What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

BRS Parachute System for the 10

F

flydoc

Active Member
I have grown accustomed to flying planes with the BRS Parachute system. There are some areas I fly that if I ever did lose an engine, it would be a difficult situation to say the least! What do you think of this for the -10? It seems that a 4 place family flyer such as this particular RV model would be perfect for the chute. I've heard all of the arguments against it such as increased weight, unnecessary due engine reliablity, etc., but if you ever fly a plane with one, it really gives you more confidence just in case :). I never used to feel this way, but I've flown with one for the past couple of years and it will be strange not to have one. I know I am probably not a "real" pilot for even considering this :( .

I spoke with the BRS people to see if this was even an option, and they said that part of the approval/development process has to come from Vans, but he said he would love to design a chute for the 10. I would definitely get one of these if it was available!

Mark
 
You have probably seen www.rvparachutes.com where a builder installed a chute on the RV-7. In a related thread on his Yahoo groups forum he says he's been contacted by people wanting to install a chute on the 10, but I have seen no websites or info on anyone doing so. He seems to have gotten a lot of help from BRS.

I imagine there are many people who are like me out there. My wife will only let me build a plane if I promise to put a chute in it (here's hoping I'll get to it one of these days). Since the RV-10 is a good size for families I imagine there are others thinking about it. The last time I checked BRS's website they had a chute for the 172, developing one for the 182, and had a sport chute up to 1500 pounds. But the install on the RV-7 was an BRS 1800 chute that I haven't seen on the BRS website. Regardless, check out that website and forum group to see if anything else pops up.
 
Thanks for the link. I wasn't aware of that site. I have checked with BRS and they are pretty much waiting for Vans to help out with the fitting process. I'm sure fitting is not the proper term!

I have an aquaintance in Dallas whose bacon was saved from his Cirrus chute. He departed Addison (ADS) in north Dallas after a maintenance session and apparently an aleiron wasn't attached securely. Well after takeoff, the aleiron unattached itself on one side and was just flapping in the wind. He called Tower and told him he would go out a bit and pop the chute and of course he his around today to talk about it. My luck, if I ever had to do this, I'd come down on an electrical grid!

I think the chutes would be good more for passenger's peace of mind than anything. I know the first thing my wife does when we fly in the Cirrus is remove the safety pin!

Mark
 
Well keep us updated on anything else you find or hear from Van's or BRS. Although I probably won't get to build for another year or two, I keep my hopes and dreams alive by living vicariously through others. :)
 
BRS chute

I talked to BRS a year ago and got the same response. They're not willing to sell you a chute for an aircraft of this size and performance, without some guarantee that the proper engineering will be done. As you state, that means Van's has to get involved, since they have all the CAD files, structural data, etc. On the downside, Van's has plenty on their plate, and they are selling plenty of planes without chutes . . .

I think the BRS guy told me that the Cirrus, C-172, and C-182 packages all use the same parachute canopy, with slight mods to the release mechanism.

I did see a Czech ballistic parachute company on the web once. Wonder if they would sell one . . .

TDT
 
RV-10 Chute

I plan to build the RV-10 next and install the BRS chute.
Just finnished my RV-7A with the BRS-1800 chute.
It will be at Oshkosh, maybe by one of the BRS booths.

It's great having it especially when doing areobatics.
Much more comfortable than having to wear a chute
and worrying about how to pop the canopy if I ever needed to.
Hopefully never!

Chuck Stuhrenberg
http://rvparachutes.com
 
Last edited:
Whiskey Charlie said:
I plan to build the RV-10 next and install the BRS chute.
Chuck Stuhrenberg
http:rvparachutes.com
Click to expand...
Chuck,

I'd be VERY interested in your progress. I will ordering my kit in a couple of months and would like to try to get the chute installed.

Mark

Nice site, by the way!
 
Whiskey Charlie said:
IIt's great having it especially when doing areobatics.
Much more comfortable than having to wear a chute
and worrying about how to pop the canopy if I ever needed to.
Hopefully never!
Click to expand...

Is that legal? I wonder what the FAA would have to say on that one.

I feel the same way about BRS systems as I do about airbags in cars. Do you really want to sit that close to pyrotechnic device? (I?ve replaced the steering wheel/airbomb in one car and would to the same in my truck if I could find an aftermarket non-airbomb wheel with all the controls in it. There is a reason these things are called supplemental restraint systems. Use your seat belts when driving and flying and don?t fly VFR into IFR or do dumb things and you won?t need all the safety stuff. BTW, in my other hobby I?m an SCCA safety steward and driver/instructor, ever notice that race cars don't have airbombs?)

If flying with BRS helps your passengers feel more secure and helps you enjoy flying all the more, great!

Is removing the BRS safety pin standard procedure or are you only supposed to remove the safety in the event it is needed? Isn't that like removing the pin on a hand grenade?

If it is not SOP and I had a passenger remove a safety pin from a BRS system prior to take off I would reinstall that thing so fast they wouldn't know what happened.

Sorry about the negative tone of this post, I just hate to hear how everything in life has to be risk free.
 
Last edited:
yooper said:
I think the BRS guy told me that the Cirrus, C-172, and C-182 packages all use the same parachute canopy, with slight mods to the release mechanism.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the issue is the speed of the RV's rather than the weight of the aircraft. Is it possible to rip the lines or chute if they are deployed at 200+ mph?
 
Brs

I have flown quite a bit in a Cirrus 22 with the chute. The way they are set up, there is a velcro cover over the handle, and the handle has a safety pin. SOP is to remove the safety pin and replace the velcroed cover to reduce the curiosity factor of a big red handle with your passengers.

"Sorry about the negative tone of this post, I just hate to hear how everything in life has to be risk free"

Well, I wouldn't exactly call it risk free to pop the chute. It may malfunction (happened in one Cirrus deployment) or you may drop in on a freeway :).

"Is it possible to rip the lines or chute if they are deployed at 200+ mph?"

Again, with the Cirrus, the max "demonstrated" chute deployment is 133kts with a minimum altitude of 700'. They are supposed to withstand much greater forces, however.

Mark
 
I'm a lurker with RV dreams that's finally seen a topic that has inspired me to post. But first I'd like to thank everybody that contributes to this and other RV forums and personal websites; they've been terrific resources and I am really amazed and impressed with the RV community!

I've been flying an SR22 for the past 2.5 years (400 hours) and I really appreciate having a BRS parachute as a last resort. Just think of it: I can have an engine, electrical and instrument failure in solid IMC while flying in the mountains, then a have a mid-air collision that knocks off half a wing and gives me a heart attack ...and my non-pilot wife can deliver us to mother earth safely by pulling the BRS. Pretty nice little safety feature, if you ask me.

It's amazing that Vans doesn't offer an airframe parachute option, it just seems like the right thing to do, especially for a company that does so many things right. The chances of needing it may be remote, but that doesn't mean a thing if you're the one with the "short straw." I've had an engine fail in a piston single before ...it's an attention getter and it has made me more sensitive to particular safety concerns.

