Parachute effectiveness?

[mcrowley]

Has anyone heard that the ballistic parachutes are only able to deploy in straight and level flight? I would imagine the primary purpose for deployment would be in case of in-flight structure failure or loss of control which would result in a tumble...??

 

 

[SDQDI]

There is a thread here somewhere about a pipistrel that deployed after losing control in inadvertent IMC, chute seemed to work perfectly. I would certainly doubt the "in straight and level only" statement after all what would be the benefit with one then!

 

 

[skeptic36]

[SDQDI]

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/pipistrel-virus-pulls-chute.140464/page-2

 

Post number 23 on page 2 of this thread has a report on the pipistrel. Some very impressive numbers and definitely NOT straight and level when chute was deployed.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

My BRS instructions mentioned a maximum deployment speed, but the designers would have been aware that an aircraft might be travelling pretty rapidly downward before a pilot fires the rocket.

 

 

[OZJohn]

There are three types of whole plane parachutes. Ballistic, compressed air and rocket powered. The performance difference between each is considerable when it comes to maximum deployment speed, unusual attitude or height above ground.

 

 

[Garfly]

Is there a difference between 'ballistic' and 'rocket powered'?

 

After all, BRS (Ballistic Recovery System) uses rockets.

 

 

[OZJohn]

Yes there is a difference. Ballistic is one big bang (explosive). Where as rocket powered is more sustained (continuous), some use a second rocket. BRS is a generic term. Pipistrel use the rocket powered Chute.

 

80% of small plane accidents occur near airfields and below 500 feet.

 

 

[Geoff13]

80% of small plane accidents occur near airfields and below 500 feet.

I would have thought that apart from midair incidents, 100% of accidents happen below 500'.

 

 

[Garfly]

Okay, thanks, OzJohn. I'd like to hear more about that.

 

This, by the way, is how BRS (the company) defines that word in their own literature.

 

"What Does "Ballistic" Mean?

 

The term ballistic in this context has nothing to do with guns or ammunition. Instead it refers to a means of extracting a parachute. For Ballistic Recovery Systems (BRS) today, this means a solid-propellant rocket."

 

Semantics aside, yes, I understand that rocket propelled systems are preferred over other simpler methods precisely because they're more likely to be succeed in a much wider range of (unpredictable) situations; on the basis that it's just gotta work that one time - otherwise it's all for nought.

 

But the contention that the original poster had heard - 'ballistic parachutes are only able to deploy in straight and level flight' - is simply wrong. And easy to disprove.

 

It's curious that 'airframe parachutes' is one of those hot button issues that provokes heaps more passionate position taking than it does rational weighing of the pros and cons.

 

 

[Garfly]

By the way, OzJ, was the "80% of small plane accidents occur near airfields and below 500 feet." statistic offered in support of the idea of parachutes or against, or neither?

 

 

[mcrowley]

Garfly, that wasn't my contention... merely what I've been told. I studied the BRS website and couldn't find confirmation, perhaps I missed it? I would appreciate access to the information where "it is easy to disprove;" it hasn't been for me. I realize this topic is scattered all over this site, however I haven't been able to find the specific response to unusual or tumbling flight attitudes. I appreciate the collective experience and research of the members as I am trying to make well informed decision as I continue in my own build.

 

 

[Bats]

Cirrus probably have the most experience in the use of these things - here's a link to their summary of the known activations; https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safety_programs/w/safety_pages/723.cirrus-caps-history.aspx

 

A quick read reveals that quite a few were anything but straight and level activations.

 

 

[Garfly]

Hey there, mcrowley,

 

Oh, sure, I understood that. That's why I wrote "the contention that the original poster had heard".

 

I wasn't meaning to criticise your post at all. I know, it's a hard decision. There are many great arguments both ways.

 

First and foremost in the case against is the cost in dollars and basic empty weight - in aircraft that need every kilo of useful load they can get. There are other good reasons not to go for one as well as quite a few spurious ones, as you've found.

 

Personally I've decided to get one but it was a hard won 'on-balance' decision. I could just as easily have decided the other way. So I don't want to appear to be pushing the 'pro' position just out of a need to justify my own choice (to myself or anyone else). If any one of many considerations had been otherwise I mightn't have bothered.

 

By the way, even if a system was only able to work from straight and level, one might still decide in favour because there are actually several 'right-side-up' scenarios where the day might yet be saveable. (Engine out over hostile terrain/water, pilot incapacitation, early stages of structural failure, etc.)

 

The fact that there have been quite a lot of BRS saves from very low altitudes and very unusual attitudes might be seen as a bonus.

 

Obviously, there can be no guarantees, but from what I can see there have been very few failed deployments so far.

 

If it helps, here's the way the BRS company discusses possible scenarios in their owners handbook (perhaps less prone to rhetoric than ads):

 

"Deployment Scenarios

 

 

 

The following scenarios describe situations in which activation of the BRS system may be the only means to save the airplane occupants from serious injury or fatality. These scenarios do not represent all possible situations nor do they represent situations in which activation of the BRS system is the only option.

 

 

 

Mid-air collision - A mid-air collision will completely disable most aircraft. Most mid-air collisions occur at relatively low altitudes or in the landing traffic pattern. If a mid-air collision occurs, the pilot must immediately determine if the airplane is controllable and structurally capable of flying to a landing site. If not, the pilot should activate the BRS system immediately.

