This Parachute?

[skippydiesel]

5 hours ago, onetrack said:

 

Well, Dan Johnson writes up a persuasive argument for BRS's - and the simple basic fact that many (and often innocent lives) have been saved, can't be ignored as "sales-speak", and provides the "empirical evidence" you speak of.

 

https://bydanjohnson.com/brs-logs-save-number-400-using-airframe-parachutes-definitely-saves-lives/

 

And even the writers who take an aggressive attitude against the fitment of BRS's, end up agreeing they have saved lives, and will continue to do so.

 

https://www.aviationconsumer.com/industry-news/is-brs-always-a-life-saver-not-exactly/

I don't know that any rational  person would suggest that it doesn't save lives.

The question is how many lives per fleet flight hour have been saved?

 When you have that answer AND then have analysed each incident (could the pilot have flown the aircraft to a walk away landing - if the pilot has chosen a higher available cruise altitude, were there other potential options? , etc.

If after exhaustive analysis and the pilot looks at cost & payload effect  he may decide to install or not.

At the moment we don't seem to have reliable independent  analysis of the cost effectiveness of the BRS system.

Edited May 27, 2023 by skippydiesel

[facthunter]

You'd have to put a value on a life to do that. IF you don't do some risk you won't do anything. It's a CHOICE you make.  You may have records of how many chutes were deployed where no one died but I'm not sure that this is the way to approach it. IF the chute being there causes some to do things where it HAS to  be used IF the engine stops because of where you are.  IF you are really serious about the risks of flying an Ultra-light which are statistically significant you wouldn't fly them at all, same as some don't choose to ride motor bikes because they are demonstrably dangerous. I don't rock climb because I doubt I'd be very good at it and it's not something you do IF you aren't good at it. .  Nev

Edited May 27, 2023 by facthunter
more content.

[johnm]

On 26/05/2023 at 6:31 PM, skippydiesel said:

On 26/05/2023 at 6:31 PM, skippydiesel said:

do swan-neck turns (fantasising about the double trailers behind their car)

 

often wonder about left turning cars and consuming all the left side of the road - can only think that drivers don't know how wide their car is (there is so much car shell built around the vehicle occupants)

 

you see it also on narrow roads and bridges - some drivers don't know where their wheels are / width of their vehicles

On 26/05/2023 at 6:31 PM, skippydiesel said:

 

 

 

[skippydiesel]

On 27/05/2023 at 5:08 PM, facthunter said:

You'd have to put a value on a life to do that. IF you don't do some risk you won't do anything. It's a CHOICE you make.  You may have records of how many chutes were deployed where no one died but I'm not sure that this is the way to approach it. IF the chute being there causes some to do things where it HAS to  be used IF the engine stops because of where you are.  IF you are really serious about the risks of flying an Ultra-light which are statistically significant you wouldn't fly them at all, same as some don't choose to ride motor bikes because they are demonstrably dangerous. I don't rock climb because I doubt I'd be very good at it and it's not something you do IF you aren't good at it. .  Nev

"...value on a life ....."  I think you will find that (behind closed doors) there will be some guestimate on the value of life. In a practical sense - how much is a person/bushiness, prepared to pay/invest for > 100% risk prevention?

 

Decision making can be everything from gut/emotion to a highly rational statistical analysis informing the process.

 

Resonantly I tend towards the rational. If, supported by good quality statics,  use of a BRS  can be shown to have saved many(?)  lives in otherwise unavoidable situations (ie not pilot error) I might be inclined to look more favourably on their use.

 

 

[facthunter]

We are all selective in the information we absorb. We should be able to choose.  In line with your non NANNY state.  Nev

[Garfly]

 

 

 

[skippydiesel]

It seems to me that the pilot in the above incident had a dose of " get there itis" 

 

After declaring his aircraft was in difficulty (not an emergency) he chose to try and make it to the aircrafts maintenance field, rather than land on a closer runway(s).

 

This is a clear case of pilot error and has little if anything to do with the desirability or not of fitting a BRS .

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

What aircraft have the allowable weights to carry a brs  without doing nasty things to the carrying capacity?

[Garfly]

2 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

This is a clear case of pilot error and has little if anything to do with the desirability or not of fitting a BRS .

No, of course not.  Anyway, in a Cirrus you don't really have that choice.

What the story has to do with, among other things, is if you have one do you pull the handle or go for the field.

That dilemma is a little bit like whether to install or not ... except that decision time is now.   🙂

[Bruce Tuncks]

AND one of the most horrifying vids I have ever seen is the one where a brs deployed on take-off by accident. The plane did a "figure 9" and hit so hard that those on board were killed.

[Jabiru7252]

I read somewhere many years ago that most folks would remain in their seats rather than jump from a plane with a parachute. I would agree, especially if the plane is setup in a quiet glide while the pilot looks for a place to land. Maybe if the wings were on fire the passengers would rather jump. As for ballistic chutes, are they really ballistic? That can be an incredibly dangerous thing to have if not treated with respect. I would have thought a chute would be pulled out by a drone chute that is spring loaded. That's what we had when I was doing a few jumps 40+ years ago.