I know there are people who disagree. That's great ...it's a free country! Look at motorcyclists; some wear boots, leathers and helmets, while others wear only sandals and shorts. Personally I've ridden motorcycles both ways and enjoyed them a lot, but in my old age, they now represent an unacceptable risk; but that's just me, today. I don't begrudge anybody else deciding differently for themselves.

Judging from the way Cirrus has gone from zero to the #1 piston single in terms of unit sales in just a few years, there's a bigger demand for airframe parachutes than manufacturers in this market may have realized. The nearly identical, but parachutless Lancair has gone virtually unnoticed by these buyers*. If Vans offered a BRS option, I'd order a kit tomorrow.

Paul

*From AOPA:
Cirrus Design is off to a good start this year, taking the top position for piston aircraft sales. In the first quarter of 2005, Cirrus shipped 143 airplanes, mostly the 310-horsepower SR22, according to data compiled by the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (gama). The company's biggest problem now is finding more space to ramp up production. Cessna Aircraft, meanwhile, reported 102 shipments for its piston fleet. Cessna shipped an equal number?32 to be exact?of its 172S Skyhawk and normally aspirated 182 Skylane models. Diamond Aircraft shipped 50 four-seat DA40s, giving the company a total of 64 airplanes. Despite bouts with hurricanes last year, The New Piper Aircraft followed with 30 total piston aircraft shipments. Mooney reported 20 shipments and Raytheon 13. Overall, piston shipments were up 9.6 percent over the same quarter of 2004.

Lancair shipped 4 Columbia 350s in this same quarter. The full report is available here:
http://www.gama.aero/resources/statistics/dloads/2005ShipmentReport.pdf
 
Drop test video of the BRS 1800 chute

Here's the drop test video of the BRS 1800 chute that I installed in my RV-7A:

These movies show the drop test of the BRS 1800 chute from an aircraft to serve as the ultimate load test -- the equivalent of sand bagging a wing. In this test, you see a considerable fallaway from the drop aircraft (a C-123) which allows the packed parachute to increase to a calculated velocity before opening. Testing is done at a combination that yields a 150% safety factor. In order to reach this, it is tested with 15% more weight than the canopy is designed for (limit load) and 15% over max deploy speed. Since speed has a square effect (force quadruples as speed doubles), adding 15% overweight to 15% overspeed (squared) produces a total load of about 151%.

http://rvparachutes.com/video.html

BRS says the RV-10 would use the same chute as the Cirrus SR-20 and 182.
I think the RV-10 gross weight is about the same as the 182 which ends up with a slower descend rate than the Cirrus.

Chuck Stuhrenberg
http://rvparachutes.com
 
flydoc said:
...there is a velcro cover over the handle, and the handle has a safety pin. SOP is to remove the safety pin and replace the velcroed cover to reduce the curiosity factor of a big red handle with your passengers.
Click to expand...

Mark,
Thanks for the info. The newest plane I have flown in the past 15 years was a '46 J-3. These new fangled things like BRS, GPS, and electric starters confuse me. ;)

pboed said:
Just think of it: I can have an engine, electrical and instrument failure in solid IMC while flying in the mountains, then a have a mid-air collision that knocks off half a wing and gives me a heart attack ...and my non-pilot wife can deliver us to mother earth safely by pulling the BRS.
Click to expand...

Paul,

I would think that in the event of an airframe failure, such as loosing a wing for whatever reason, would put the aircraft into such a violent spin that the passengers wouldn?t be able to raise a hand to fire the BRS due to G forces.

Has a BRS ever been fired from an aircraft (not an ultra light) that was spinning or otherwise out of control? Would the chute deploy properly or would it get tangled up in the airframe? (Even if it did not deploy properly your impact would still be softer with the chute streaming out behind you.)
 
N941WR said:
Paul,

I would think that in the event of an airframe failure, such as loosing a wing for whatever reason, would put the aircraft into such a violent spin that the passengers wouldn?t be able to raise a hand to fire the BRS due to G forces.

Has a BRS ever been fired from an aircraft (not an ultra light) that was spinning or otherwise out of control? Would the chute deploy properly or would it get tangled up in the airframe? (Even if it did not deploy properly your impact would still be softer with the chute streaming out behind you.)
Click to expand...

Bill,

Clearly there are plenty of situations in which the BRS will be worthless. But it's performance in the Cirrus airplanes has been impressive. Four Cirruses have landed under BRS canopies, all of the people in these planes walked away unscathed.

The BRS has shown itself to work even in some extreme conditions: An SR20 landed under the BRS last summer after going out of control in extreme turbulence during a night flight in the Canadian Rockies; 4 lives saved. Last fall, an SR22 landed under the BRS after departing controlled flight, the pilot was on an autopilot climb thinking everything was fine, and the next thing he noticed the plane was upside down heading into an undercast; 2 lives saved.

The most recent SR22 to exercise the BRS didn't work out: A pilot left Reno for N. CA just after this last super bowl. He launched into frontal system and a SIGMET for icing, which is clearly not a good idea. At 17,000' he reported severe icing, a short while later ATC radar clocked his rate speed during a sharp descent at something over 200 kts. The BRS parachute was activated, but it separated from the airframe; 1 life lost.

I would never argue that the BRS is a panacea, but it clearly does give a pilot and/or passengers another option.

Paul
 
Paul,

Good info, thanks for the reply.

I guess my issue with such safety items is that people think they will save them regardless of what they do. Cars are a great example. The NHTSB (or some such government agency) has said that once anti-lock brakes and airbags appeared in cars, people started driving more aggressively (tailgating, higher speeds, etc.) because they believed all the safety gear will keep them out of trouble. The net result is more high speed accidents and the death rate really hasn't dropped that much.

I liken this to watching my brother teach his daughter how to ride a bike. That girl had so many pads on she could have ridden in front of a train and wouldn't have been hurt. Life is good if there are no risks.
 
N941WR said:
Mark,
Thanks for the info. The newest plane I have flown in the past 15 years was a '46 J-3. These new fangled things like BRS, GPS, and electric starters confuse me. ;)

Has a BRS ever been fired from an aircraft (not an ultra light) that was spinning or otherwise out of control? Would the chute deploy properly or would it get tangled up in the airframe? (Even if it did not deploy properly your impact would still be softer with the chute streaming out behind you.)
Click to expand...
One of the Cirrus pulls was from a a guy with a blocked pitot static line in the crud that was getting erroneous info and apparently departed controlled flight and he floated down just fine. I know the Cirrus aircraft don't have the FAA's blessings for spins, and the POH states that if you ever find yourself in a spin, to pop the chute instead of trying to recover.
Mark
 
flydoc said:
I know the Cirrus aircraft don't have the FAA's blessings for spins, and the POH states that if you ever find yourself in a spin, to pop the chute instead of trying to recover
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to slam the chute advocates, but I'll bet that as more and more Cirruses are sold we'll start seeing all kinds of incidents where guys pop the chute without a good reason and land on (smash into) freeways, cliff edges, lakes, etc. Just ask anybody involved with the 911 service about all the calls they get from people needing directions, cats in trees, keys locked in cars, etc.

