BRS

[designrs]

The pros and cons of having a chute are highly personal based on situation:

A very heavy person flying a very low useful load aircraft with a high level of stick & rudder skills might be more inclined to forgo the chute based on weight and pilot skill for off-field landings.

OTOH, a lightweight low-time pilot flying a LSA with good useful load would be a much better candidate for the chute.

Of course the mission is the same factor for all.
Are you mostly flying over farms and golf course? Or are you flying over water and mountains? Or maybe at night exercising Private Pilot privileges?

Gliding for an off-field landing is a pretty good proposition in the LSA due to low glide & stall speeds combined with low mass and impact forces. Cirrus is a whole lot higher risk factor under the same conditions due to speed and weight.

It's probably fair to say that gliding for off-field is the first choice for most pilots if motor out and no airport option. Still, one has to wonder if we shouldn't think more of using the chute first... a couple of incidents come to mind:

1) the recent CT off-field landing on the "perfect" soccer field that ended up going end over end. Would they have been better off with the chute? Calling a decision from the air over a soccer field, I'd say no. After they flipped it on the soccer field, maybe the chute would have been better, very possibly?
(Everyone is a genius in hindsight.)

2) A partial control loss, stuck elevator. Pilot tried to make the field. Crashed and fatal. Should he have pulled the chute if he had one? Of course!

[MrMorden]

The pros and cons of having a chute are highly personal based on situation:

A very heavy person flying a very low useful load aircraft with a high level of stick & rudder skills might be more inclined to forgo the chute based on weight and pilot skill for off-field landings.

OTOH, a lightweight low-time pilot flying a LSA with good useful load would be a much better candidate for the chute.

Of course the mission is the same factor for all.
Are you mostly flying over farms and golf course? Or are you flying over water and mountains? Or maybe at night exercising Private Pilot privileges?

Gliding for an off-field landing is a pretty good proposition in the LSA due to low glide & stall speeds combined with low mass and impact forces. Cirrus is a whole lot higher risk factor under the same conditions due to speed and weight.

It's probably fair to say that gliding for off-field is the first choice for most pilots if motor out and no airport option. Still, one has to wonder if we shouldn't think more of using the chute first... a couple of incidents come to mind:

1) the recent CT off-field landing on the "perfect" soccer field that ended up going end over end. Would they have been better off with the chute? Calling a decision from the air over a soccer field, I'd say no. After they flipped it on the soccer field, maybe the chute would have been better, very possibly?
(Everyone is a genius in hindsight.)

2) A partial control loss, stuck elevator. Pilot tried to make the field. Crashed and fatal. Should he have pulled the chute if he had one? Of course!

Yeah, I was not really arguing the pilot preference for a parachute system. Every pilot and circumstance is different, and I'm all about freedom of choice. If a pilot does not want or think he needs such a system, then of course he should have that option.

My main confusion concerns manufacturers designing new aircraft. I constantly see new designs coming out without a chute option, and this puzzles me. The additional structure to *support* a chute is probably only about 5lb worth of bracketry and reinforcement. Once the chute is designed in, the individual buyer can then decide on whether to have one installed or not. I just don't understand not designing around the ability to support a parachute installation. Again, for new designs; retrofitting existing designs is a whole other, more complex kettle of fish.

[designrs]

Agreed Andy. Modern aircraft should provide an option for the chute.

It's interesting what SportCruiser does. The LTD / SVAP Lite / SVAP+ configurations all have the chute. The "Classic" analog plane does not. I suppose the chute could be added as an option if the owner desired.

[MrMorden]

Agreed Andy. Modern aircraft should provide an option for the chute.

It's interesting what SportCruiser does. The LTD / SVAP Lite / SVAP+ configurations all have the chute. The "Classic" analog plane does not. I suppose the chute could be added as an option if the owner desired.

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.

The SC is an example of an airplane where you have to think very carefully about whether you want the parachute system or not. The useful load drops down under 500lb in most SCs with a chute, which is kind of the lower limit for a useful airplane, IMO. The newest CTs have gotten porky too and have the same problem, I think the CTLSi is usually around 480lb useful with all the options. Under about 530lb it gets really hard to take two typical people, small bags, and enough fuel to get anywhere useful.

