BRS's anyone ?

[Gerd Mannsperger]

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.

[JimParker256]

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...

[auburntsts]

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).

[auburntsts]

"I don't know what the ratio is now...but back then it was for every 10 RVs completed...there was one fatality...or in other words...around 10% of RV flyers are going to die in their own creations...and everyone just whistles along like its no big deal..(numbers might be different now Ive not looked in years)"

You need to check your data. The accident rate for any RV has never been that high and even if it was the ratio of potential BRS saves would be smaller still--BRS is a tool in the tool kit, not a panacea. I don't know what you fly but I fly a 4-place SEL airplane IFR with my family all the time and I'm satisfied with the level of risk I assume. In my estimation a BRS doesn't lower the risk significantly for me to warrant the installation. But that's me. Not trying to dissuade anyone from the BRS, just providing a data point as to why I don't want it. If it gives you peace of mind, then absolutely go for it.

[Gerd Mannsperger]

Some Helicopters have the crush foam seat bases so does the Found bush hawk on the rear seats.

JARS has a seat design with a full crush zone for fixed wing aircraft. The back seats of the Found are only 11 pounds a seat with that technology build right in.

They are very save and very uncomfortable too.

Just 4 inches of high quality silicon foam on a stock seat are a significant improvement in impact absorption -- the stuff is real heavy -- for foam anyway.

But it is real comfortable.

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.

[Pbruce]

You are making a case for good harnesses then? I can’t argue with that.

I’m thinking no extra cost for the webbing seats, and I can’t see how you would be giving up crashworthiness in the horizontal plane in favour of the vertical. I think it might improve survivability in vertical decelerations, BRS or not, relative to wood or aluminum seat pans. I could be wrong though.

[way_up_north]

I hope I’m not hijacking this thread; I will start one elsewhere or ask the moderator to move this post if it’s unwanted here. I’m thinking of Jim’s comments about vertical deceleration: I wonder if the best, lightest solution, BRS or not, is nylon webbing between the perimeter frames of the seat (like and old-style lawn chair). . I think it would be tougher by far than aluminum or thin grades of plywood, but with a bit of “give”. Light, easy to install, perhaps more comfortable as a base for foam layers and upholstery. In a crash, it should deform the seat rails progressively inward, hopefully providing the effect of expanding the straps, and thereby providing one-time elasticity. Have people done this? How did it work out? Has anyone done the math on this? If so, I would like to know what size and type of webbing was favoured? Is it better to sew it on to the frames via loops in the webbing straps or glue them around the frame and rely upon the shear strength of glue, and if so, which glue? Alternatively, why not and what works better? Thanks

If its related to BRS....this is the place for this sort of post...

[svyolo]

Some helicopters (military that I know) have seats designed to absorb vertical impact, because that is how they crash. Airplanes usually crash nose first. If I was going to spend a dollar and a pound on crashworthiness, I think that is where I would spend it.

[Pbruce]

I hope I’m not hijacking this thread; I will start one elsewhere or ask the moderator to move this post if it’s unwanted here. I’m thinking of Jim’s comments about vertical deceleration: I wonder if the best, lightest solution, BRS or not, is nylon webbing between the perimeter frames of the seat (like and old-style lawn chair). . I think it would be tougher by far than aluminum or thin grades of plywood, but with a bit of “give”. Light, easy to install, perhaps more comfortable as a base for foam layers and upholstery. In a crash, it should deform the seat rails progressively inward, hopefully providing the effect of expanding the straps, and thereby providing one-time elasticity. Have people done this? How did it work out? Has anyone done the math on this? If so, I would like to know what size and type of webbing was favoured? Is it better to sew it on to the frames via loops in the webbing straps or glue them around the frame and rely upon the shear strength of glue, and if so, which glue? Alternatively, why not and what works better? Thanks

[JimParker256]

You said "This way when the news reporter reads the news...he will say...'and the pilot decided against installing the parachute option'"

You're giving that presumed reporter a LOT of credit... Most of them will report on the "Cessna" that crashed... The better ones MIGHT figure out that it was a "backyard build" and report that fact.

But look back at the post I wrote (several pages back) with the vertical speed under a chute data from Cirrus and others. You're still going to have a pretty rough impact, just in a direction from which the chromoly cage and seat structures were not designed to absorb shock. Like Cirrus, you're going to need to design your own "multi-G" seat crush structure if you're truly going to be safer under the chute than landing at 35-40 mph forward velocity. (And pray that the chute doesn't hang on the parapet of a 15-story building, light pole, or high tension line that you cannot steer away from...)