As for me, there is no way you'd get me to fire that chute without at least first TRYING to recover from a spin, unless I was low. I've never had anything go terribly wrong in an airplane, but I did have carb ice once after being away from carburated planes for a while. For a moment or two I'd say I was pretty scared (maybe panicked), but then I regained composure, remebered what carb heat was, and all was well. I think that during those first few seconds of fear and confusion it would be very easy to needlessly hit the panic button only to float down onto God-knows-what, destroying at the very least a perfectly good airplane and perhaps much more.

It seems to me that "chute management" should be part of the primary training syllabus for pilots planning on using BRS equipped aircraft.

Steve Zicree
 
flydoc said:
I know the Cirrus aircraft don't have the FAA's blessings for spins, and the POH states that if you ever find yourself in a spin, to pop the chute instead of trying to recover.
Mark
Click to expand...

My SR22 POH says that the airplane responds to normal spin recovery technique and that this should be tried, alitiude permitting. Only if this does not work, or is not feasable does the POH recommend popping the chute.

Cirrus planes are very spin resistant, but once they're in a spin, they tend to flatten out after a few turns; spin recovery controls must be quick and correct.

Paul
 
Hi Steve,

I guess you don't count yourself as a "chute advocate", but when I read you you have to say, I find myself nodding in agreement with your thoughts.

szicree said:
I'm not trying to slam the chute advocates, but I'll bet that as more and more Cirruses are sold we'll start seeing all kinds of incidents where guys pop the chute without a good reason and land on (smash into) freeways, cliff edges, lakes, etc. Just ask anybody involved with the 911 service about all the calls they get from people needing directions, cats in trees, keys locked in cars, etc.
Click to expand...

All pilots, even shuttle pilots and Reno air race pilots are human and have limits to their ability to perform properly. When our limits are exceeded, we will all make mistakes. Another axiom: All machinery breaks, nothing lasts forever. I would never second guess anybody that used a BRS to save their hide. But I would darn sure question their decisions that led up to the event.

szicree said:
As for me, there is no way you'd get me to fire that chute without at least first TRYING to recover from a spin, unless I was low.
Click to expand...

Me too. That's in fact what the Cirrus POHs recommend.

szicree said:
It seems to me that "chute management" should be part of the primary training syllabus for pilots planning on using BRS equipped aircraft.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. The Cirrus Owner's and Pilot's Assn. is hosting free seminars all around the country on just this sort of thing. It's also part of the program for new Cirrus owners, when they get the manditory 2+ days of instruction at the factory.

Paul
 
Bill,

N941WR said:
I guess my issue with such safety items is that people think they will save them regardless of what they do. Cars are a great example. The NHTSB (or some such government agency) has said that once anti-lock brakes and airbags appeared in cars, people started driving more aggressively (tailgating, higher speeds, etc.) because they believed all the safety gear will keep them out of trouble. The net result is more high speed accidents and the death rate really hasn't dropped that much.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you're saying, but you're talking about statistics. A 1 in a million chance seems pretty minute, UNLESS YOU ARE THE ONE!! Then stastics don't mean squat. I wouldn't own a car without ABS and airbags, but neither one has an iota of impact on the way I drive. If they do affect other drivers in a negative way, thus erasing any statistical benefit, it does not erase benefits that I might receive personally.


N941WR said:
I liken this to watching my brother teach his daughter how to ride a bike. That girl had so many pads on she could have ridden in front of a train and wouldn't have been hurt. Life is good if there are no risks.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you're coming from here, Bill. But in my opinion, a lot of parents these days are too concerned about protecting their kids. A story in the paper a while ago proported that we're raising a nation of comfort-seekers with very little tolerance for risk. That's scary. But I don't want to drive a car without ABS and air bags, or fly a plane without a BRS any more than I want to replace my copper plumbing with lead!

Paul
 
Chute in the 10

robertstdenis said:
... there is a point though, where the extra safety features are a bit much and denegrate the performance and enjoyment we are out there for.
Click to expand...
I think this is true for many of the RV series planes, but IMHO, the 10 will be used as more of a family flyer than a sport plane. Not that it is not sporty! I know in my mind, I would feel more comfortable flying with my wife or friends with the chute in case of catastrophic engine and inhospitable terrain. Looking over the NTSB files, there are several RV's that have come to grief for this reason.

Mark
 
robertstdenis said:
thats precisely what I was getting at, the brs isn't that heavy that it would severely limit the useful load, nor would it affect the cg too bad, so why not have one ?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I misread the intent of your post :-(. I am all for the chute, myself, and will be first in line if ever introduced for the 10!

Mark
 
Whiskey Charlie said:
I plan to build the RV-10 next and install the BRS chute.
Click to expand...

Hi Chuck,

I've been sitting here waiting for you to tell us how you're going to put a BRS in your RV-10.... but you haven't posted it!!! C'mon man! There are at least three people that are interested in this, would you mind sharing your thoughts on the topic?

Best Regards,

Paul
 
I doubt that passengers would be completely "unscathed" and walk away with a parachute landing. Alive, yes. Uninjured? Maybe not. Last year I talked to a Cirrus salesperson and was told that the airplane would be destroyed and the landing gear probably shoved through the wings. Such an impact would hardly be soft. As far as Van goes, you got to remember that he is the type of person that believes in simplicity, lightness, cost effectiveness, proper maintenance, good pilot skills and proper decision making. If he had not given in to some peer pressure we would all be building RV-3's. And remember that most engine failures are system related not usually the engine itself grenading.
 
arffguy said:
I doubt that passengers would be completely "unscathed" and walk away with a parachute landing. Alive, yes. Uninjured? Maybe not. Last year I talked to a Cirrus salesperson and was told that the airplane would be destroyed and the landing gear probably shoved through the wings. Such an impact would hardly be soft.
Click to expand...

Hi Mikey,

Time to eat some crow, dude! It's a fact that four Cirrus planes have landed under the BRS parachute, and everybody's walked away unscathed. The first Cirrus to land under the BRS actually few again as a factory demo, after Cirrus bought it from the owner's insurance company.

Cirrus has "CYA" language in their POH, stating that using the BRS may result in serious injury or death and don't expect to fly the plane again. That is lawyers talking ...you know, the same people that made McDonald's put the label "Hot! Hot! Hot! Hot! Hot! Hot!" on coffee cups. Of course it's risky to land a plane with a parachute, that's why so many more than four Cirrus landings have been made the conventional way!

But if the alternative is to "fly" a plane that just had a structrial failure, or a mid-air, or for your non-pilot wife to land after a bird comes thorugh the windshield into your face, or ... (the list goes on, and on), a BRS would look pretty attractive.

arffguy said:
As far as Van goes, you got to remember that he is the type of person that believes in simplicity, lightness, cost effectiveness, proper maintenance, good pilot skills and proper decision making. If he had not given in to some peer pressure we would all be building RV-3's. And remember that most engine failures are system related not usually the engine itself grenading.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that Cirrus or BRS don't believe in "proper maintenance, good pilots skills and proper decision making?" If so, I challenge you to substantiate that notion. Living in Minneapolis (next to St. Paul, home of BRS) and owning a Cirrus, I know people from both companies, and I know from personal experience that these people (and companies) are completely committed to safety in all aspects of flight.

