Another BRS thread...

[SwimmingDragonfly96]

Hey everyone,

I'm on my way to purchasing an RV7A, and am seriously contemplating installing a BRS parachute or flying with parachutes (night flying in remote areas, rough terrain). First off, do any of you have the BRS, and if so, can I pick your brain?

Next question, how would a BRS affect the resale value of the plane? I chatted with an A&P today who would be willing to do the install, but he said if I ever sold it, nobody would want it and it would actually hurt the resale value. How would you all feel about purchasing an RV7A with a BRS installed? Would you pay a bit more, the same, or less?

[rv8ch]

If I wanted a BRS and I found an aircraft with one that was good, I'd buy it, fly it, and not worry about the resale value.

I'm guessing BRS are like swimming pools with a house - if the buyer wants one, it will increase the value to them. If they don't want one, it will decrease it.

The major issues I hear about BRS in general is that it is "heavy", some installations look a bit "ugly", and they have a required "costly" maintenance schedule.

If someone actually needs a BRS then they will quickly forget the negatives.

[Desert Rat]

I would not buy an RV with a ballistic chute for all the reasons that Mickey just outlined above, mainly the weight and just another replacement expense every few years.

That' just me.

If you're really interested in this, there's poll feature you can create which would get you some very subjective and data.

[MacCool]

With full fuel and two occupants, I can take about 80 lbs of baggage. For my flatland flying, a BRS would be a negative selling point from that standpoint alone. Juice definitely not worth the squeeze to me but other pilots in other types of flying may feel different.

[PhatRV]

(night flying in remote areas, rough terrain).

I am not going to fly at night in remote terrain unless I have more redundancies in my experimental. Phase1 flight testing can only test the basic flying characteristics. I now know a few pilots did not test everything, include testing for various failure scenarios.

How would you all feel about purchasing an RV7A with a BRS installed? Would you pay a bit more, the same, or less?

Every installation of the BRS on a RV is a one-off installation, as opposed to the certified system on the Cirrus where it was tested to ensure high reliability on all Cirrus aircraft. Even when you trust installation by your A/P, the next buyer doesn't know anything about the reliability of the installation. The installed BRS on a RV is not going to be tested unless you are willing to destroy a brand new BRS for testing purpose, which I don't know it has been done before. Therefore, the first time the BRS system is deployed is during an actual emergency, just like your emergency parachute.

I had considered installing the BRS on my RV8 during the build but decided against it based on the high cost, the complexity involved, and most importantly, the reliability of self-installation. I decide to use an emergency parachute instead.

[KayS]

i once worked for an company that created software simulations and testing for the aerospace/defense industry. i remember one project was about an parachute application in a smart weapon smarter than the average adult. my colleagues worked on a simulation to find out if a parachute would do the job in that thing or not.

i don't want to go into details here but that specific application was less complex than an small aircraft. what i wanna say is that the whole topic is so extremely dynamic in theory (let alone in real life) that nobody can say for sure if a BRS system would work in an specific airframe, if not extensively tested (Cirrus went through all that).

any untested parachute system in an RV, even if the installation looks very sound and well thought through, will tell you nothing. be careful.

[hgerhardt]

Originally Posted by PhatRV

....The installed BRS on a RV is not going to be tested unless you are willing to destroy a brand new BRS for testing purpose....

Not to mention you would also destroy the RV in the testing process.

[Roadjunkie1]

Originally Posted by KayS

any untested parachute system in an RV, even if the installation looks very sound and well thought through, will tell you nothing. be careful.

One of the goals of building our own airplanes is to build in LIGHTNESS! We could put in numerous systems that may seem like they improve the safety of the aircraft but building them straight, light and on sound, well-known construction practices and principles will go a long way to making an airplane safe.

I have many hours in The Mountains of Colorado and Montana and I have never considered how safe it would be to have a BRS system in either aircraft. Knowing and understanding Mountain flying and having an "out" is more how I fly. Could something happen? Of course. But, as Mr, Merriweather (movie Little Big Man) would say: "Life involves a modicum of risk....!"

[agent4573]

I can understand and support the idea of flying with a parachute if you're doing a lot of mountainous flying at night and don't trust your plane to be reliable, but I hate the BRS and Cirrus because of what they did to the industry. It would be cheaper, easier, and probably safer to have a tested chute strapped to your back then to have an untested one strapped to your plane. Just make sure to keep a PLB on your shoulder harness as well since you won't be co-located with the plane if anything happens.

[BobTurner]

Originally Posted by agent4573

I can understand and support the idea of flying with a parachute if you're doing a lot of mountainous flying at night and don't trust your plane to be reliable, but I hate the BRS and Cirrus because of what they did to the industry. It would be cheaper, easier, and probably safer to have a tested chute strapped to your back then to have an untested one strapped to your plane. Just make sure to keep a PLB on your shoulder harness as well since you won't be co-located with the plane if anything happens.

+1, except, I’m not sure a personal chute helps much either.
In the first few years of Cirrus’ flying, they wracked up a horrible accident record. The general consensus was that the parachute gave pilots a false sense of confidence, leading them to do risky things-things the parachute couldn’t save them from. It’s true, that the night fatal accident rate is not good. But it’s also true, that actual mechanical engine failure leading to a fatal accident, is rare (but not zero). Running out of gas is more common. You would actually be better off, statistically, by investing the parachute money in good risk analysis and behavior modification, if such things existed. But no one wants to believe that the real problem is the PIC.