To me, a chute is the "only good solution" for one critical situation: The wing(s) or the tail separated from the airplane in flight. For almost anything else, I agree with Bob Hoover's advice to "Fly the airplane all the way to the crash site." I trust Bob Barrow's engineering enough to believe that by staying well within his design parameters for gross weight and CG, I'm unlikely to have an in-flight breakup, which is the only time I'd be wishing for that chute.

But the beauty of the Experimental Amateur Built category is that YOU (the builder) get to decide for yourself how YOUR airplane should be equipped. You want a chute? Install a chute! I don't want a chute? I don't have to install a chute. We both get to be happy!

[way_up_north]

when I was working on my RV-7 I read every page of the NTSB reports and each incident...

I don't know what the ratio is now...but back then it was for every 10 RVs completed...there was one fatality...or in other words...around 10% of RV flyers are going to die in their own creations...and everyone just whistles along like its no big deal..(numbers might be different now Ive not looked in years)

granted Bearhawks, zenith and planes of that type( low stall speeds)....have much lower fatality risks...


I agree with you...if you fly alone...or mostly alone...then do whatever you want...

most people never use their house fire insurance...

most people don't need the sea belt or airbags in their car....

but the Bearhawk 5 lends itself to passenger use...you might get people using it like a minivan...thats my plan

Since I`m involving my family.....I`m going to put in airbags...ooopppps I mean a BRS in my plane...


I`m not the factory...but if I was ...I would offer a BRS installation option for the Bearhawk 5...mainly because the plane can carry a lot of people for an experimental....one bad accident(at no fault of the factory) can create a reputation for a plane...this way the onus is on the owner...the factory did all it could to create the safest possible plane for family use...and passenger safety....

This way when the news reporter reads the news...he will say..."and the pilot decided against installing the parachute option"

[way_up_north]

.... pilots put kitty litter in there to ummm... keep the head liner from looking like modern art... the procedure is done into a bag with kitty litter in it....then tie it up and place in secure receptacle ....but yah it’s a project in development ...lol...

[JimParker256]

But God help you if you encounter turbulence... But, hey, what are the odds of encountering significant up/down drafts in the back country, right? (Eye Roll)

Just got back from a 1050 mile cross-country trip from the Salt Lake City area to Dallas in my new-to-me Rans S-6ES (LSA with Rotax 100 HP engine). Flew over Canyonlands National Park, and found a few "bumps" along the way... But just outside of Albuquerque, I flew through some 1500 fpm up and down drafts, Cannot even imagine having a toilet on board for that!

[auburntsts]

There are pros and cons to every build decision. Each builder/pilot has to decide if the pros outweigh the cons to achieve a level of acceptable risk. For me the cons (primarily weight and cost) are unacceptable trade-offs to achieve that lowest level of risk. If I was that concerned with the risk I'd wear a chute and helmet on every flight, but I don't and neither do most people.

[way_up_north]

In a well build and proven Slow flight capable design like a Bearhawk I would say the weight cost and complexity far outweigh the benefits.

Now Mikes Scrappy project is a real different can of worms--I might want to have a parachute in that one too. It is the epitome of experimental. Totally over the top heavyweight tank of a cub.

No Offence to Mike he does a great Job promoting Aviation and I admire the engineering and work he does.

The Mass in his Scrappy build alone makes it more difficult to survive any kind of impact. and the rigidity of carbon does not allow for energy to dissipate in a crumble zone

The simple rule of thumb is at 60 MPH landing speed survival odd's in of airport engine out landing is 50/50 -- with every MPH faster the survivability decreases exponentially -- going

the other way lowering the landing speed increases the survivability exponentially.

Low mass low speed = low energy.

I just went to look at a cub rebuild project where the pilot mistakenly flew into a box canyon where he could not turn out.

He landed straight into the rocks at full power full flaps -- both pilot and passenger walked away from it with barely a scratch.

A similar accident with a Cessna Grand Caravan that made the same mistake one could barely make out what plane that was.

Lots of Mass speed and Energy with no where to go is a Deadly combination.

Just some food for thought

I agree with your points 100%...if you are flying in the country...wide open fields...lots of space...good places to land in all directions...

but I`m in the city...the plane will be parked at a municipal airport...in and out of that airport is 10 mins over industrial factories and suburbs.....tight city streets with wires

might as well be flying over the grand canyon...

the sonex has a stall speed of 40 mph....the story I told above about the sonex fatality was with a very experienced pilot in an aircraft that nobody knew better then him... and 40 mph stall....

his landing options were limited, if a BRS deployment is successful then it does not matter what youre flying over...youll survive the landing...