The notion that Vans is into "simplicity, lightness and cost effectiveness" is true, but it's certainly more true of the RV-3 than the RV-10. The RV-10 is designed to travel, and if you've ever traveled much by air, you know that IFR is the only way to make it work with anything but a retired guys timetable. Compared to other Vans designs, this one is begging to be IFR, which means it'll be more complex, heavy and costly.

As others have said, I see every reason to have a BRS in an RV-10. It's a good match for this plane's mission, cost and useful load.

Paul
 
pboed said:
Hi Chuck,

I've been sitting here waiting for you to tell us how you're going to put a BRS in your RV-10.... but you haven't posted it!!! C'mon man! There are at least three people that are interested in this, would you mind sharing your thoughts on the topic?

Best Regards,

Paul
Click to expand...

I've only been flying my RV-7A for about a month now, still in phase I
of test flying, I'm up to 22 hrs. of the 40 hrs required.

I plan on starting the RV-10 maybe this fall when I have more time
and after I've paid down the credit card bills from the RV-7!

Anyone near me building a 10 yet?

Chuck Stuhrenberg
180WC

http://rvparachutes.com
 
N941WR said:
Is that legal? I wonder what the FAA would have to say on that one.

I feel the same way about BRS systems as I do about airbags in cars. Do you really want to sit that close to pyrotechnic device? (I?ve replaced the steering wheel/airbomb in one car and would to the same in my truck if I could find an aftermarket non-airbomb wheel with all the controls in it. There is a reason these things are called supplemental restraint systems. Use your seat belts when driving and flying and don?t fly VFR into IFR or do dumb things and you won?t need all the safety stuff. BTW, in my other hobby I?m an SCCA safety steward and driver/instructor, ever notice that race cars don't have airbombs?)

If flying with BRS helps your passengers feel more secure and helps you enjoy flying all the more, great!

Is removing the BRS safety pin standard procedure or are you only supposed to remove the safety in the event it is needed? Isn't that like removing the pin on a hand grenade?

If it is not SOP and I had a passenger remove a safety pin from a BRS system prior to take off I would reinstall that thing so fast they wouldn't know what happened.

Sorry about the negative tone of this post, I just hate to hear how everything in life has to be risk free.
Click to expand...

To bad Detroit don't build cars to NASCAR standards. Think of the thousands of lives that might be saved.

Chuck Stuhrenberg
N180WC
http://rvparachutes.com
 
NASCAR, airbags and ejection seats?

Whiskey Charlie said:
To bad Detroit don't build cars to NASCAR standards. Think of the thousands of lives that might be saved. Chuck Stuhrenberg N180WC
Click to expand...
Great idea a steel roll cage and we can climb thru the window. May be we should all wear helmets, Hans-devices, nomex jump suits. How about an ejection seat with air bags. :D Just kidding, crash worthiness can always be better in race cars, family cars and airplanes.

There is no substitute for airmanship, knowledge, skill and judgment, training and aircraft maintenance. Regardless of gadgets the pilot is the key to safety and BRS is a band-aid. Of the 6 BRS deployments or BRS equipped plane accidents, on larger aircraft (Cirrus), I read:

Two were not necessary and under strange conditions. Skill, training and judgment would have made these deployments unnecessary. (IFR static failure and flying over mountains at night in turbulance(?) for which the pilot had not enough ablity or business doing.)​

One did not save the pilot who spun into a back yard, chute not deployed.​

One flew into the ground near a mountain top in good weather, chute not deployed.​

The 5th deployment is also questionable and due to some weird maintenance screw up where an aileron was not attached? Hummmm mechanic? Pilot pre-flight? :eek: Again BRS is no substitute for airmanship. It is questionable that the plane could not be controlled and the pilot could have continued? Lets assume this was a "save". However not having a bolt in a control surface from maintenance is intolerable.​

The 6th was under some weird story where the pilot claimed the engine was running rough, but may be was weather related despite the pilots claim? No one is sure why he hit the silk from the report?​

The point? There are so few scenarios that a deployment would save the day that can't be avoided. Airframe failure? Engine failure over rough terrain? Bad weather? Fire? (I would not want to float down in a plane on fire, especially a plastic one; I would prefer a chute on my back to bail.) I can save the day by maintaining the plane, not flying over rough terrain (especially at night) and be IFR current, rated, equip and avoid bad weather and low fuel. If you are really that worried about falling out of the sky, get a personal chute. As far as a helmet/eye protection and nomex, I am not totally kidding. Those items may save your life, but most pilots won't wear these items.

Cheers George ATP, CFI, RV-4, RV-7
 
Last edited:
Is the SR-22 the new: "Forked Tail Doctor Killer?"

Remember when the V tail Bonanza came out? It was the fastest most well equipped travellin machine, and it was spendy. Then the highly compensated professionals like MD's and Lawyers who were long on cash but short on free time to acquire flying proficiency bought them, lulled into doing so by such an advanced airframe. The bonanza had a spate of fatalities in it's early years, giving it the nick name, Forked Tail Doctor Killer.

It seems that Cirrus is in the same boat. They have the ultimate airframe complete with:all glass flight deck, known ice certification (TKS system) a Viper-like side stick controller and the ulitmate equalizer if things go wrong: the BRS. Anyone who could accept the payments for an SR-22 could easily relax into pilot complacency with such a competent mount.

In the Feb 05 issue of Aviation Consumer they tend to agree, but what's interesting is that Cirrus' fatal accident rate is higher than the population of GA aircraft, so that leaves me to wonder how effective is the BRS, or is it a training issue. I've gleaned the statistical part from the 4 page article. Read on:

"Accident Scan: Dismal but Improving"

"The Cirrus accident record can be summed up a singe word: disappointing. In our view, this is due partly to perception and partly to the fact that even a generous assessment of the airplanes' safety performance reveals that it simply hasn't delivered on its promise to usher in a new age of safer flying."

[snip]

"In terms of overall accident rates, Cirrus aircraft started out poorly but appear to be improving as the model gains more exposure without more accidents. No surpries there. As of Decemer 2004, Cirrus estimates total fleet hours at about 451,000, which works out to an overall accident rate of 5.77/100K hours, a number below GA's overall average of 6.57/100K hours, but higher than our calculated estimate for light aircraft in general, which is aqbout 3 accidents per 100K hour of flight.

The fleetwide FATAL rate for Cirrus is 2.2/100K compated to the GA FATAL rate of 1.2/100K, according to the NTSB."

[snip]

"...if the Cirrus fatal rate really is higher than the GA average, there appears to be a reason for it and it lies in the type of accidents Cirrus airplanes have had. These have tended toward CFITs or loss of control, sometimes in clear weather, but at least three times in IMC or marginal VFR. Such accidents tend to be fatal and indeed, 38 percent of Cirrus accidents have proved fatal. (By quick compariswon, for the same period, 18% of Cessna 182 accidents were fatal, 13% of Cessna 172 accidents were and 29% of Piper Archer accidents involved deaths.) One can argue that any new type suffers such carnage, but the Diamond DA-40 is a new type that has suffered only two minor accidents in the US, neither fatal. The Lancair series is also nearly accident-free.

