Stall speed & Safety?

[CharlieTango]

I believe a BRS system decreases safety just as much as it increases it. First, you've got pilots who think since they have the system, they can put themselves in more challenging situations,...

I think you are arguing that the brs decrases safety because of what the pilot might do.

A pilot with a BRS might decrease safety, that doesn't mean the BRS decreases safety.

[ibgarrett]

When I fly with people and I point out the BRS in my plane, I explain to them that I would only use it under two conditions. 1. A wing falls off the plane (not likely) or 2. I absolutely positively have nowhere to land the plane, and even then I might not use it.

I also give my passengers a quick safety briefing on how to use the radios and on the checklist to the plane are the emergency numbers (121.5 and 7700) in case they forget it. That being only in case something were to happen to me during the flight and they at least had a chance to fly the plane straight and level.

It's funny because before I started flying I saw it as a great saving feature - but with experience I'm seeing less and less reason to need to use it.

That being said, I'm still happy to have it on the plane. Now where did that wing go?

[Z06 C5]

About 8 months ago in Dallas, A CFI and a student were killed in a Tecnam. A control surface failure. It appears that a mechanic left a large flashlight in the tail. This became wedged in with the elevator in the down postion. A BRS would have saved them, better to have it and never use it. There could be times like this when you are unable to control the plane to make an emergency landing.

The idea of not having one because of possibilty of an onboard fire setting it off. Is a little silly. If the fire is hot enough to set it off, then you are already burned, in which case the BRS will not be necassary because you are already dead.

[ArionAv8or]

I personally DO NOT have a chute in my aircraft but if you ask this pilot what his thoughts are I am sure you get a very honest answer.

http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=67529

[KSCessnaDriver]

About 8 months ago in Dallas, A CFI and a student were killed in a Tecnam. A control surface failure. It appears that a mechanic left a large flashlight in the tail. This became wedged in with the elevator in the down postion. A BRS would have saved them, better to have it and never use it. There could be times like this when you are unable to control the plane to make an emergency landing.

The idea of not having one because of possibilty of an onboard fire setting it off. Is a little silly. If the fire is hot enough to set it off, then you are already burned, in which case the BRS will not be necassary because you are already dead.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying about the fire. Lets say you botch a landing, and it ends up with a bent airplane. Fire ensues. You're probably hurt, with a burning airplane now. Some ARFF may not respond as quickly or as closely to the airplane, as they can't ensure their safety due to the possibility of a large pyrotechnic display right in front of them.

And there is no way to tell that BRS would have saved the guys in that Tecnam. Might it have helped, sure. People make it sound like landing with the BRS is just a gentle landing. Its not like that at all, you will probably get hurt when it happens.

Listen, I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the BRS flat out. I'm saying people give the system too much credit for situations that are so rare that the usefulness of the system is nearly nil. The BRS brings out the dumb in some pilots, that's for sure. I'd rather have the 35 pounds of useful load, than a 10 year parachute and rocket.

[dstclair]

There is a way to tell that the BRS saved an Argentine Pilot's life yesterday. Check out the video: http://www.bydanjohnson.com/.

35 lbs is worth a life anytime. Interesting commentary which matches some of the debate in this forum.

[Z06 C5]

cool video. Sure looks like a nice slow desent.

I am not an explosives expert, but I would tend to think that 5 gallons of 100LL would contain more explosive energy than a little rocket. So I am not buying into the notion that a fire figher wouldn;t want to approach your airplane because of your little rocket onboard. Maybe that would be good promotion tool, for the BRS manufactuers. Denote one of those rockets and then denote 20 gallons of 100LL and see which one makes a bigger bang.

I would like one in my plane, if I was to buy an aircraft. But, this is america. Where you can do as you wish. To each his own.

[dstclair]

OK. Can't resist beating a dead horse

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?Cont ... 3b9d8180dc&

Cirrus pulled the chute when they got within 500' of the ground after engine failure at 11,000. Used the chute to stay away from trees on the ground.

This would be my plan as well if the plane was flyable -- use the chute as an airbrake when you get close to ground if the terrain was not hospitable.

[flyingclay]

dstclari, I will not purchase an LSA when I do, without one either. I think PiperSport, Flight Design and Cessna Skycatcher realize that the future market will expect it. Perhaps that is why it is standard on them. I think the LSA companies who are spending their time on trying to explain "your probably never going to need it", are not going to have the potential mass appeal that those mentioned are.

[dstclair]

Flyingclay,

Actually, I am in violent agreement. A chute is a must-have for me. There are just times I figure I might not pull it right away (or at all) in an emergency. If I can glide to an airport or open field, no need for the chute. All bets are off if the plane is not controllable. It's pull the chute time.

Before we fire up this topic again -- I'm all for choices. To each his own.

dave

[flyingclay]

Agreed. Just like everything else on the plane, using it "correctly" is best, but I want it if absolutely needed. I will fly as I operate my businesses. Cautiously and being prepared for the worst case scenario.