Edited June 25, 2023 by Jabiru7252

[Garfly]

16 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

AND one of the most horrifying vids I have ever seen is the one where a brs deployed on take-off by accident. The plane did a "figure 9" and hit so hard that those on board were killed.

And don't get me started on the dangers of airbags.

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2023 by Garfly

[Garfly]

3 minutes ago, Jabiru7252 said:

I read somewhere many years ago that most folks would remain in their seats rather than jump from a plane with a parachute. I would agree, especially if the plane is setup in a quiet glide while the pilot looks for a place to land. Maybe if the wings were on fire the passengers would rather jump.

Who's talking about jumping?

[skippydiesel]

2 hours ago, Garfly said:

No, of course not.  Anyway, in a Cirrus you don't really have that choice.

What the story has to do with, among other things, is if you have one do you pull the handle or go for the field.

That dilemma is a little bit like whether to install or not ... except that decision time is now.   🙂

True its the manufacturers choice/marketing point BUT their realy was no "dilemma" for the pilot.,  he chose (badly) to bypass, likely safe, landing options in favour of getting back to the aircrafts maintenance field/facility

[facthunter]

" I read "Somewhere" is not the best source either. There HAS to be the acceptance of a pilot making the decision. It's there to make and in this instance if the wing hadn't hit a tree, it would have been a better outcome and we wouldn't be having this discussion. The Plane WILL be damaged even in a normal chute descent.   YOU also cannot control exactly where you will land. I wouldn't like to be hung up 150 ft in a tall tree  Nev

[facthunter]

 It was a "Partial" engine failure also. The general advice is in those circumstances don't TRUST the motor to keep going as part of your planning decision.  Nev

[Garfly]

14 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

True its the manufacturers choice/marketing point BUT their realy was no "dilemma" for the pilot.,  he chose (badly) to bypass, likely safe, landing options in favour of getting back to the aircrafts maintenance field/facility

You seem determined, Skip, to steer clear of any suggestion that one of the morals of this story might be "If you've got one, it might be better to use it". 

There's nothing in the story that suggests that if you don't have one, and you could have one, that you should have one.

 

 

[Garfly]

51 minutes ago, facthunter said:

" I read "Somewhere" is not the best source either. There HAS to be the acceptance of a pilot making the decision. It's there to make and in this instance if the wing hadn't hit a tree, it would have been a better outcome and we wouldn't be having this discussion. The Plane WILL be damaged even in a normal chute descent.   YOU also cannot control exactly where you will land. I wouldn't like to be hung up 150 ft in a tall tree  Nev

Who is saying "I read Somewhere"?  

 

But for sure, anyone who does fly with a BRS has had to think through that question: under which circumstances would I pull?

(And that includes all ultralight pilots in countries where BRS is mandated).

Nobody is not accepting that a pilot must make the decision based on a multiple contingencies. Not even Cirrus.

Nobody is saying that the particular facts of this incident, on their face, invalidate anyone's pre-existing position regarding airframe parachutes, in general.

 

This is sounding like deja vu all over again.

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2023 by Garfly

[facthunter]

Go back a few posts to the  "I read somewhere". It's NOT a big deal BUT.  On the general subject.. Why not discus all aspects? That's always going to happen and is a good thing. Few aspects of aviation are absolute black and white. The Pilot assess and manages the situation as they see fit.   Nev

[Thruster88]

According to the final report the only fault with the power plant was a stuck waste gate on the left turbocharger. The throttle would still have been capable of controlling the manifold pressure to get a desired percentage of power.

[Bruce Tuncks]

It's the survival gear you can't carry if you have a brs which could matter a lot in a remote outlanding. But my main objection is to the cost and the on-going need for maintenance . Say the BRS was 20kg....  well that's the same weight as a lot of water which would be good to have in the outback while you waited for a rescue. ( when I had a seat'n'back chute for glider competitions it weighed 9.5kg) Fortunately for me, they never asked for proof of current legal repack, and I later heard that nobody who had to bale out ever used a current-legally repacked chute. ( I used to do my own, having been taught by a 1000 jump chutist guy....  He gave me a priceless gem of info....  "people always pack their own chutes more carefully", but it would be illegal to get caught having done your own these days.

SOOO....  If your brs is out of current repack hours, are you allowed to use it or not?

[kgwilson]

Who cares when the wings have fallen off.

[facthunter]

That's hardly a common occurrence. but a BRS equipped plane can carry the overload as chute weight but that weight would be otherwise illegal. ????  Nev

[Marty_d]

How about a third option, remove the seat cushions and wear the chute?

 

[facthunter]

That's how the original DH 82 is set up. You SIT on the chute. I think some U/L's would lack the room to get in and  out easily.  Nev