Althought Cirrus aircraft are equipped with just the situational awareness technology designed to prevent such acciedents, we're hard pressed to find much fault with the airplane itself.

More likely, in our view, is that the Cirrus ethos to attract all comers with simple airplanes that ANYONE can fly has succeeded all too well. In other words, the airplane's poor fatal accident record may be a hostage of pilots not capable of, or at least not trained well enough to fly it, striking a hollow note against the Cirrus notion that anyone can be a pilot."

[snip]

"...Cirrus has acknowledged the training issue, and to its credit is continuining to introduce improved programs. But the payoff may be in th edistant future."
 
gmcjetpilot said:
There is no substitute for airmanship, knowledge, skill and judgment, training and aircraft maintenance. Regardless of gadgets the pilot is the key to safety and BRS is a band-aid. Of the 6 BRS deployments or BRS equipped plane accidents, on larger aircraft (Cirrus), I read:
Click to expand...

Hi George,

I agree there's no substitute for a good plane and a good pilot. The problem is that every one of both is fallable, including me and you and every plane we fly. Having a BRS on board just gives the pilot and/or passengers another option to live to see another day after things have gotten all messed up. Clearly things shouldn't get messed up in the first place and this notion deserves a lot more than lip service; I think the community of Cirrus drivers is doing everything they can to promote this mindset, which they share with you.

But whatever it is that you read that reported 6 BRS deployments was incorrect....

gmcjetpilot said:
Two were not necessary and under strange conditions. Skill, training and judgment would have made these deployments unnecessary. (IFR static failure and flying over mountains at night in turbulance(?) for which the pilot had not enough ablity or business doing.)​

One did not save the pilot who spun into a back yard, chute not deployed.​

One flew into the ground near a mountain top in good weather, chute not deployed.​

The 5th deployment is also questionable and due to some weird maintenance screw up where an aileron was not attached? Hummmm mechanic? Pilot pre-flight? :eek: Again BRS is no substitute for airmanship. It is questionable that the plane could not be controlled and the pilot could have continued? Lets assume this was a "save". However not having a bolt in a control surface from maintenance is intolerable.​

The 6th was under some weird story where the pilot claimed the engine was running rough, but may be was weather related despite the pilots claim? No one is sure why he hit the silk from the report?​
Click to expand...

There have actually been 6 Cirrus BRS attempts and 5 deployments:
1.Loss of control in IMC. Attempted BRS deployment, it did not activate. Resulted in Cirrus A/D to improve activation linkage for BRS. Landed off field. No injuries.
2.Left aileron separated. BRS activated, no injuries.
3.Pilot disoriented in IMC, water found in static line. BRS activated, no injuries.
4.Weather and a loss of control. BRS activated, no injuries.
5.Lethbridge, AB, Canada (no NTSB report available). Loss of control in turbulance in night flight. BRS activated, no injuries.
6.BRS activated at excessive speed. One fatal.

gmcjetpilot said:
The point? There are so few scenarios that a deployment would save the day that can't be avoided. Airframe failure? Engine failure over rough terrain? Bad weather? Fire? (I would not want to float down in a plane on fire, especially a plastic one; I would prefer a chute on my back to bail.) I can save the day by maintaining the plane, not flying over rough terrain (especially at night) and be IFR current, rated, equip and avoid bad weather and low fuel. If you are really that worried about falling out of the sky, get a personal chute. As far as a helmet/eye protection and nomex, I am not totally kidding. Those items may save your life, but most pilots won't wear these items.

Cheers George ATP, CFI, RV-4, RV-7
Click to expand...

Granted there are few scenarios that can't be avoided. But safe flying isn't just about having knowledge and skill, it's also about having options. Every day a lot of people fly, most land with no problems, but nearly every day, some crash and die. I've been flying long enough to know some of the latter; they were hardly the worst pilots in the air the day they died ...but they ran out of options.

I would never say that every plane should have a BRS. But I don't understand why anybody would say that no plane should have a BRS.

Paul
 
Well said Paul

pboed said:
I would never say that every plane should have a BRS. But I don't understand why anybody would say that no plane should have a BRS. Paul
Click to expand...
Paul thanks for the facts and well stated. I agree with you. I don't hate the BRS, but hate that people die in planes needlessly. I have been doing it long enough for sport and as a profession to know people make mistakes, including me. That is the first step in being safe, knowing you can screw-up and protecting yourself anyway you can. Many accidents are not from extraordinary out of the blue occurrence, but landing or takeoff accidents, which the BRS might not help. Enroute accident rates should be much lower. With that said, I don't think the BRS is useless, just not a panacea for safety.

It is like my cars, one with an airbag and another without. I drive as safe as I can in both cars so I don't need the airbag. I admit I would rather be in the car with the airbag if I did have a crash, but know the airbag is not going to assure my survival. The key is not getting into an accident in the first place, which we agree. Also I would find it hard to believe a pilot would have the mind set "Hey, we can just takeoff and keep going and if it gets too bad we can always just pop the chute." However, may be there is a subconscious effect of the BRS. When I do aerobatics I put a chute on and must admit, it gives me a sense of security. I would not do aerobatics if I though doing so would result in the need to bail out, but I do wear the chute for legal and security reasons. I don't begrudge anyones desire to install a BRS for the right reasons, but flying is risky and always will be, even with a BRS. We all know that or should, so lets be careful and be the best pilots we can thru training and practice.

Regards George

PS: Fatal accidents where the chute was not deployed or could have?
Stall spin from 5,000 feet
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020502X00613&key=1
Another fatal crash flight into ground
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20041209X01964&key=1
A stall spin in florida I mentioned, no chute one fatal.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050131X00119&key=1

Here is a landing accident that was not fatal but...
http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2004/A04_36_41.pdf
 
Last edited:
pboed said:
Are you suggesting that Cirrus or BRS don't believe in "proper maintenance, good pilots skills and proper decision making?" If so, I challenge you to substantiate that notion.

Paul
Click to expand...

No I didn't intend to convey that notion at all. Don't believe for a minute that I would intentionallly put out a ridiculous generalization like that. My biggest point is that asking a designer/engineer to put additional weight and complexity into his airplane is like pulling teeth. Especially when said engineer in the past has preferred that people didn't modify his designs and kept them light also. I'm sure Van knew the BRS existed as he designed the RV-10. If he felt it was necessary he would have designed one into it. Maybe he didn't feel it was necessary.

Also Van has seen enough RV accidents that he has been motivated to write safety articles in the RVator. The RV's delightful handling seems to induce what I consider to be overconfidence in some pilots as I have seen them do some pretty stupid and illegal things. That is what my reference to "skills" and "decision making" are about.

