cirrus is like comparing oranges and apples.. In the LSAs, the BRS is an option - and a great one. The BRS is required in the Cirrus for airworthiness, i.e.. FAA approved Airworthiness Limitation. The Cirrus is grounded without the BRS operational and up to date. As much as I love the Cirrus design and performance, the presence of flight characteristics which are unrecoverable required a BRS or a re-design to certify - hence they chose the BRS. The BRS was developed by Boris Popov in 1980. Last word...
Well...the BRS is required equipment on my CTSW. To fly without it requires an LOA / MRA that I don't think Flight Design has *ever* issued. They really want that parachute available. I understand that from a liability standpoint, but it's unnecessarily restrictive IMO.

The main difference between the Cirrus and the CT BRS systems in my mind is one of history. The Cirrus has a good history with lot of parachute deployments validating the BRS system in that airframe. There have not been more than a couple of CT BRS deployments, if that many. That would lead me to be worried about how well the system would perform if needed. But you have to fly as if the systems in the aircraft will work as designed unless shown otherwise...

I personally love having the BRS available. Many situations that might otherwise be dire or have doubtful survivability are made into highly survivable events when the chute is used properly. The key as Eddie says, is to at least put it in the decision tree.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
3Dreaming
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: Impossible Turn

Post by 3Dreaming »

BrianL99 wrote:
3Dreaming wrote:My ignition key is on the pin for the chute. That way no one can fly my airplane without having the chute active. I still think that in any situation you should assess whether or not you can achieve a safe outcome before pulling the chute handle.

That how I drove my Cirrus, but the Sting doesn't need an ignition key.

I could be wrong, but I think the odds of a "safe landing" in an off-airport, unpaved area, is pretty slim in most LSA's. I certainly wouldn't try it. Faced with the possibility, I'd probably pull the chute at 100'.
I think your perception and mine are different, because of where we live and fly. I grew up and learned to fly here in the Midwest. We have flat field and many places to land if something goes wrong. In other parts of the country things are totally different in regards to landing sites. This reminds me of another story.

A fellow from the hills of Georgia was heading out west on his first long trip after getting his pilot license. While flying someplace over Kansas his engine quit, and he made an emergency landing. When emergency personal got there they pulled him from the wreckage. They ask "what happened", and he replied "my engine quit, so I made an emergency landing. They ask then "how did you wind up in the top of this tree, it's the only one for miles around? There are open fields everywhere." His reply, "my instructor told me if the engine quits land in the top of a tree, it will be better than crashing somewhere else."

No offence is meant to those who are from Georgia.

BTW, I think 100 feet is to low for the deployment of the chute. I don't think it will have time to inflate completely, especially at the slower airspeed.
User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Impossible Turn

Post by MrMorden »

3Dreaming wrote: BTW, I think 100 feet is to low for the deployment of the chute. I don't think it will have time to inflate completely, especially at the slower airspeed.
IIRC there have been successful BRS deployments as low as 60ft.

If you are going to crash anyway, even just a "drag chute" to eat up some energy might not be a bad thing...
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
3Dreaming
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: Impossible Turn

Post by 3Dreaming »

MrMorden wrote:
3Dreaming wrote: BTW, I think 100 feet is to low for the deployment of the chute. I don't think it will have time to inflate completely, especially at the slower airspeed.
IIRC there have been successful BRS deployments as low as 60ft.

If you are going to crash anyway, even just a "drag chute" to eat up some energy might not be a bad thing...
Andy, if there is no other choice I would pull the chute at the lower altitude. I won't argue that it might dissipate energy, but it could also change the attitude of the aircraft making the impact less survivable. If I had a choice I would much rather be stable under canopy at touch down, instead of dealing with the might's and maybes of deploying at 100 feet. That is why I said waiting to deploy at a 100 feet is not a good idea, especially if you could have deployed at 300 or 500 feet.
User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Impossible Turn

Post by MrMorden »

3Dreaming wrote:
MrMorden wrote:
3Dreaming wrote: BTW, I think 100 feet is to low for the deployment of the chute. I don't think it will have time to inflate completely, especially at the slower airspeed.
IIRC there have been successful BRS deployments as low as 60ft.

