BRS

This forum is for safety-related discussions. Be safe out there!

Moderator: drseti

busted
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 5:06 pm

BRS

Post by busted »

Can anyone tell me more about a BRS system. I know they cost around 5 grand. Do they have to be repacked every 5 yrs or does that depend on the manufacturer? And then there is the rocket, is that good for 7yrs? And I guess you can't ship them via UPS etc. Any info woulod help, thanks
3Dreaming
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: BRS

Post by 3Dreaming »

For the BRS in my CT the repack times are every 6 years, and rocket every 12 years. You are also correct that you can not ship the rocket.
User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: BRS

Post by MrMorden »

I also have a CT with a BRS system. Other than what's already been posted, what do you want to know?

Personally, I think that an airframe parachute system is the best safety feature to be included in airplanes since seat belts. I'm frankly at a loss to understand why they have not been more widely adopted by manufacturers than they have been.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: BRS

Post by drseti »

MrMorden wrote:I'm frankly at a loss to understand why they have not been more widely adopted by manufacturers than they have been.
Three reasons I can think of, Andy:

(1) In an LSA, the weight of the BRS reduces the useful load by about 10%. For some of these planes, useful load is already marginal.

(2) Some folks just don't like to carry explosives in the airplane. That rocket scares them.

(3) It is arguable that some of the "saves" claimed by Boris Popov are actually chute deployments that were unnecessary. Sometimes, you're better off flying the glider. A chute pull should be a last resort (but some folks may possibly jump the gun). Since this is much discussed in the Cirrus community, I invite Eddie to comment.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: BRS

Post by MrMorden »

drseti wrote:
MrMorden wrote:I'm frankly at a loss to understand why they have not been more widely adopted by manufacturers than they have been.
Three reasons I can think of, Andy:

(1) In an LSA, the weight of the BRS reduces the useful load by about 10%. For some of these planes, useful load is already marginal.

(2) Some folks just don't like to carry explosives in the airplane. That rocket scares them.

(3) It is arguable that some of the "saves" claimed by Boris Popov are actually chute deployments that were unnecessary. Sometimes, you're better off flying the glider. A chute pull should be a last resort (but some folks may possibly jump the gun). Since this is much discussed in the Cirrus community, I invite Eddie to comment.
My responses to those reasons would be:

(1) The weight is a factor, but clearly not an insurmountable one. The CTSW has a BRS as standard, and many individual CTSWs have useful loads approaching or even exceeding 600lb. IIRC the Remos does even better on useful load with a parachute installed. And obviously for very light aircraft (like the Sonex I was building previously, gross weight 1150lb) or existing designs that would require a redesign or STC, the cost or weight factor might override the benefits for many owners.

However, I can't imagine designing a new aircraft without provision for a parachute installation. If you start with that as one of your design requirements, then it is much easier to accommodate into the structure. Especially for a larger (e.g. non-LSA) aircraft where there is no regulatory weight limit, designing without a parachute system is to me like making a modern car with no provision for airbags.

(2) The fear of the rocket is not a rational one. Pyrotechnics do not simply self-ignite, and are much more stable and safe than the 20+ gallons of gasoline we all already carry on every flight. Even if the rocket somehow "just went off", the worst that would happen is that the airplane might go into a descent under the canopy, leading to a safe landing, or if outside the deployment envelope the chute might not be deployed properly and/or ripped free, and the airplane can be flown and landed normally (with some additional drag, probably).

(3) It is possible (likely) that some of the parachute deployments have/will happen when other options are available that would lead to good outcomes. However, in the case of the Cirrus (where we have the most data in larger, non-ultralight aircraft), the successful non-fatal outcome rate when the chute is used properly is 100%. It's *really* hard to argue with a pilot that decides to pull the handle in an emergency when he/she can be virtually ASSURED of survival for him/herself and all passengers by taking that option. Are some airplanes damaged or destroyed unnecessarily as a result? Almost certainly. But it's much more certain that there would be more deaths in Cirrus aircraft if they were not equipped with a BRS system. Aircraft are easily replaceable, human lives are not. Ultimately deployment is a PIC decision. Having a parachute installation does not force one to use it. But not having one does force one to *not* use it.


IMO, the parachute will take some low probability/high consequence events such as structural failure or mid-air collision which are non-survivable, and give a reasonable survival option. They also take many common causes of pilot deaths that have low survivability (forced landing over hostile terrain, VFR into IMC, etc) and make them highly survivable.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
User avatar
dstclair
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:23 am
Location: Allen, TX

Re: BRS

Post by dstclair »

busted wrote:Can anyone tell me more about a BRS system. I know they cost around 5 grand. Do they have to be repacked every 5 yrs or does that depend on the manufacturer? And then there is the rocket, is that good for 7yrs? And I guess you can't ship them via UPS etc. Any info woulod help, thanks
BRS isn't the only game in town. GRS (Galaxy Recovery System) is standard/available on many S-LSAs and has a 9-year repack life.
dave
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: BRS

Post by drseti »

MrMorden wrote:IMO, the parachute will take some low probability/high consequence events such as structural failure or mid-air collision which are non-survivable, and give a reasonable survival option. They also take many common causes of pilot deaths that have low survivability (forced landing over hostile terrain, VFR into IMC, etc) and make them highly survivable.
I fully agree. I am concerned, however, about the (thankfully rare, but non-zero) accidents where just having the parachute was a contributing factor. There's always a temptation to fly over hostile terrain, or into marginal weather, with a chute, when you certainly wouldn't have done so without one. We must take great pains to guard against the "well, I can always pull the chute" mindset!
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
User avatar
dstclair
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:23 am
Location: Allen, TX

Re: BRS

Post by dstclair »

There's always a temptation to fly over hostile terrain, or into marginal weather, with a chute, when you certainly wouldn't have done so without one.
This is bandied about frequently but I've not seen any supporting studies. To me, this statement is analogous to me driving more aggressively just because I have airbags.

