Garfly

Ian, I'd like to add my thanks for all your efforts in making the site work as well as it does. One small problem I'm having (and it may be just my ignorance) occurs when I want to quote a post from a previous page in a reply I'm working on in the current page. If I hit the "Quote" button on that earlier page it opens up a new text box for me at the bottom of that page. Whereas I'm wanting the quote to appear in my new post on the current page. I have tried, in the past, to use work-arounds, such as linking to that earlier post instead or just making my own copy-and-paste quote with due attribution. But these solutions sacrifice some of the best aspects of the "Quote" feature. Any ideas?

That'd be Mark Kyle. ("Kyle Communications" on the forum.)

Yeah, that's an argument that probably has some merit but I reckon "strong tendency" is too strong. Still, we do tend to clutch at any and every straw to confirm our biases. On the other hand, there are also perfectly rational reasons for taking available safety gear into account when making a general risk assessment for any operation. That being said, I doubt that having dual magnetos (and 4-point harnesses, to boot!) makes anyone feel indestructible in the air (who didn't already feel so). Probably not even a parachute.

No, I don't think that was meant to suggest any kind of linkage between the chute handle and engine controls; only that it's generally a part of the BRS procedure to stop the engine (if it's still going) before deploying - to prevent the prop chopping the risers. Keep in mind that that list of counter arguments is aimed at prospective Robin DR400 buyers - to persuade them that it's no biggie that you can't have one. Also, that's a 4 seat aircraft, thus the 30Kg figure. Plus those CoG implications only refer to installation in that aircraft. Interestingly, on that point about having no control under canopy since the engine is stopped, I've read that if the motor still works (e.g, after structural failure) it's feasible to try a re-start on the way down and drag the canopy in the direction of a more convenient landing site. Seems a long shot, especially if you were suspended seriously nose first ... and, anyway, how to point the prop in the right direction? Still, it might be worth a try if, say, you were drifting helplessly down just seawards of the coast. Hmmm ... any volunteers willing to give it a go and report? ;- )

Yes, it seems it's a bit of a lottery when it comes to arrival survival. This guy lands spinner first on a hard road but appears none too worse for wear. (It might have been better for his spine this way, given that seatbelts are designed for straight ahead impacts.) Actually the nose down arrival is by design in that DynAéro as explained in this promo vid:

Yeah, if you still have control you still face that choice. But if a bin-chicken kamikaze rips your wing open, things get a lot simpler. As to those quoted speeds, I'm thinking they'd be km/hr, no? As far as I know there have not been a lot of serious injuries from landing under canopy though there must have been some. The bigger problem with Cirrus used to be the reluctance of pilots to pull the handle in the hope of saving the aircraft - and/or face (as Laurent alludes to in the vid). Interestingly, the guy also reckons he was in more danger from the second arrival - when the re-inflated 'chute dislodged him from his first tree-top perch. He urged the manufacturers to invent a quick release mechanism for such cases.