[Merlinspop]

I think the CTLSi is usually around 480lb useful with all the options.

I thought I read here months ago that the CTLSi had a full fuel payload of a ton, cruised at near Mach 1 and you would land with more fuel than you had when you departed. Every other airplane made should be immediately scrapped and made into toasters.

[MrMorden]

I think the CTLSi is usually around 480lb useful with all the options.

I thought I read here months ago that the CTLSi had a full fuel payload of a ton, cruised at near Mach 1 and you would land with more fuel than you had when you departed. Every other airplane made should be immediately scrapped and made into toasters.

[drseti]

Yep, I read that too. Musta come from the Flight Design marketing department.

[designrs]

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!

[designrs]

The SC is an example of an airplane where you have to think very carefully about whether you want the parachute system or not.

I think the analog gauges in the "Classic" SportCruiser are heavier than the glass, thus making the chute a less desirable option with respect to useful load. Plus the deletion of the chute helps make the classic available at a lower price point.

[Flocker]

The SC is an example of an airplane where you have to think very carefully about whether you want the parachute system or not. The useful load drops down under 500lb in most SCs with a chute, which is kind of the lower limit for a useful airplane, IMO.

Perhaps Howard will remember the exact number they were quoting at the LSA Expo. The SC has been certified at a much higher MTOW than 1,320 in Europe.

[MrMorden]

The SC is an example of an airplane where you have to think very carefully about whether you want the parachute system or not. The useful load drops down under 500lb in most SCs with a chute, which is kind of the lower limit for a useful airplane, IMO.

Perhaps Howard will remember the exact number they were quoting at the LSA Expo. The SC has been certified at a much higher MTOW than 1,320 in Europe.

True for many LSA, but that means nothing in the USA unless you are willing to break regs and fly over gross.

[drseti]

I suppose the chute could be added as an option if the owner desired.

Not without a letter of authorization from the manufacturer, Richard. And that will be granted only if it does not reduce useful load below the ASTM minimum (not to mention, only if the manufacturer feels like granting it).

[drseti]

I'm all about freedom of choice. If a pilot does not want or think he needs such a system, then of course he should have that option.

I too am a big proponent of freedom of choice, Andy. Unfortunately, the S-LSA rules do not promote that. I test-flew a lightly used SportCruiser five years ago, and seriously considered buying it. But, it had a chute installed, and less useful load than my training mission required. I inquired about just removing the chute and recalculating wt/bal, only to learn that the then-manufacturer (Czech Aircraft Works) would not grant one. I guess it would have been a liability issue, if a chute was removed with their permission, and then an accident occurred that might have benefitted from one.

[roger lee]

Chutes:

Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

As far as removing pins before flight. You paid dam good money for that insurance policy so why disable it by leaving a pin in during flight. You will never be able to find and pull a pin while gyrating around the sky. It won't happen on gyrating forces and panic. It has happened this way too many times and killed people with the pin in. You will not have time to pull a pin when at a low altitude. The chute does not get pulled accidentally because it takes a purposeful pull with force to activate it.

It may activate accidentally: why die for a foolish myth.

[Nomore767]

The SC is an example of an airplane where you have to think very carefully about whether you want the parachute system or not. The useful load drops down under 500lb in most SCs with a chute, which is kind of the lower limit for a useful airplane, IMO.

Perhaps Howard will remember the exact number they were quoting at the LSA Expo. The SC has been certified at a much higher MTOW than 1,320 in Europe.

I don't recall the exact numbers for the SC at Sebring other than the BRS adds about 35lbs.

The SC has a lot of flexibility, wing baggage space as well as more space in the cabin. The fuel capacity is good too. However, if your mission is to fly with 2 cross-country you'll have to do some compromising. Of course, this is true of just about every LSA. It's a really nice LSA and perhaps an owner can say more about it.

Personally, I could see a case for being able to add that BRS 35lb option to every plane and granting an exemption to the 1320lb limit i.e.. if you want a parachute you can go to 1355lbs. Of course this is doomed because of all the paperwork, regs etc etc. but it would allow for the added safety for more pilots and surely most every LSA could handle it, and many more pilots would choose it.