Bearhawk Aircraft Bearhawk Tailwheels LLC Eric Newton's Builder Manuals Bearhawk Plans Bearhawk Store

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BRS's anyone ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Gerd Mannsperger View Post

    My Biggest concern with the parachute is not the unit or what it can do or not do, it is that people will buy it to make up for lack of experience - training - Maintenance and many other important

    aspects of Aviation safety.

    All too often Avionics and Parachutes become financial band aids to make up for the list above.


    This--agree 100%. Pages and pages of debate on this topic over on POA (mainly Cirrus related but relevant nonetheless).
    Last edited by auburntsts; 06-26-2020, 06:27 AM.
    Todd Stovall
    PP ASEL - IA
    RV-10 N728TT - Flying

    Comment


    • #32
      I would say that a pilot who forsakes training and currency BECAUSE he has a chute available, is equally likely to forsake that training and currency REGARDLESS of the chute status. I have a buddy who casually told me he was surprised by how many "stop-and-go" landings I make every time I fly. (I've been known to squeeze in 13 stop-and-go landings in a 1-hour flight, when there aren't too many of our local Cirrus pilots in the pattern.) He candidly admitted that he almost never practices landings, other than one at the end of every flight. When I flew with him, his final approach speed (Cherokee) was 90 knots, and he touched down at about 75 knots, using up almost half the runway before managing to force the airplane onto the ground, and rolling almost to the end of a fairly long runway (about 6500'). After he watched me make my first-ever landing in my "new-to-me" RANS S-6 experimental LSA, he commented that I didn't use very much of the 2600 foot-long runway (made the mid-field turnoff), and we launched off into a lengthy discussion about practicing what you want to do well, and "repeatability". He realized he had developed some pretty sloppy habits, and promised to change the way he flew so that on every flight, there would be some "training and practice" aspect, not just boring holes in the sky.

      But I really don't think that lack of training or currency is the real reason people who fly with a chute do so... The Klapmeier brothers design included a chute because one of them was fortunate enough to survive a mid-air collision and live to fly again. That event haunted him, and the CAPS system was developed as a "last-chance" solution to that specific problem. And you gotta admit, the chute is the ONLY possible solution to that particular problem. Then, because the chute was already there, additional uses were found for it, and people got "comfortable" with the chute as a substitute for training and currency.

      What is telling to me is that for quite a few years there, CIrrus accidents had a significantly higher fatality rate than the rest of the GA fleet, despite the chute being available. Some people were just waiting too late to deploy the chute, while others did not deploy it in situations that called for it. As a result, there were a lot of Cirrus deaths. It wasn't until Cirrus came out with a detailed pilot training program – and insurance companies basically began mandating that all Cirrus pilots go through that training – that the accident fatality statistics improved to where they are now (slightly better than the GA average). And that was with a factory-funded set of test deployments to determine just how low you could be and still deploy successfully, and several "real life" tests where they destroyed an airplane (the chute deployment basically ensures the airframe is trashed) to test and validate their emergency procedures. I, personally, don't have the money to fund a Bearhawk equivalent test process, nor would I be willing to sacrifice even one complete Bearhawk build cycle in order to test the chute deployment.

      All said and done, my preference would be to spend the money for good harnesses (4-point or even 5-point), and use them on every flight. Flying in the back country, a helmet would be high on my list as well. Then take the rest of the savings over the cost of the chute, and convert it into AvGas and CFI time to continue to hone my skills.

      But if I was the survivor of a mid-air collision, I might well have a different opinion...
      Jim Parker
      Farmersville, TX (NE of Dallas)
      RANS S-6ES (E-LSA) with Rotax 912ULS (100 HP)

      Comment


      • #33
        One little known fact is that cirrus did not meet the stall/spin recovery standards for certifications.

        Instead of going back and re designing the airframe they opted for an alternate means of compliance recovery a chute.

        And came up with a great marketing campaign to go with it.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Gerd Mannsperger View Post
          One little known fact is that cirrus did not meet the stall/spin recovery standards for certifications.

          Instead of going back and re designing the airframe they opted for an alternate means of compliance recovery a chute.

          And came up with a great marketing campaign to go with it.
          Can you point to a source of this? I've head both sides claimed on this point and it would be great ti separate urban myth from truth.

          Comment


          • #35
            The only source I have is that they neither confirmed nor denied it when I directly asked them about it many years ago at the Alaska airman show so take that for what it is worth.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by kestrel View Post

              Can you point to a source of this? I've head both sides claimed on this point and it would be great ti separate urban myth from truth.
              Not a smoking gun, but kinda points to validating the myth.
              Todd Stovall
              PP ASEL - IA
              RV-10 N728TT - Flying

              Comment


              • #37
                Spend millions trying to certify a new design but it can't pass the cert? The cheapest fix is a parachute. Sell the BRS as a safety feature, instead of a bandaid.

                Sounds like something I might do.