Paul -- can you provide a reference supporting this POV?
dave
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: BRS

Post by drseti »

dstclair wrote:Paul -- can you provide a reference supporting this POV?
All the references I have seen are merely anecdotal, Dave. It's going to be difficult to find anything authoritative, or any controlled studies. Do you think that any NTSB report is going to include a statement from the pilot that "I only flew there because I had a parachute" ? :(
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
User avatar
dstclair
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:23 am
Location: Allen, TX

Re: BRS

Post by dstclair »

Paul -- my point is that we are assuming human behavior with flawed logic that has no supporting studies or data either within aviation or other fields. I posit that if we surveyed SPT members who fly with a chute we would discover that none do higher risk flying just because of the chute. So why propagate what amounts to a myth?
dave
User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: BRS

Post by MrMorden »

dstclair wrote:
busted wrote:Can anyone tell me more about a BRS system. I know they cost around 5 grand. Do they have to be repacked every 5 yrs or does that depend on the manufacturer? And then there is the rocket, is that good for 7yrs? And I guess you can't ship them via UPS etc. Any info woulod help, thanks
BRS isn't the only game in town. GRS (Galaxy Recovery System) is standard/available on many S-LSAs and has a 9-year repack life.
That's why I only said "BRS" where it applies, and "airframe parachute" or "parachute system" when speaking generally.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: BRS

Post by MrMorden »

drseti wrote:
MrMorden wrote:IMO, the parachute will take some low probability/high consequence events such as structural failure or mid-air collision which are non-survivable, and give a reasonable survival option. They also take many common causes of pilot deaths that have low survivability (forced landing over hostile terrain, VFR into IMC, etc) and make them highly survivable.
I fully agree. I am concerned, however, about the (thankfully rare, but non-zero) accidents where just having the parachute was a contributing factor. There's always a temptation to fly over hostile terrain, or into marginal weather, with a chute, when you certainly wouldn't have done so without one. We must take great pains to guard against the "well, I can always pull the chute" mindset!
Speaking personally, it would break my heart to have to pull that handle and probably destroy my airplane in the process.* I don't flight plan based on the BRS.

My CTSW instructor calls the BRS handle the "Ownership Transfer Handle" because once you pull it, the insurance company owns the airplane. :D
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: BRS

Post by MrMorden »

dstclair wrote:Paul -- my point is that we are assuming human behavior with flawed logic that has no supporting studies or data either within aviation or other fields. I posit that if we surveyed SPT members who fly with a chute we would discover that none do higher risk flying just because of the chute. So why propagate what amounts to a myth?
Well, I think it's only a *potential* myth...as Paul said, there are anecdotes but no real way to know for sure how pilots behave differently with a parachute system installed. We know there are instances of Cirrus pilots getting in over their head and pulling the chute, but we also know there are too many cases where a Cirrus pilot is in way over his head and never even thinks about pulling the chute, often with tragic results. And we know pilots of aircraft not equipped with chutes get in hot water on a regular basis too. Given all that, you need some pretty good statistical analysis and a very large sample size (probably orders of magnitude larger than the current numbers of GA accidents on record) to make any definitive conclusions.

As an aside, does anybody know if pilots of twins are statistically more likely to fly in obviously dangerous circumstances, because they have a second engine? That would seem to me to be the closest analogy to the situation with an airframe parachute. We could also talk about ejection seats, but for many airplanes equipped with them, the pilots are actually paid to fly recklessly! ;)
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
User avatar
FastEddieB
Posts: 2880
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: BRS

Post by FastEddieB »

In support of The Professor's opinion...

There are Cirrus pilots on COPA who clearly state that in their Cirrus they fly at night over terrain they would not fly over in a plane without a chute.

The concept is "risk homeostasis" or "risk compensation".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

Though controversial, it seems logical.

While I might not ride a motorcycle faster with full safety equipment, I would definitely ride more slowly wearing sandals and no helmet!
Fast Eddie B.
Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA
CFI, CFII, CFIME
[email protected]
User avatar
dstclair
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:23 am
Location: Allen, TX

Re: BRS

Post by dstclair »

Hmm -- from the article "risk homeostatis" :
The idea of risk homeostasis is disputed. One author claimed that it received "little support"[n 9] another suggested that it "commands about as much credence as the flat earth hypothesis",[n 10] a third noted that the proposal did create considerable media attention: "What set the debate alight, rather like petrol on flames, was the proposition in 1982 that road users did not just adapt to perceptions of changing risk through compensatory behaviors, but that the process was a homeostatic one, producing overall equilibrium in safety-related outcomes".[n 11] Others claimed that road fatality statistics, which have fallen considerably since the introduction of safety measures, do not support the theory.[7][8][9][10][11]
The concept seems logical but many also feel the concept of centrifugal force is logical -- and centrifugal force doesn't exist. :D
dave
Post Reply