If you are going to crash anyway, even just a "drag chute" to eat up some energy might not be a bad thing...
Andy, if there is no other choice I would pull the chute at the lower altitude. I won't argue that it might dissipate energy, but it could also change the attitude of the aircraft making the impact less survivable. If I had a choice I would much rather be stable under canopy at touch down, instead of dealing with the might's and maybes of deploying at 100 feet. That is why I said waiting to deploy at a 100 feet is not a good idea, especially if you could have deployed at 300 or 500 feet.
Agreed.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
CTLSi
Posts: 783
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 7:38 pm

Re: Impossible Turn

Post by CTLSi »

......
Last edited by CTLSi on Sun Nov 30, 2014 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Merlinspop
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:48 pm
Location: WV Eastern Panhandle

Re: Impossible Turn

Post by Merlinspop »

I wish I could remember which LSA but I thought I remembered one maker saying that the BRS guideline was "100 knots or less; 100 feet or more".
- Bruce
BrianL99
Posts: 314
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: Impossible Turn

Post by BrianL99 »

Merlinspop wrote:I wish I could remember which LSA but I thought I remembered one maker saying that the BRS guideline was "100 knots or less; 100 feet or more".

If I'm not mistaken, the BRS recommends a "pull" above 1200' and the parachute is placarded around 125 knots. There are claims the BRS can inflate if pulled as low as 300'.

The GRS parachute as used in the Sting and some other LSA's, is a different animal. Supposedly it inflates faster than a BRS because it's "rocket powered" rather than ballistic. GRS also claims it's useful at a much lower altitude.
User avatar
FastEddieB
Posts: 2880
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Impossible Turn

Post by FastEddieB »

For the SR22, the maximum airspeed for deployment is listed as 133kias, under "Limitations".

I did not see an altitude limitation, but the POH has this to say about that:

Deployment Altitude
No minimum altitude for deployment has been set. This is because the actual altitude loss during a particular deployment depends upon the airplane’s airspeed, altitude and attitude at deployment as well as other environmental factors. In all cases, however, the chances of a successful deployment increase with altitude. As a guideline, the demonstrated altitude loss from entry into a one-turn spin until under a stabilized parachute is 920 feet. Altitude loss from level flight deployments has been demonstrated at less than 400 feet. With these numbers in mind it might be useful to keep 2,000 feet AGL in mind as a cut-off decision altitude. Above 2,000 feet, there would normally be time to systematically assess and address the aircraft emergency. Below 2,000 feet, the decision to activate the CAPS has to come almost immediately in order to maximize the possibility of successful deployment. At any altitude, once the CAPS is determined to be the only alternative available for saving the aircraft occupants, deploy the system without delay.
Fast Eddie B.
Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA
CFI, CFII, CFIME
[email protected]
CTLSi
Posts: 783
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 7:38 pm

Re: Impossible Turn

Post by CTLSi »

......
Last edited by CTLSi on Sun Nov 30, 2014 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
sandpiper
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:48 pm
Location: Independence, Oregon

Re: Impossible Turn

Post by sandpiper »

BrianL99 wrote:
Merlinspop wrote:I wish I could remember which LSA but I thought I remembered one maker saying that the BRS guideline was "100 knots or less; 100 feet or more".

If I'm not mistaken, the BRS recommends a "pull" above 1200' and the parachute is placarded around 125 knots. There are claims the BRS can inflate if pulled as low as 300'.

The GRS parachute as used in the Sting and some other LSA's, is a different animal. Supposedly it inflates faster than a BRS because it's "rocket powered" rather than ballistic. GRS also claims it's useful at a much lower altitude.
The BRS in the CT is deployed with a rocket. Doesn't that also make it ballistic?
John Horn
Independence Airpark (7S5), OR
CFII, LSRM-A
Rotax Service, Maint, and Heavy Maint. trained
Flying a CTSW, building an RV-12
BrianL99
Posts: 314
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: Impossible Turn

Post by BrianL99 »

sandpiper wrote:
BrianL99 wrote:
Merlinspop wrote:I wish I could remember which LSA but I thought I remembered one maker saying that the BRS guideline was "100 knots or less; 100 feet or more".

If I'm not mistaken, the BRS recommends a "pull" above 1200' and the parachute is placarded around 125 knots. There are claims the BRS can inflate if pulled as low as 300'.

The GRS parachute as used in the Sting and some other LSA's, is a different animal. Supposedly it inflates faster than a BRS because it's "rocket powered" rather than ballistic. GRS also claims it's useful at a much lower altitude.
The BRS in the CT is deployed with a rocket. Doesn't that also make it ballistic?
I would have thought so, but they (GRS) distinguish between the two.

http://sportair.aero/category/6-chutes/
Attachments
parachute.jpg
parachute.jpg (49.54 KiB) Viewed 4939 times
Post Reply