I've been looking into a couple of fairly recent bird-strike accidents involving light aircraft in France. In 2022, in the south, a Zenair CH650 ran into a flock of geese and the single pilot's life was only spared thanks to his Junkers-Profly ballistic parachute. And, about a year earlier, north of Paris, there was an awful tragedy when a Robin DR400 with an instructor and three students - all sharing the one Navex flight - were killed after hitting a Cormorant. (BEA report below). Actually, I've been noticing, myself, more than the usual number of slow, low, large birds in the sky lately and I'm beginning to think that the chance of hitting some of them might just add a point to the pro-side of hauling a BRS around the sky - if and where feasible. The BEA report on the Robin accident suggests that rag covered and/or wooden winged craft are especially susceptible to bird collisions. In that case, it looks like the relative wind was able to penetrate the tear made by the bird and distort the wing shape so much that the aircraft was impossible to control. That had me wondering if it was even possible to have a BRS installed on a wooden DR400 and apparently the answer is non. That's according to Mistral Aviation in the UK who outline the arguments against in an FAQ on their website (below). Even if it were possible, I suppose it'd reduce it to, effectively, a three seater. The video below of the lucky survivor of the Zenair is in French but a rough translation is available via CC and Auto-translate on YouTube. It's tough work to interpret the Googlish - and it doesn't help that the subtitles drop out for a crucial minute from 01:16. Even the printed pilot testimony available on the Junkers-Profly site (below) takes some interpretation, due auto-translate, but in the end we get the picture. (Although I'm still not quite clear whether it was damage done to the tailplane by the birds or a LOC situation brought on by the pilot's heroic avoidance manoeuvres that was the worst of it. Either way ... ) 3 May 2022 Report and photos of a successful save of a ZEN AIR ZODIAC CH650EI in France https://www.junkers-profly.de/web/ulm-rettung-zen-air-zodiac-ch650ei-frankreich-05-03-2022/ [Google should automatically offer an English translation of the page.] YouTube Description: "Following a mid-air collision with geese, Laurent had no choice but to pull the parachute! His empennage being damaged, he lost control of his aircraft, his parachute saved his life. Here is his testimony, his feedback is an educational nugget, it should be included in the training manuals... Thank you Laurent for this fascinating sharing!" 18 April 2021 www.bea.aero INVESTIGATION REPORT Accident to ROBIN - DR400 - 140B registered F-GNNE Bird strike, loss of control and collision with the ground, in instruction Operator Aéroclub Paris.Aero Type of flight Instruction Persons on board Instructor and three student pilots Consequences and damage Instructor and student pilots fatally injured, aeroplane destroyed BEA2021-0165.en.pdf https://www.mistralaviation.co.uk/FAQs-for-Robin-aircraft/ EXCERPT: Can Robin aircraft be fitted with an airframe parachute? Of the several systems available, Robin Aircraft have considered the BRS (ballistic recovery system), similar to that fitted by Cirrus, to offer as an option. The characteristics of the system are: Rocket extraction; Controlled deployment by means of a ring that descends on the lines; 17 m diameter canopy; Descent at 25 feet per second. In common with every other manufacturer of certified aircraft (except Cirrus) Robin Aircraft do not intend to offer a parachute as standard because the Robin DR401 does not need a parachute to meet its certification requirements and there are many disadvantages to having such a system installed: BRS shortcomings are: The BRS unit and mountings weigh around 30 kg. It has to be placed in the tail section (thus moving the C of G aft) and requires parts of the airframe to be strengthened to withstand the forces associated with deployment, adding another 7 Kg. Combine weight and balance considerations and at least one passenger seat has been sacrificed for the same endurance. There is no control once the system is activated because the engine stops before deployment; and the descent speed is 25 feet per second… The system is airspeed limited: the aircraft must not exceed a set speed before deployment; if the aircraft is in free fall for a short time the parachute may not be able to withstand the load when it opens; if the structure breaks then there is virtually no chance of survival; If the system is deployed below 900 feet AGL it is unlikely that the aircraft will decelerate sufficiently for the subsequent impact to be survivable; The airframe will be written off; Costs increase: Increased purchase cost; Increased maintenance costs; Increased insurance premiums. The leading causes of fatalities involving certified aircraft in GA are loss of control in flight (LoC-I; such as engine failure on take-off and low-level stalls), where, as with collisions in the circuit, height may be too low for the parachute to help, and controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) where a parachute is useless. The main circumstance where a parachute has been deployed successfully in certified aircraft in UK airspace has been loss of control in IMC (conditions that, allegedly, the pilot was not qualified or competent to fly in) after the autopilot became disconnected. Loss of control in IMC is relatively rare; lying in 8th place in the list of causes of fatalities in general aviation. It is notable that the Cirrus had one of the worst accident records in GA soon after it was launched and that only improved to around average following the introduction by Cirrus of a training program for purchasers of new and used aircraft. The fact that the safety record of the Cirrus is only around average despite its parachute may be one reason why no other manufacturer of certified civilian aircraft offers a parachute installation. Flying a heavy aircraft with relatively small wheels and a high stall speed into a field is quite likely to result in inversion and a poor outcome. In contrast, the DR401 with its relatively light weight, appropriate wheel size, low stall speed and excellent low speed handling is well suited to safely execute a forced landing. As with many features in aircraft there is a balance to be struck in considering this one. The CDI engine is the most reliable piston engine in GA so even people who fly extensively at night, for example, may not consider the downsides of a BRS in a Robin worth accepting.

Ha, ha ... like Fitzcarraldo! ;- )

An interesting newish video about the movie career of the Ju-52 It was three of the earlier model Junkers G-31 that were used in the Wau- Bulolo goldfields in the early thirties. And for a while, back then, their non-stop ops put PNG at the top of the table for worldwide air-freight volume. They even came with a special rooftop loading bay for bulky cargo. A car was the easy bit, considering that this entire dredge - not to mention the entire town - had to be flown in from Lae using the 3 Junkers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_G_31 https://www.goodall.com.au/australian-aviation/junkers ju52/junkersju52.html https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/crash-junkers-ju523mg-wau https://aeropedia.com.au/content/junkers-ju-52/

Another interesting fire bomber conversion - the Grumman Tracker to the CALFIRE S2-T https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_S-2_Tracker

Same here. Same here. Maybe a direct donation facility would be simpler and mean less work for the over-stretched organiser at this point.

Juan Browne comments on the ATSB report:

I think this section of the report offers some useful clues - and lessons: "Information about Coombing Park ALA was available in the OzRunways application. This application was installed on the flight instructor’s mobile phone and was in use during the flight. At the time of the accident, the application had an additional ‘remarks’ section for Coombing Park that included: Bird and animal hazard exist. Rising terrain east of field. No other procedures were included in this guide, nor were they required by any regulations. However, following the accident on 12 November 2020, additional information about Coombing Park ALA was included in the OzRunways application. The ‘remarks’ section was updated to include: Rising terrain to East, crosswind departures from [runway] 07 only Terrain at 3,953 within 3NM of field. No go around on [runway] 07 Power lines at end of [runway] 25 Additionally, ‘procedures’ were added to the OzRunways application in the same update that included: RH circuits on runway 07 Crosswind departures from [runway] 07 Up wind departures from [runway] 07 prohibited Simulated engine failures prohibited Engine failure on [runway] 07: make RH turn and glide to creek flat Coombing Park ALA was not included in the Enroute Supplement Australia (ERSA)."

Here is the revised CASA AC referred to in video and report: advisory-circular-91-02-guidelines-for-aeroplanes-with-mtow-not-exceeding-5700-kg-suitable-places-to-take-off-and-land_0.pdf COVER IMAGE:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2020/aair/ao-2020-059

Looks like a great place for a flying visit. Especially given that the hosts are so welcoming

Yeah, that was what the wink was about. All that hard yakka climbing to 2000' . ;- )

"Had to do the obligatory climb of Rawnsley Bluff, 2000ft up this track!" Of course! After all, they say the view from up there is amazing! ;- ))

A couple of vids and stuff here but you've probably found those already on the Tube.

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/optimum-cg-test.141807/

No, not valid at all. The 2022 Sling TSi is at least 10 times safer for such a trip. No need to count the reasons why. Anyway, I'm more interested in comparing the human spirit involved.