As far as "proper maintenance".............well that is a no brainer. Everybody should know that one.


pboed said:
Compared to other Vans designs, this one is begging to be IFR, which means it'll be more complex, heavy and costly.

As others have said, I see every reason to have a BRS in an RV-10. It's a good match for this plane's mission, cost and useful load.

Paul
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. To get anywhere (on time, just about every time) requires IFR work. I think the BRS is a good idea in any airplane. I never said it was a bad idea. My point about making modifications to a design is still the same.

By the way, the day after I made that post I talked to a different Cirrus representative. He told me that the chute would be similar to a 10 foot vertical drop. His biggest concern is not the parachute landing itself but what surface or object would be landed upon. He thought the main landing gears will possibly hit the wings lower surfaces. He also stated that a couple of the damaged airplanes had been rebuilt. However he did feel that the hardest part of rebuilding it would be to determine the structural integrity of the airframe.

I really do like the Cirrus. It is sexier and more modern than the Cessnas I get to fly now. I am glad that Cirrus produces such a well equipped and sleek aircraft. I am even happier that they are selling well. My best buddy dearly wants to get us into one. He even thinks I would get rid of my RV for it. Not a chance I told him.

Flying is "risk management." If you expect to be totally immune from from an aviation accident then you will never be seen in an aircraft. All you can really do:

Keep currrent.
Maintain pilot and aircraft health.

And as in many things you do in life:
Assess the risks.
Pray to God you don't get into a situation you can't get out of.
 
Last edited:
arffguy said:
Flying is "risk management." If you expect to be totally immune from from an aviation accident then you will never be seen in an aircraft. All you can really do:

Keep currrent.
Maintain pilot and aircraft health.

And as in many things you do in life:
Assess the risks.
Pray to God you don't get into a situation you can't get out of.
Click to expand...

I agree with the notion of risk management. But not with the "All you can really do" part. Another Cirrus pilot is alive tonight, having landed under the BRS after an engine failure. Of course he might have been able to ditch in the river and swim away ...but it's hard to complain about this outcome!

Cessna poo-poos the Cirrus BRS, they say their plane doesn't need a parachute because it's certified for spin recovery. Would you expect anything better from a company that's been making the same damn airplane for over half a century? Cessna's attitude is no surprise, but it's dissapointing when an inovative company like Vans disregards such an incredible safety device.

Here's the link and story from ANN:
Aero-News Alert: Cirrus SR22 Chutes It Out Over New York

Thu, 30 Jun '05

ANN Realtime Update 2006 EST, 06.30.05: With only the sketchiest of details currently available, ANN has learned that a Cirrus SR22 has apparently used the CAPS, (Cirrus Airframe Parachute System) to affect an emergency recovery. Reportedly occupied by a single pilot, N3452L went down in an inlet near the Bowline Point Park, near Haverstraw, NY, this (Thursday) afternoon. The airplane is now reported sunk.

Some sources indicate that the pilot parachuted out, based on a misunderstanding by a fire and rescue officer. Some local media have not exactly covered themselves in glory on this one: a New York city TV station breathlessly reported that the Cirrus, one of some two thousand factory-built and fully certified by Cirrus Design Corporation in Duluth, Minnesota, was a 'kit plane.'

The accident occurred at approximately 1641 when the SR22 was apparently lost off radar about 10 miles from the Westchester County Airport.

The pilot's condition is said to be good and that he suffered no impact related injuries. There was a mayday call (at 1640) prior to the accident, according to the FAA's Arlene Salac. Current media reports suggest the possibility of a medical incapacitation (pilot reporting pain in his legs), but this is a general media report and the accuracy is, of course, suspect until someone with some bona fides speaks up.

One report, credited to Rockland County executive's office spokeswoman C.J. Miller, claims that the pilot "bailed out because he had pain in his legs and couldn't pull the plane out of a dive..."

Another, more recent, report (from the Journal News) claims that the aircraft was brought down by engine failure.

Obviously, we're hoping for more specific info...

Sources within the Cirrus Pilot community have tentatively identified the pilot as Ilan Reich. If correct, the PIC is a highly qualified aviator with over 1000 hours in type. We've also confirmed that the aircraft is fresh out of a maintenance visit... further adding some mystery (and confusion) to the fast and furious details we are gathering about this event.

N3452L is registered to the 5 2 Lima Corporation of NYC, NY. It is a 2003 SR22 put on the federal registry on June 12th of that year.

The Cirrus Airframe Parachute System, which is one part of a comprehensive and novel approach to safety, has saved eight lives before.

The system was designed in cooperation with, and is manufactured by, BRS, whose ballistic chutes have saved about two hundred pilots and passengers. At this time, only Cirrus offers the chute as a factory option, although Symphony has announced plans to do so. Similar systems are available on the aftermarket, STC'd for Cessna 150 and 172 aircraft, and one is in development for the heavier, faster 182, even though Cessna has disparaged the system and does not appear to have given serious consideration to making it an OEM option.

ANN will have more info on this story as soon as we have it verified.
 
Walton

pboed said:
I agree with the notion of risk management. But not with the "All you can really do" part. Another Cirrus pilot is alive tonight, having landed under the BRS after an engine failure. Of course he might have been able to ditch in the river and swim away ...but it's hard to complain about this outcome!

Cessna poo-poos the Cirrus BRS, they say their plane doesn't need a parachute because it's certified for spin recovery. Would you expect anything better from a company that's been making the same damn airplane for over half a century? Cessna's attitude is no surprise, but it's dissapointing when an inovative company like Vans disregards such an incredible safety device.
Click to expand...
There is a perception with some that ALL experimental aircraft are dangerous and are only flown by daredevils with a death wish. The recent unfortunate incident with John Walton doesn't help this image. You have to wonder if the outcome would have been different with a chute. I have a friend who is a captain with Southwest Airlines, and even with his aero experience, he said he would never step foot in any experimental plane. With the RV-10 beiing a four seater, alot more non-pilots will be flying. I know from with my situation, my wife & family would consider flying alot more if there's a chute on the plane. I used to have a C182 and trying to get my wife to fly with me was not the easiest thing to do! I have been in a Cirrus for the past couple of years and now she never even gives flying a second thought and it is because of the perceived safety benefit of the CAPS.

From a purely economic standpoint, I think that Vans would sell alot more aircraft if they had a chute. Case in point, the Cirrus and the Lancair are similar planes. The Lancair acutally outperforms the Cirrus in many areas, but the sales of the Cirrus are exponentially better than the Lancair. The rumour mill says that Lancair has a test bird up and flying for the chute for future production.

Just a thought!
Mark
 
Lancair with chute

flydoc said:
The rumour mill says that Lancair has a test bird up and flying for the chute for future production.
Click to expand...
That would be very clever of them. Unless you have a serious technical reason why you can't implement a BRS, from a purely marketing standpoint it seems crazy not to offer that option. Even Henry Ford eventually started painting his cars colors other than black.
 
Two thoughts

Thought #1:

<< I think that Vans would sell alot more aircraft if they had a chute >>

Uh, Van's can sell kits faster than they can make them right now, so I don't see a big difference there . . .

