Ballistic Rescue System information request

I was wondering if the RV 12 will have a ballistic rescue system available in the future or is this something that we have to develop ourselves.

There is no doubt that the ballistic rescue system will safe life's so I would really like to fined out more.

Jim "Sierra X-ray"
Larissa, Greece

Hi Jim..

Cirrus owners have pulled the red handle around a dozen times now and yes, lives were saved but some of them were because of flying VFR into IMC and the pilot's fault.

Aren't the -12's going to be VFR airplanes only?

I seriously doubt whether Van would spend the time, money or energy to develop a ballistic recovery system.

I have a friend with a Cirrus and this year, his tenth, (and every tenth year) will spend $10,000 on a mandatory system refresher.

Best,

BRS advertises that they have saved X number of lives, but that's just advertising and really represents the number of chutes deployed and the people in those planes.

In many cases, the people would have survived with injuries ranging from none to critical. There is no way to know how many lives they have saved.

Having a BRS system may have given some pilots the confidence to take on weather they shouldn't have, leading them to deploy the chute.

And even having the system is no guarantee you won't die. A few years ago a couple guys took off in their Cirrus at night and plowed into a mountain.

When you look at their advertising, keep those factors in mind. I'm not saying the system is worthless; just be aware of the limitations.

Do BRS Save Lives?

RScott said:

In many cases, the people would have survived with injuries ranging from none to critical. There is no way to know how many lives they have saved.

Click to expand...

I remember seeing this video and thinking that a BRS might be a good idea. You can see and hear the cable from the tow plane hitting the aircraft and the engine failing. I would call this a definite save.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXQKaxp6Rlk

There was one case locally where a pilot took off with his family and became incapacitated (heart attack.) His son was in the right seat, son's girlfriend was in back. The son was not a pilot and so they pulled the chute and ended up in a retention pond in a subdivision. The pilot died but the other two ended up ok.

Most of the time, though, they get pulled when the pilot becomes disoriented. Cirrus' whole marketing campaign is targeted to non-pilots.

Not a save

6S4 Hugo said:

I remember seeing this video and thinking that a BRS might be a good idea. You can see and hear the cable from the tow plane hitting the aircraft and the engine failing. I would call this a definite save.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXQKaxp6Rlk

Click to expand...

Although I can see lots of value in BRS (i.e. pilot becomes incapacitated, loss of controls, etc), this is a typical example of BRS claiming a save when it really wasn't a save.

This guy was over lots of suitable landing areas, including the runway that is right under him! I hate second-guessing peoples' actions in emergency situations (I'm not), but I also hate BRS and Cirrus claiming a save every time someone pulls the red handle.

The value of BRS has been debated a lot here and elsewhere. As someone who has one in their airplane, my criteria of when to pull the "jiffy pop" handle is a forced landing that is likely to cause significant injury to the occupants or people on the ground. Examples of this include:

* Structural failure that results in loss of control or insufficient control to land the airplane.
* Midair that results in structural failure or injuries to the occupants such that a landing without serious injury is not possible.
* Engine failure over hostile terrain, including highly urbanized areas without sufficient room for safe landing without risk of serious injury to people on the ground.
* Pilot incapacitation.

It's up to each builder / purchaser to decide if these are important to them.

TODR

I found a testimonial story interesting in that he was going to descend into an oil refinery, so he started the engine and used the rudder to tug the plane and deployed chute away from the refinery. Kind of a down hill only powered chute?

SHIPCHIEF said:

I found a testimonial story interesting in that he was going to descend into an oil refinery, so he started the engine and used the rudder to tug the plane and deployed chute away from the refinery. Kind of a down hill only powered chute?

Click to expand...

Yes, I read the same story. That man was seriously injured when he landed in water (if I remember correctly it was a broken back). He also went flying that day knowing that he had been blacking out. He pulled the chute because he blacked out in IMC and he was afraid of blacking out again.