                Comment


                • #38
                  I would love to have one. I just can't justify the extensive modification, weight and complete untested nature of it in our aircraft. But for night and/or LIFR flying in a piston single over terrain. It'd give me some warm fuzzies. I don't really do that with the airplane, but I might consider if I had something like that. If I had a cirrus, night and low IFR are right in the middle of it's mission profile so it makes lots of sense.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Here's another data point to add to the discussion. This is from a good friend of mine who is a long time Cirrus owner, currently building an RV-6. He was a career F-14 pilot and we were instructors in the same squadron for a tour, so extensive experience with ejection seats and those escape profiles. I asked him about his experience with the Cirrus and whether he was putting a BRS into his RV.

                    tl;dr He's not. Going to wear parachutes instead since they will be doing mild aerobatics.

                    "I am not planning to put one in the RV, but that is mostly because of my desire to get the RV flying quickly. Even simple mods can add years to build time. So I am planning to simply wear chutes in the cockpit and have a jettisonable canopy. As a Cirrus owner, I can tell you that CAPS made all the difference when it came to my family flying comfortably. Probably a third of my passengers would not have otherwise flown in a “little airplane.” Professionally, it allowed me to operate single engine, night, IMC without much concern. I always had an out and I loved it. Just like the seat out of our jets back in the day. Lately, Cirrus has changed their recommendations regarding engine out procedures. They recommend CAPS deployment 100% of the time. After 22 years of data, it is clear that CAPS works better than a pilot suddenly full of adrenaline trying to land in a field at 80 mph. As long as your insurance is paid up. The one down side is the repack every 10 years. Not a big deal if you put together a no shit reserve, but it’ll be $15k."

                    Granted, the Cirrus is rarely landing off airport so they have no practice with that, as many back country pilots have. He had some further thoughts regarding the Bearhawk/STOL aircraft in particular:

                    "For your machine, I can imagine the arguments against it. Cost, weight, complexity. Plus, you land MUCH slower and that is the key to living. CAPS is only good above 400’ too, so you’re still going to be in a no-man’s land just after take off for about 30 seconds. Bottom line, I love it. I will never fly without an out of some sort the rest of my days."

                    Last edited by jetdriver; 07-01-2020, 01:32 PM.

                    Comment


                    • svyolo
                      svyolo commented
                      Editing a comment
                      I would find it pretty surprising for any company to make pulling the chute a standard procedure for something like an engine out. That would make them liable for a plane full of bodies if the event wasn't survivable. We live in a time of disclaimers for everything, including the risk of the high temperature of the cup of Mcdonalds' coffee.

                      Airbus and Boeing stopped publishing some things as "limits", like crosswind limits. They didn't want the liability of a crash if a pilot stayed within limits, but still crashed. They both now publish some things as "max demonstrated".

                    • zkelley2
                      zkelley2 commented
                      Editing a comment
                      I'm fairly sure no manufacturer has ever published a crosswind limit. It's always been max demonstrated. Go find a 1952 piper POH. There's no limit.
                      Boeing and Airbus on the other hand absolutely do publish crosswind limits in regards to certain types of landings. Most notably Cat 2&3.

                    • jetdriver
                      jetdriver commented
                      Editing a comment
                      To be clear, he is not suggesting personal parachutes for STOL planes. I fly Airbus now and have flown Boeing and MacAir in the past, as zkelley2 states, they do indeed have crosswind, headwind and tailwind limits for dry, wet, snow, VMC, CAT I, II, and III in the Operating Manual. In the military (for Grumman anyway) NATOPS had charts that displayed the recommended area and beyond that it was charted but "not recommended". Not prohibited. Operational necessity and aircraft/pilot ability was the limiting factor. I'm looking into it and discussing with family, but leaning towards no BRS in the Bearhawk personally.

                  • #40
                    I'm considering one, but I'm a couple years away from needing to make the decision so it may change by then... I see it in a similar light to what Mike Patey is getting at with adding one in Scrappy. Engine out is no big deal in these planes, we can land damned near anywhere, but loss of flight controls, severe turbulence breaking important parts (wings, horiz stab, etc), takes away that land anywhere ability... I'll see if it can fit in my budget (both money and W&B)
                    https://www.youtube.com/user/fastfox23
                    Patrol plans #398

                    Comment


                    • zkelley2
                      zkelley2 commented
                      Editing a comment
                      Honestly, if you're concerned about any type of turbulence save flying into a T-storm breaking any critical part of the airplane, it's not airworthy to begin with.

                    • jetdriver
                      jetdriver commented
                      Editing a comment
                      Regarding turbulence, Watch Mike's interview of his buddies crash in a Carbon Cub. Clear day, over the mountains, sounds like they got caught in some rotor/severe turbulence. Same kind of thing that took down a United 737 at COS many years ago. Unlikely, but possible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bOEnNpSBCM&t=178s

                    • zkelley2
                      zkelley2 commented
                      Editing a comment
                      You can rather easily avoid mountain based rotors. You can see them and you can predict where they will be even in absence of the tell tale clouds.

                      Jet stream induced CAT on the other hand, perhaps not, but we can't fly these things up there.

                  • #41
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz9NoMPrH-I Mike's latest. Not a real world test, but an interesting view of a deployment in a Cub(ish) airframe. A ton of thought and engineering went into the whole system and he worked closely with BRS engineers. One of them even flew in for the test. He was also given access to big manufacturer's video and data showing the forces applied when firing off the rocket. Interesting all around regardless of your personal stance on parachutes.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X