 

 

 

Structural failure - A structural failure can result from many conditions: encountering a severe gust at speeds above the aircraft's structural cruising speed, exceeding design load factor at speeds above the aircraft's maneuvering speed, wake turbulence or a degrading and/or defective aircraft structure. If a structural failure occurs, the pilot must determine if the airplane is

 

controllable and structurally capable of flying to a landing site. If it is not, the pilot should activate the BRS system immediately.

 

 

 

Loss of control - Loss of control could result from a control system failure, wake turbulence, severe airframe icing or pilot disorientation. If control can be recovered before the aircraft is in danger of ground impact, the pilot should do so and not deploy the BRS. If the airplane cannot be controlled, the pilot should activate the BRS system immediately.

 

 

 

Stall/Spin on approach - The stall tightening to a spin due to pilot distraction on landing approach is a dilemma long faced by aviation. With its low altitude recovery capability, the BRS unit could save some occurrences from becoming fatalities. The BRS unit is not guaranteed to fully decelerate an aircraft from extremely low altitudes, but a spin below 500 feet is a grave problem, and the BRS unit may offer your only alternative.

 

 

 

Engine-out over hostile terrain - An engine-out emergency should not be a reason to deploy the BRS unless the terrain below will not accommodate a safe landing. If the surface is extremely rough, a safe landing may be impossible. At night or in ground fog conditions, visibility may not permit a safe landing approach. If a safe landing is not possible, the pilot should activate the BRS.

 

 

 

Pilot incapacitation - Passengers must be briefed on the BRS location and operation prior to take-off. If the pilot is incapacitated and cannot fly the airplane to a safe landing and the passenger does not have the training or skills to fly the airplane to a safe landing, the passenger should activate the BRS.

 

 

 

Some situations provide scenarios where BRS system deployment is not desirable. These have a central theme: if the aircraft can still be controlled, continue flying the airplane to a safe landing.

 

 

 

Out of fuel, with landing areas within reach - If a landing area is available and the aircraft is controllable, the airplane should be flown to a normal landing.

 

 

 

Lost, with fuel remaining - Getting lost, or being uncertain of control of flight, may seem a life-threatening situation. If sufficient fuel remains and if the airplane is controllable, the airplane should be flown to a safe landing. "

 

 

[mcrowley]

Thanks all, I appreciate the help! Garfly, thanks again... I misread your initial reply, drat!

 

 

[erd72]

Probably some of you Know this video, from 1:10 taliking about brs and a inside view of an mcr ul under parachute

 

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Is there a difference between 'ballistic' and 'rocket powered'? After all, BRS (Ballistic Recovery System) uses rockets.

BRS sell spring loaded ones as well.

 

 

[Garfly]

Thanks erd72 ... that video was really interesting.

 

I think it's the first time I've seen on-board footage of a forest arrival by airframe parachute.

 

This link below shows some of the onboard footage of the famous Cirrus splashdown in the Pacific last year:

 

http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/accidents/cirrus-sr22-pilot-releases-selfie-video-ditching.

 

And referring to that clip, veteran American aviation writer Richard L Collins wrote recently:

 

"I was one of the original doubters about the airframe parachute in Cirrus airplanes. Over the years I doubted less but a short while ago I watched a video that turned me into a true believer. Almost everyone has seen the

 

 

of the Cirrus splashing down under its parachute after a fuel problem on a flight from the mainland to Hawaii. What hasn’t been widely seen is the video that the pilot took on his way to the sea under the chute. It is sort of the ultimate selfie of a pilot who kept his cool. He had the cabin door open on the way down and at one point he looked straight up, through the door opening, at the beautiful canopy that was lowering the airplane. I looked at that and thought hotdamn, if I got a do-over I would want one of those."

 

http://airfactsjournal.com/2016/02/forced-landings-getting-shoes-muddy-biggest-risk/

 

And in another article (in the web journal "Air Facts") he revisits his 'conversion' :

 

"There were a couple of notable Cirrus chute uses recently. In both cases, the engine failed and in both cases the pilot apparently decided to use the chute instead of fly to a conventional forced landing. Is that a manly action? Absolutely. If a pilot has any doubt about a situation and has a chute available, it should be used ... The pilot’s job is to minimize risk. I have nothing but admiration for the chute-poppers and feel that what they did was get their money’s worth out of the device. "

 

http://airfactsjournal.com/2015/12/lose-control-itll-ruin-whole-day/

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Is that a manly action?

Not according to a few tough guys in this forum.

 

"Well maintained engine and good pilot skillz will see you through" - of course they are the alive guys who have never crashed, wonder if the dead ones would have a different opinion today.

 

 

[Garfly]

The only evidence I've ever seen of what dead flyers think was in this film:

 

 

 

[tillmanr]

Another Cirrus testing out parachutes.

 

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Plane-Parachutes-to-Safe-Crash-Landing-on-Long-Island-371162171.html

 

 

[JerzyGeorge]

The only evidence I've ever seen of what dead flyers think was in this film:

 

Excellent and so true , !!!

 

 

[Garfly]

Handling Aircraft Failure

 

http://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/issues/28_6/features/8899-1.html

 

 

 

[erd72]

 

Video of the cirrus long island

 

 

[eightyknots]

T

 

There are three types of whole plane parachutes. Ballistic, compressed air and rocket powered. The performance difference between each is considerable when it comes to maximum deployment speed, unusual attitude or height above ground.

There is also a spring operated chute on the market. There was a guy in Victoria selling these a few years ago but I am not sure what the name of the chute was. Someone else may know?