What's new
Van's Air Force

The definitive Van's Aircraft support community! Buying, building or flying an RV? Join our exclusive family of mentors and enthusiasts!

BRS Chute Installation for RV10

I pretty much don’t care how many successful engine out off field landings there have been compared to how many successful Chute landings there have been. I’m sure there are many more of off field landings than chute pulls.

What I know is several pilots that were more experienced and better than I will ever be that have died or seriously life changing injuries trying to land after emergency.

If I could reasonably put a chute on my 9A I would. I have been looking at the Sling because of the chute. We all make our choices and maybe a chute is in my future and maybe not. One thing that will not make a difference is statistics.
 
Last edited:
rockwoodrv9 said:
I pretty much don’t care how many successful engine out off field landings there have been compared to how many successful Churchill landings there have been. I’m sure there are many more of off field landings than chute pulls.

What I know is several pilots that were more experienced and better than I will ever be that have died or seriously life changing injuries trying to land after emergency.

If I could reasonably put a chute on my 9A I would. I have been looking at the Sling because of the chute. We all make our choices and maybe a chute is in my future and maybe not. One thing that will not make a difference is
Click to expand...

That is why I have repeatedly stated it is a personal preference and that is fine.
 
rocketman1988 said:
This is also one of the best cases; do the same analysis with your example of losing SA in IMC. What do you think the descent rate will be in a steep spiral? Guarantee it will be more than 1000 fpm!
Click to expand...

One spun in locally here last year from top of climb in IMC. Chute wasn’t deployed. 10k in 50seconds. Max ROD 13k fpm
 
I also don't particularly care for the debate on whether it's worth it. It's a deeply personal choice. Some people feel that they will always be able to find a place to put the airplane down in an emergency, or that the engineering by brs isn't enough to prove that the deployment will work. I fly exclusively over the Puget Sound, rugged forest, mountains or city. Those are all exceedingly bad places to ditch.I think if it comes to a pull, the probability of a botched deployment leaving the airplane uncontrollable and without lots of drag (ie, tangle or parachute is ripped off) is *probably* minimal when punching out within the envelope. As long as it doesn't do that, I think it generating tons of drag (possibly regardless of aircraft attitude if one of the straps rips off or something) is probably a good thing, compared to impacting a tree at just above stall speed. I basically tend to trust brs's engineering.

That said, I had a very strange phone call with brs a week or two ago. The phone rep knew absolutely nothing about the install on an rv10 and refused to give me any details. She just said over and over that all information was proprietary and I'd need to buy the system before they'd give me any details. I asked her if she'd be willing to buy a car on the premise that the crash test details would only be revealed after the purchase was finalized. 🙄


Does anyone have a contact at brs that could give any real details on the system? How was it validated? What is the current cost? What is the lead time? What are the real changes that on a correct installation and within envelope, the parachute deploys in such a way as to render the airplane uncontrollable while also not deploying fully (ie, some kind of tangle situation)?
 
chris1seto said:
I also don't particularly care for the debate on whether it's worth it. It's a deeply personal choice. Some people feel that they will always be able to find a place to put the airplane down in an emergency, or that the engineering by brs isn't enough to prove that the deployment will work. I fly exclusively over the Puget Sound, rugged forest, mountains or city. Those are all exceedingly bad places to ditch.I think if it comes to a pull, the probability of a botched deployment leaving the airplane uncontrollable and without lots of drag (ie, tangle or parachute is ripped off) is *probably* minimal when punching out within the envelope. As long as it doesn't do that, I think it generating tons of drag (possibly regardless of aircraft attitude if one of the straps rips off or something) is probably a good thing, compared to impacting a tree at just above stall speed. I basically tend to trust brs's engineering.

