Garfly Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 It happened last year in Germany but I've only just seen a report - by a local pilot - on another forum. A circuit-area mid-air ending with two entangled aircraft being saved by a single BRS. Persuades me once again that the Germans have it right making parachutes mandatory for ultralights. (The original poster quotes a link to a local newspaper article. Google Translate works okay for a rough version. I notice the article includes a reader survey where 86% of respondents reckon that stories such as this shouldn't lead to stricter aviation regs because, after all, flying's still safer than driving. Interesting. Doubt we'd score that confidence from the public here.) "Hey guys at Sky Ranger Group. We had a midair collision this weekend in Koblenz Winninden between a glider with 17yrs old pilot and a microlight Zensir 601. Both wanted to land at the same airfield on parallel runways. In as far as I heard 200 mtr height (600 ft AGL) they collided and stuck into ich other blocked. Why di I tell you this? Appart from the fact that midairs often happen arround airfields and one should be carefull and use the rafio propperly... The Zenair was equipped with a rescue system. The pilot immediately fired it up and all 2 aircraft, still stucking in each other and all 3 passengers safely landed on that one parachute.... See the pictures. I found it that courios that I thought beeing posted here as the question of rescue system came up several times. Btw: In germany a rescue system is mandatory to have in micro lights... http://www.rhein-zeitung.de/region_artikel,-Drei-Leichtverletzte-Fallschirm-rettete-Menschenleben-nach-Crash-zweier-Kleinflugzeuge-_arid,1203417.html Best regards and allways happy landings Volker Engelmann." 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 cue the usual voices saying ballistic parachutes enccourage people to stick forks into powerpoints 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfly Posted July 12, 2015 Author Share Posted July 12, 2015 Yeah ... I can't credit that supposed psychological effect of airframe-parachutes making pilots feel invulnerable. Nobody takes-off thinking that a flight will end other than well - and in the conventional way. I don't, though, think we should follow Europe in making it mandatory. For many of our types retro-fitting is just not practical. And, apart from the cost imposition, the weight penalty is high - in types already squeezed for luggage and range. And there are other issues - like having explosives aboard - that people should be able to decide on for themselves. But while we shouldn't be forced, neither should we be discouraged. As far as I can see, the new MARAP procedures indeed have that effect - unless you happen to be the builder of the plane you fly. In which case you're free to choose the safer option if you want. Go figure. (http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/marap.132799/ ) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 While I also don't think they should be mandated, I can definitely see their benefit and I do think they should be looked upon favourably. They aren't the be all and end all but they do have a place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Keep coming with facts and let people choose. Mandating is not the go as there ARE negative aspects. There is no equal in an airliner where you land at damaging speeds as well. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slb Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Agree with you Nev. In particular because in some of the recent accidents BRS were fitted, but not deployed .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfly Posted July 12, 2015 Author Share Posted July 12, 2015 I think we're all pretty much agreed on that. But to make use of those facts about cases where they were not deployed we badly need some whys and wherefores. But I guess we'll never get 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 - like having explosives aboard - Links to planes "blowing up" not loading .... Mandating is not the go as there ARE negative aspects. Your "negative aspects" not loading either, must be my internet connection. Agree with you Nev. In particular because in some of the recent accidents BRS were fitted, but not deployed .... ... and? What's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfly Posted July 12, 2015 Author Share Posted July 12, 2015 I'm not sure what you mean Bex. There are no links just as there's no denying they are explosive and potentially dangerous devices. I've heard tell of local cases where accidental firings have punched holes in Hangar walls etc. And then there's the danger to rescuers of unused rockets in a forced landing situation especially if fire's involved. Still, these downsides seem to managed okay in Europe and I'd say, on balance, they're way ahead on points. That's why I want one. I'd hazard a guess that maybe half of our bad outcomes might have be alleviated by one being available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernsey Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 If I had a BRS fitted and had a structural failure I would activate it without hesitation however, if the aircraft was flyable but had engine failure I would avoid using it unless the landing appeared to be extremely hazardous and life threatening. Alan. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 So they have ballistics and that could be dangerous. Havn't we been carrying dangerous materials around for years, and been able to handle the hazard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernsey Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 So they have ballistics and that could be dangerous. Havn't we been carrying dangerous materials around for years, and been able to handle the hazard? Absolutely, my wife used to go ballistic many times when we were flying. Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfly Posted July 12, 2015 Author Share Posted July 12, 2015 Yes, Yenn, I pretty much agree. (Though we could never take our 'chute rockets on a commercial flight ;-) The big three selling points for me are structural failure, mid-airs and pilot incapacitation. Other scenarios come to mind but are not as persuasive as those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Optional compressed co2 would be nice...Id sure like to be allowed some extra weight as a trade off like the Cessna 182 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Absolutely, my wife used to go ballistic many times when we were flying. Alan. Women can be explosive too. Treat with care and sensitivity, especially when under pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 this is why germany is the centre of light aviation these days, they understand that safety is a key issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 this is why germany is the centre of light aviation these days, they understand that safety is a key issue Well said, FT. Twentynine RA-Aus lives have been lost over the last 29 months. I think that is not a good innings. If all planes that could have had BRSs fitted to them had them in Australia, what would have been the stats? ...perhaps only 12 instead of 29? There are alternatives to explosives, e.g, spring-operated and CO2 operated BRSs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyskipper Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 My only concern with a BRS is that there appears to be more danger from the canopy dragging the aircraft in high winds, than what one could expect from a normal dead-stick landing. Some sort of cut-away or manual release method needs to be added, preferably idiot-proof to avoid accidental use! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 I would agree with the German model if 1) the weight of the BRS unit installed did not count towards the maximum weight limit 2) the installation was only mandated for new aircraft/builds. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabiru Phil Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Italy I think has a mandated brs policy Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfly Posted July 21, 2015 Author Share Posted July 21, 2015 In deciding whether to go with a BRS system or not, comparing a 'normal dead-stick landing' with a parachute descent in very windy conditions wouldn't be front of mind for me. I'd be thinking more of scenarios like the one above - and others where 'normal' ain't an option - and take my chances on a wind surfing finale. True, a quick release would be a nice-to-have extra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperplace Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 I don't think they can be fitted to a Jabiru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 I don't think they can be fitted to a Jabiru Ultralight helicopters would have to be exempt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabiru Phil Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 I don't think they can be fitted to a Jabiru Saw one fitted to a Jab in Italy. I think mandatory there. PHIL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperplace Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Saw one fitted to a Jab in Italy.I think mandatory there. PHIL. that's interesting, a couple of years ago I called one of the ballistic chute crowds, forget which one, and they told me they couldn't fit it to a Jab. Things must have changed, which is good. I wouldn't mind having one of those on board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now