Thought #2:

At $15,000+ for a BRS chute, that's a lot of money you can spend on recurrancy training or even motel rooms for when the weather is questionable and it's better to stay another night . . .

TDT
 
pboed said:
I agree with the notion of risk management. But not with the "All you can really do" part. Another Cirrus pilot is alive tonight, having landed under the BRS after an engine failure. Of course he might have been able to ditch in the river and swim away ...but it's hard to complain about this outcome!

Cessna poo-poos the Cirrus BRS, they say their plane doesn't need a parachute because it's certified for spin recovery. Would you expect anything better from a company that's been making the same damn airplane for over half a century? Cessna's attitude is no surprise, but it's dissapointing when an inovative company like Vans disregards such an incredible safety device.

Here's the link and story from ANN:
Aero-News Alert: Cirrus SR22 Chutes It Out Over New York

Thu, 30 Jun '05

ANN Realtime Update 2006 EST, 06.30.05: With only the sketchiest of details currently available, ANN has learned that a Cirrus SR22 has apparently used the CAPS, (Cirrus Airframe Parachute System) to affect an emergency recovery. Reportedly occupied by a single pilot, N3452L went down in an inlet near the Bowline Point Park, near Haverstraw, NY, this (Thursday) afternoon. The airplane is now reported sunk.

Some sources indicate that the pilot parachuted out, based on a misunderstanding by a fire and rescue officer. Some local media have not exactly covered themselves in glory on this one: a New York city TV station breathlessly reported that the Cirrus, one of some two thousand factory-built and fully certified by Cirrus Design Corporation in Duluth, Minnesota, was a 'kit plane.'

The accident occurred at approximately 1641 when the SR22 was apparently lost off radar about 10 miles from the Westchester County Airport.

The pilot's condition is said to be good and that he suffered no impact related injuries. There was a mayday call (at 1640) prior to the accident, according to the FAA's Arlene Salac. Current media reports suggest the possibility of a medical incapacitation (pilot reporting pain in his legs), but this is a general media report and the accuracy is, of course, suspect until someone with some bona fides speaks up.

One report, credited to Rockland County executive's office spokeswoman C.J. Miller, claims that the pilot "bailed out because he had pain in his legs and couldn't pull the plane out of a dive..."

Another, more recent, report (from the Journal News) claims that the aircraft was brought down by engine failure.

Obviously, we're hoping for more specific info...

Sources within the Cirrus Pilot community have tentatively identified the pilot as Ilan Reich. If correct, the PIC is a highly qualified aviator with over 1000 hours in type. We've also confirmed that the aircraft is fresh out of a maintenance visit... further adding some mystery (and confusion) to the fast and furious details we are gathering about this event.

N3452L is registered to the 5 2 Lima Corporation of NYC, NY. It is a 2003 SR22 put on the federal registry on June 12th of that year.

The Cirrus Airframe Parachute System, which is one part of a comprehensive and novel approach to safety, has saved eight lives before.

The system was designed in cooperation with, and is manufactured by, BRS, whose ballistic chutes have saved about two hundred pilots and passengers. At this time, only Cirrus offers the chute as a factory option, although Symphony has announced plans to do so. Similar systems are available on the aftermarket, STC'd for Cessna 150 and 172 aircraft, and one is in development for the heavier, faster 182, even though Cessna has disparaged the system and does not appear to have given serious consideration to making it an OEM option.

ANN will have more info on this story as soon as we have it verified.
Click to expand...

Here's a link to the latest Press Release:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050704/cgm002.html?.v=14

Chuck Stuhrenberg
http://rvparachutes.com
 
Another strange BRS deployment

From: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050704/cgm002.html?.v=14

According to Reich he had few other options than to pull back the plane's nose, and release the airplane's onboard emergency BRS parachute system. "My decision to pull the chute was instantaneous. I wasn't experiencing any mechanical issues with the plane, I was traumatized and feeling severe cramping in my legs,"
(instantaneous decision, why? I wounder if he had second thoughts floating down, can't undo it can you.)

AND

"I quickly knocked out the glass on the pilot's door, grabbed a life jacket from the backseat and within a couple of minutes I was standing on the wing of my sinking airplane. I waited for the life jacket to inflate, then I swam 300 feet to shore."

AND

Reich was taken to nearby Nyack Hospital. He was discharged less than 24 hours after the initial incident. Doctors have told Reich he should make a full recovery.(Recover from what?)

Could he have just flown the airplane to the gorund if he was able to kick windows out and swim.

I don't know what "I was traumatized and feeling severe cramping in my legs" means, but did he know about some medical condition he had before flying. Was he in poor health? Was it a heart attack? This sounds strange. Glad he is alive but Whisky Tango Foxtrot. If he could manuver the plane (or hit a power plant) with the engine, kick windows out, get a life jacket on , stand on the wing and swim, could he just fly the plane, right? :confused:

Cheers George ATP/CFI
 
Last edited:
2 more thoughts :)

yooper said:
Thought #1:

<< I think that Vans would sell alot more aircraft if they had a chute >>

Uh, Van's can sell kits faster than they can make them right now, so I don't see a big difference there . . .


Thought #2:

At $15,000+ for a BRS chute, that's a lot of money you can spend on recurrancy training or even motel rooms for when the weather is questionable and it's better to stay another night . . .

TDT
Click to expand...
Thought #1:
Agreed. Maybe I am naive, but I would think any company would not be averse to selling more widgets.

Thought #2
The idea of the chute is not to go barreling in to adverse weather or dangerous situations thinking that if something happens, you have an out. I am sure some pilots would do just that, but that is not its intended use. The chute does not take the place of recurrency training. There are alot of situations that one may find himself/herself that training will make no difference. When your are spending upwards of $150,000 for a plane, $15,000 IMHO is not a bad investment. I guess to each his own :)

Mark
 
Cirrus CAPS Deployment

gmcjetpilot said:
Could he have just flown the airplane to the gorund if he was able to kick windows out and swim.

I don't know what "I was traumatized and feeling severe cramping in my legs" means, but did he know about some medical condition he had before flying. Was he in poor health? Was it a heart attack? This sounds strange. Glad he is alive but Whisky Tango Foxtrot. He could manuver the plane with the engine, kick windows out stand and swim he could fly he could fly the plane, right? :confused:

Cheers George ATP/CFI
Click to expand...
George,

The pilot lost consciousness for a few seconds due to a previously undiagnosed brain tumor that cause a seizure. When he awakened, he was in a nose down dive well above Vne for the Cirrus in IFR conditions. He elected to try to slow the plane down and pop the chute. He has a back injury due to the plane descending into water. The Cirrus landing gear is designed to absorb some of the vertical impact ot the CAPS deployment. Landing in water, the wings slow the descent rather abruptly. I feel like I know the pilot very well from his postings on the Cirrus forum and I know he is a safe & conscientious pilot. I think his statement that he pulled the chute without thinking was because of the situation he found himself in on awakening and not having much time to do anything else.