That said, I had a very strange phone call with brs a week or two ago. The phone rep knew absolutely nothing about the install on an rv10 and refused to give me any details. She just said over and over that all information was proprietary and I'd need to buy the system before they'd give me any details. I asked her if she'd be willing to buy a car on the premise that the crash test details would only be revealed after the purchase was finalized. 🙄


Does anyone have a contact at brs that could give any real details on the system? How was it validated? What is the current cost? What is the lead time? What are the real changes that on a correct installation and within envelope, the parachute deploys in such a way as to render the airplane uncontrollable while also not deploying fully (ie, some kind of tangle situation)?
Click to expand...
Similar fruitless conversation with BRS sales here. Unable to answer even the most basic technical questions about the system. Wouldn’t provide any information about where and how the straps attach to evaluate compatibility with other installed components. Couldn’t tell me what testing had been done when designing the RV-10 installation. Not confidence inspiring at all.

They could sell a lot more systems with a better sales staff.
 
The thing you have to remember is that BRS sells mostly to certified aircraft (and ultralights). In teh certified world, they have to do real-world, actual deployment testing, which is very expensive because it wastes airframes. That is their business model. Along comes us experimental guys, and we just want to bolt a chute in and go fly with it - not knowing how it will deploy, where the loads will be reacted, the attitude the aircraft will settle in under canopy - its all a TLAR guess. Not exactly the kind of business BRS actually wants.

I own a BRS chute, and fly with all the time in my jet. Deployment was never tested, and while we THINK it will work, I have enough experience in flight testing to know that we don’t have a clue what we don’t know. BRS tolerates us - but they’d rather be working with Cirrus.
 
Ironflight said:
The thing you have to remember is that BRS sells mostly to certified aircraft (and ultralights). In teh certified world, they have to do real-world, actual deployment testing, which is very expensive because it wastes airframes. That is their business model. Along comes us experimental guys, and we just want to bolt a chute in and go fly with it - not knowing how it will deploy, where the loads will be reacted, the attitude the aircraft will settle in under canopy - its all a TLAR guess. Not exactly the kind of business BRS actually wants.

I own a BRS chute, and fly with all the time in my jet. Deployment was never tested, and while we THINK it will work, I have enough experience in flight testing to know that we don’t have a clue what we don’t know. BRS tolerates us - but they’d rather be working with Cirrus.
Click to expand...
What jet are you flying that has brs, but no deployment?? I would have guessed Cirrus jet if it wasn't for the comment about it not being tested.

Yeah I totally agree with your take here, though I do think that brs probably has at least a little more than TLAR level of analysis invested in the rv10. I would guess/hope that they wouldn't endorse any airframe at all if any of the design margins were, well, marginal. In other words, I'm guessing that their analysis shows such high confidence that the deployment will work in an rv10 that they're ok selling to us.

I would imagine the legal liability involved in a product like this is absolutely tremendous, and they want every certainty that it will work to even sell it to us.
 
shoprat said:
For those interested in installing a BRS chute in their RV10, I have some good news. Several builders, including myself, have signed purchase agreements which has gotten the design and engineering phase started. Should see the first kits by the first of the year or before. I'll send updates as the process progresses.

Bruce McGlamery
Winter Springs, FL
Click to expand...
How would you check its efficiency?
 
The value of a parachute system that "I hope will work" and has never been tested seems extremely limited. I want them to test it, because the whole point is being able to depend on it in an emergency. Why else would I give up all the payload to drag it around?

$30K untested system, with poor sales/engineering support --- no thanks.
$50K tested system, designed by real engineers --- yes please!
 
rockwoodrv9 said:
I pretty much don’t care how many successful engine out off field landings there have been compared to how many successful Chute landings there have been. I’m sure there are many more of off field landings than chute pulls.

What I know is several pilots that were more experienced and better than I will ever be that have died or seriously life changing injuries trying to land after emergency.

If I could reasonably put a chute on my 9A I would. I have been looking at the Sling because of the chute. We all make our choices and maybe a chute is in my future and maybe not. One thing that will not make a difference is statistics.
Click to expand...
As an RV10 pilot of 12 years, ATP and CFI with lots of time teaching in Cirrus, I have to say there is a great comfort in knowing you have one more thing in your “bag of tricks” when flying the Cirrus. The chute is there for a very good reason, and DOES save lives in certain dire situations. Nobody has mentioned that it adds a great deal of comfort to you passengers who think an airplane falls from the sky when the engine quits. However, since the 10 was not designed for a parachute, I find the payload and trunk space penalty to be too great to consider adding it. I take comfort in knowing the approach speeds in an RV are far lower than a Cirrus which makes an off field landing more survivable. But- if this were not the case, I would add it in a NY minute!