Cirrus did a lot of testing of the BRS, so you know the basic design is good. But, if someone designs a BRS installation for an aircraft, and never actually tests it, how do you know whether the design is correct?

The prototype Sling LSA was lost in an accident a week ago. They were doing spin testing, and the aircraft entered an unrecoverable spin. The pilot attempted to deploy the BRS, but it failed to deploy due to a design problem with the installation. The pilot and observer egressed the aircraft and came down under their personal emergency parachutes. Details on ANN.

Bottom line - a BRS installation may be no more than a placebo unless it has been fully tested. And I really doubt that any individual is prepared to do multiple BRS deployments to test it. Adding a BRS to make your wife feel better about flying in the aircraft is one thing. But never take any credit for the BRS when you are making any go/no go decisions, or deciding on a course of action in flight.

BRS system

Thanks guys for all of your comments. Kevin I am shocked to hear about the "SLING" I followed it's around the world trip with a lot of admiration. I hope they workout all of there kinks and develop a stronger and better plane.

Now, back to my original question about the BRS. The debate on whether or not it's useful is not the question my revised question is how would you go about installing it on to the plane. The way I see it there would most likely have to be a lot of reinforcing and reengineering involved. Were would you put it and most importantly since the BRS uses what looks like some sort of charge to deploy, would it be safe seeing as there is a fuel tank in side the cockpit.

Is it possible to be done right? What does Vans have to say about this?

I would appreciate any comments.

Thanks

Jim "Sierra X-ray" said:

Now, back to my original question about the BRS. The debate on whether or not it's useful is not the question my revised question is how would you go about installing it on to the plane. The way I see it there would most likely have to be a lot of reinforcing and reengineering involved. Were would you put it and most importantly since the BRS uses what looks like some sort of charge to deploy, would it be safe seeing as there is a fuel tank in side the cockpit.

Click to expand...

I think your questions tie in directly with the point Kevin was trying to make...
Answers you get from people on this forum will not likely provide the information needed to properly "engineer" an installation of a BRS style chute on an RV-12.

And even if enough information could be gathered to complete an installation that most people would consider properly done, It should still not be considered so, until it is proven by an actual deployment in flight.

Keep in mind that the addition of a BRS adds new failure modes. So you cannot assume that safety is increased. It is quite possible that the addition of a BRS might decrease safety, if your BRS installation is not very well designed.

Kevin Horton said:

Keep in mind that the addition of a BRS adds new failure modes. So you cannot assume that safety is increased. It is quite possible that the addition of a BRS might decrease safety, if your BRS installation is not very well designed.

Click to expand...

I agree that the BRS introduces new failure modes, but disagree that it decreases safety. IMHO, the BRS is to be used only when an attempted landing would result in significant injury or death to the occupants or people on the ground. It is not a matter of convenience.

To me, BRS is a bit like CPR - if you need to use CPR, the patient will probably die without your intervention, so all you can do is succeed. Same with the BRS - if I need to pull it, I stand a good chance of dieing trying to land the aircraft.

Another way to look at it is to equate the BRS with a emergency parachute (the kind you wear on your back). Only pull it if you're ready to write-off the aircraft to save your own butt.

TODR

Doug - Did you view the video in the link I posted? I really doubt the pilot intended to deploy the BRS during the takeoff. That looks like an uncommanded BRS deployment to me, with very nasty consequences.

If you've got an aircraft with a questionable structure, or a very unreliable engine and poor glide performance, then BRS probably is a very good idea. The RV-12 should have a very reliable engine, good glide performance, a very solid, dependable structure, and a low stall speed that allows a low touchdown speed after engine failure. The frequency of RV-12 events where a BRS really makes a difference should be extremely low. As the video in the link shows, there is a certain probability that the BRS may deploy when it shouldn't. Depending on the conditions when it deploys, the result might be very bad. It isn't at all clear whether the goodness from having the BRS there to deal with very low probability events (e.g. wing failure) is enough to balance out the badness from low probability BRS failure modes (uncommanded deployment).