Mark
 
flydoc said:
George,

The pilot lost consciousness for a few seconds due to a previously undiagnosed brain tumor that cause a seizure. When he awakened, he was in a nose down dive well above Vne for the Cirrus in IFR conditions. He elected to try to slow the plane down and pop the chute. He has a back injury due to the plane descending into water. The Cirrus landing gear is designed to absorb some of the vertical impact ot the CAPS deployment. Landing in water, the wings slow the descent rather abruptly. I feel like I know the pilot very well from his postings on the Cirrus forum and I know he is a safe & conscientious pilot. I think his statement that he pulled the chute without thinking was because of the situation he found himself in on awakening and not having much time to do anything else.

Mark
Click to expand...

Thanks for the additional info.
I never thought about the CAPS deployment over the water scenario.
Hopefully I'll never need to use mine.

Chuck Stuhrenberg
http://rvparachutes.com
 
CAPS over water

Whiskey Charlie said:
Thanks for the additional info.
I never thought about the CAPS deployment over the water scenario.
Hopefully I'll never need to use mine.

Chuck Stuhrenberg
http://rvparachutes.com
Click to expand...
Chuck,

Same here. I had always assumed that a water landing wouldn't be that bad, thinking that water would be more forgiving than rocks! This was the first Cirrus that landed under CAPS in water, and as far as anyone I've heard, the first BRS on any plane ever to land in water.

Mark
 
Brain Tumor

flydoc said:
George,

The pilot lost consciousness for a few seconds due to a previously undiagnosed brain tumor that cause a seizure. Mark
Click to expand...
Leg trauma, brain tumor, IMC conditions, seizure and lost consciousness diving at Vne, wow he is lucky to live, BRS or not. This is his last flight as a pilot either way.

Mark, where did you get this from BTW. The article states he was released for hospital in 24 hours and will fully recover (from a brain tumor)? Me thinks there is some missing info. I am no doctor but I have seen many on TV. I would think brain tumor and loss of consciousness would earn a stay for test, IV blood thinners and observation. :confused:

I assume he slowed down before pulling the BRS, because the BRS will rip off at Vne as has been proven, the BRS will not save you from a high-speed unusual (out of control) flight situation. In any dive condition the pilot must have enough control to slow the plane first. Apparently this is what he did since he states he slowed first (after he woke up). After the leg trauma and brain tumor he was able to recover from the dive, slow the plane and pull the chute. I say WOW again. :eek:

I wonder if he has any symptoms of a brain tumor before this day?

Cheers George
 
Last edited:
would-a, could-a, should-a...

>Could he have just flown the airplane to the gorund if he was able to kick windows out and swim.

George,

Easy for you to second guess and armchair quarterback, but my guess is he chose to go down over the ?soft? water rather that hit the ?hard? rock and sheer terrain around that area of the Hudson. Just because there is land does not mean that it?s good land or someplace you would want to perform an off airport landing. Knowing the terrain, I think the BRS saved his life. I challenge ?joe super pilot? like yourself to survive an off airport landing in that area without a BRS.
 
CAPS over water

gmcjetpilot said:
Leg trauma, brain tumor, IMC conditions, seizure and lost consciousness diving at Vne, wow he is lucky to live, BRS or not. This is his last flight as a pilot either way.

Mark, where did you get this from BTW. The article states he was released for hospital in 24 hours and will fully recover (from a brain tumor)? Me thinks there is some missing info. I am no doctor but I have seen many on TV. I would think brain tumor and loss of consciousness would earn a stay for test, IV blood thinners and observation. :confused:

I assume he slowed down before pulling the BRS, because the BRS will rip off at Vne as has been proven, the BRS will not save you from a high-speed unusual (out of control) flight situation. In any dive condition the pilot must have enough control to slow the plane first. Apparently this is what he did since he states he slowed first (after he woke up). After the leg trauma and brain tumor he was able to recover from the dive, slow the plane and pull the chute. I say WOW again. :eek:

I wonder if he has any symptoms of a brain tumor before this day?

Cheers George
Click to expand...
George,

I got the info directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak. :) Of course, he will have to go through testing and treatment for the tumor. Our thoughts & prayers should be with him. Sadly, he probably will never fly solo again.

You're right, the chute will not survive a Vne dive. The max DEMONSTRATED deploy speed is 133k. There have been a few that have deployed faster, but I don't think I'd want to be a test pilot to try and find out how fast I could go before the BIG PULL.

The chute is designed to recover from uncontrolled flight, such as from an inadverdent unrecoverable spin entry. There was one guy that pulled in an upside down, uncontrolled condition and is alive to talk about it.

I think it is easy as pilots to sit back and second guess what we would have or would not have done. I do know that if I am flying with my wife & family and find myself in a similar situation in a plane with a BRS, you'll be reading about me!

Mark
 
Yikes !

w1curtis said:
>Could he have just flown the airplane to the ground if he was able to kick windows out and swim. George, Easy for you to second guess and armchair quarterback, I think the BRS saved his life. I challenge ?joe super pilot? like yourself to survive an off airport landing in that area without a BRS.
Click to expand...
Curtis I am not going to get into name calling. That does nothing to further the discourse. Its common for these conversations about accidents to turn emotional. I get evaluated 3-4 times and two medicals a year as a commercial pilot, and it is nothing personal. I seek to learn from others so I don't repeat their mistakes since I make enough mistakes on my own. The main thing is the pilot is alive and we all hope he recovers, if not to fly solo again than live a long life. Amen.

My interest in BRS is about the why, where and how of the deployments that have occurred. Some of the reasons for BRS deployment and scenarios are dubious at best. This is the 2nd or 3rd that has occurred to a perfect airplane in cruise(?). My first thought is how to avoid using a BRS in the first place. It makes sense to me to ask how to avoid the deployment in the first place, not accept it.

Pilot health: Many accidents occur due to pilots flying with known medical problems. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS THE CASE. However if anything, we all can learn from this. We need to take care of our body and mind for the sake of our family, flight safety and ourselves. If you have any symptoms you should not fly.Sounds obvious but many accidents still occur from medical conditions. Also its not a bad idea if you fly with a spouse non-pilot to get them up to speed with a pinch hitter pilot course and some dual. In case you have you are incapacitated they have a chance.

I also understand a traumatic medical condition could just occur out of nowhere, but many times there are precursors or symptoms. I remember an airline I once flew for 13 years ago had a Captain expire deadheading in the back of the plane.After landing and deplaning the Captain could not be revived. He died from a massive brain embolism and was in his late 20's or 30's.

Curtis take care of your self, get plenty of rest, eat right and exercise.

I don't take what ever I hear as gospel if it does not make sense to me. In flying this is how accidents happen, by ignoring the signs or clues, wheather it is something mechanical, weather related or health related. If that offends you bygones, I am not going to change by your name-calling. My goal is to get old and fly as long as possible, god willing.

Super Joe Arm Chair Pilot George, ATP/CFI :eek:
 
Last edited:
Gallaxy GRS parachutte for RV 10

Any body used Gallaxy GRS parachutte in RV 10? Panthera uses Gallaxy parachutte. Its much cheaper than BRS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top