Ted Chipps
N498EC
RV10

Btw, if anyone needs dual time in RVs or Cirrus, please text me
678-618-6126
 
I don't have a BRS but I wear an emergency parachute when I fly my RV8. It is NOT guarantee the chute will open when I egress, or able to egress from the aircraft at all. It is having an option that I would never have. If the airplane is on fire, an engine quits at night over the very dark SoCal desert, it is about having an option so I can return home to my family. Parachute routine fails to open but having it increases the odd of survival. I can't quantify the odd but it's a lot better than not having it.
 
PhatRV said:
I don't have a BRS but I wear an emergency parachute when I fly my RV8. It is NOT guarantee the chute will open when I egress, or able to egress from the aircraft at all. It is having an option that I would never have. If the airplane is on fire, an engine quits at night over the very dark SoCal desert, it is about having an option so I can return home to my family. Parachute routine fails to open but having it increases the odd of survival. I can't quantify the odd but it's a lot better than not having it.
Click to expand...
But the one you wear has been tested and proven…
 
rocketman1988 said:
But the one you wear has been tested and proven…
Click to expand...
all parachutes are tested and certified but they failed all the time. Using the parachute is a risk mitigation. None of our RV are tested because every one is unique, and they crashed more often than we prefer. The decision to use any form of parachute is up to the people who choose to use it.

Like almost everything in our airplane, it’s a personal decision
 
PhatRV said:
all parachutes are tested and certified but they failed all the time. Using the parachute is a risk mitigation. None of our RV are tested because every one is unique, and they crashed more often than we prefer. The decision to use any form of parachute is up to the people who choose to use it.

Like almost everything in our airplane, it’s a personal decision
Click to expand...
Yes, it's a personal decision.

So you are saying that The parachutes that you wear fail all the time...ok, gotcha. Then what's the point of wearing one? It isn't risk mitigation if they fail all the time. Please post your data source for these failures.

...and you missed the point of my comment. While the BRS is available for the -10, nobody has actually TESTED it on a -10...ANY -10. Maybe that's the reason BRS won't give any information on it. The parachute that you wear, has been tested and certified. The cirrus chute has been tested as well.
 
rocketman1988 said:
Yes, it's a personal decision.

So you are saying that The parachutes that you wear fail all the time...ok, gotcha. Then what's the point of wearing one? It isn't risk mitigation if they fail all the time. Please post your data source for these failures.

...and you missed the point of my comment. While the BRS is available for the -10, nobody has actually TESTED it on a -10...ANY -10. Maybe that's the reason BRS won't give any information on it. The parachute that you wear, has been tested and certified. The cirrus chute has been tested as well.
Click to expand...
Okay if you want a empirical probability number than I don't have it. It's a figure of speech. I surmise the probability of failure is low, like RV crashes all the time but not all of them crash. As in Cirrus crashes all the time even with the BRS and had killed the occupants a plenty. I don't know of a person jumping out of an RV wearing a parachute and survived, because nobody did it, so the sample number is zero. But we know a lot of people had jumped out of their airplane wearing emergency parachutes and most survived, some did not. I was making a personal decision of risk mitigation, like practicing emergency landings at the desert, or doing the impossible turn. Lots of people are killed doing the maneuvers in real life but I did it as my own risk mitigation. It's a personal decision and it was a point of my post.
 
Rodo1fo said:
You mean that no one has tested it in flight, right?
Because on the ground I've already seen a video being tested on the RV10
Click to expand...
Interesting video. Imagine deploying that thing and realizing you forgot to attach the straps to the airframe.
 
Rodo1fo said:
You mean that no one has tested it in flight, right?
Because on the ground I've already seen a video being tested on the RV10
Click to expand...
Well, yes, in flight. It’s one thing to know that the rocket will go off in a static environment; completely different story when you add in flights loads, aerodynamic forces, accelerations, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top