fly_tornado Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 ballistic parachutes would probably reduce the accident rate, even 1 a year would make a difference 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Evans Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Most mishaps are caused bye people , aircraft are safe but when u add a human then the chances of a mishap will go through the roof, Only have too look at other sports weather it be guns ,cars motorcycles or swimming ' every thing can cause harm if not done with the respect it deserves ' u have too try and control all the thing in and around including others to a point but then as i said being human we all make mistakes we should all try to learn from the misfortunes of us all . 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 The benefit of knowing about what is going wrong is in the ability to learn from other's mistakes rather than your own, as is often said' you won't live long enough to make them all yourself. A good system of reporting is essential and even if the outcome is a close shave , just as much can be gained from it. Forget things like a" miss is as good as a mile. When my time is up, I'll go". Face the facts IF things like this can happen to people with experience many will never get, find out what is really going on. It may be a missed check A faulty part, not keeping a good look out. bad weather etc. Is you flying up to scratch? IF you got into a willy willy and ended upside down would you give a good account of yourself? In this game it is very much up to the individual how safe he/she is. It's not being a wimp to be careful. (Particularly with weather , as an example) and daggy pullups on take off.. Nev 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest asmol Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 An aircraft is safest when it's in a hanger, but aircraft are not made to be left in a hanger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 That's where people walk into the wires and wing trailing edges and props. Gotta get them out of there and into the air, where dogs don't wee on the tyres. nev 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alf jessup Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I have already been chastised for releasing to much info (opinion) on this incident to the media ...regardless of wether it will turn out to be correct or not. Ross, I think your on the money with your opinion, unless it was an extreme weather event that forced them both down in the process of shearing the Thrusters wing to allow it to end up closer to the Drifter at the points of impact for both aircraft, you don't have to be Einstein to figure out they both hit something in the air (Weather event ? each other?? double medical event at the same time???) only time will tell. FT, My old trike that went down at Tyabb last year was fitted with a BRS, it was never deployed, a Kitfox fitted with a BRS that was run over and had its tail cut off by a Cessna at YLTV a few years back turning final was also fitted with a BRS, it was never deployed. A BRS can save you, you have to practice every time you fly where the red handle is located even with your eyes shut, you have to fly with it armed (pin out) or you may as well take it off because when the fhit hits the san you aint going to have time to fiddle around looking for the safety pin to pull out. BRS state that you can be saved from 300 ft or less, but rest assured you got to be on the money with activating it at that height. Alf 1 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I am pretty sure most non activations are that they didn't remove the lock before flight....thats the whole point of having a chute 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I am pretty sure most non activations are that they didn't remove the lock before flight....thats the whole point of having a chute So I ought pull the ripcord on the slim pack before I take off? Kaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 ballistic chute Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I flew for about 8 years in Calif with a Second Chantz chute on my bipe. There were a lot around in those days, but then engines and airframes wern't as reliable in the 80s as they are now. We decided that here were two sceneros where we would use it....loss of control or structural failure. It was a final pre takeoff check prior to putting pedal to the metal, and the handle had no pin just a red Velcro cover. There were lives being saved back then, sometimes several per year. The only time I saw one activated was by an American Aerolight Falcon when the very embarrassed pilot accidentally deployed his whilst back tracking down the runway !.....There was some wind that day and we all had to run out and rescue him !!.....it appeared to have worked perfectly. We have a couple of local pilots here in the Townsville area who have, or are about to fit Second Chantz soft pack chutes to their aircraft ( Xair...Challenger)...and I don't see it being a negative thing at all, and I am happy to assist. It quite possibly may have saved a life or two in our recent unfortunate incident here in Townsville......however we all know how bloody hindsight is always so 20/20. I don't have one on the Lightwing and like most have flown without one for many years. It doesn't bother me. Constantly being as safe and efficient a pilot as one can, will always be the best way to avoid an untimely unfortunate end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alf jessup Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Maj, Off topic I had no qualms after a near miss with some ibis in my trike about putting a chute on it, I looked at the fact I still had a earning capacity of a few million left in my working life so 6 grand was nothing if it saved me just once, fortunately in the 560 hrs I flew it I never needed to see if it worked. Its not about being a woos, I bet there are plenty of dead pilots out there that wished at the time of there impending demise had one little red handle to maybe give them a chance to see their loved ones again. Alf 7 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rankamateur Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Of all the arguments for seeking a weight increase, BRS is the most reasonable one in my book. If the aircraft design weight has headroom above the regulatory weight limit, then your six grand is the only thing standing in the way. If you have to fly every trip on twenty litres less fuel because you are lugging fifteen kilos of parachute around then it is a much harder sell. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 The plane is still being overloaded (structurally) with either the floats or a BRS being exempted. There are downsides to a BRS. There are situations where it's not appropriate. In flight fire is one....... It's a hazard to rescuers...... It has limited life (has to be serviced). In a real collision you may already be dead by impact forces... Value at low level variable.. Generally if the plane is controllable I would fly it down. Some argue it may encourage people to fly over terrain , High Timber etc you would avoid otherwise. If you get stuck in high tree you may still not get down safely out of it.. Even at 80 Knots a bird of any size, could bring your plane down if you are unlucky. The faster you fly the effect increases much more ( square of the speed). so it would be quite comforting in that situation to have a BRS 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Personally...I would like to see a rego class of aircraft built around the BRS. People talk about that as if it is a bad thing...I don't get it. A way to balance the increased risk of flying 2 stroke unregulated aircraft could be offset by the legal requirement to have a fully tested and certified BRS system...? Perhaps 100 years from now the idea of a flying machine without its own airframe rescue system will be unheard off...sort of like airbags in new cars. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Evans Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 With most two stroke we carry a weight limit so for me I don't need or won't a chute nor do i won't the extra cost ,the hole idea of ultralight is affordable flying needing these system is not for them keep that sort of system for LSA craft if they require it . As it is we have lost the true spirit of affordable & fun flying . my two cent worth ! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 With most two stroke we carry a weight limit so for me I don't need or won't a chute nor do i won't the extra cost ,the hole idea of ultralight is affordable flying needing these system is not for them keep that sort of system for LSA craft if they require it .As it is we have lost the true spirit of affordable & fun flying . my two cent worth ! And leave LSAs alone too. Optional by all means but keep your "legal requirement" ; leave people responsible for their own risk assessment - RAA is not RPT or CHTR. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Ballistic parachute systems certainly haven't been the expected success on the Cirrus, in fact just the opposite ..their accident rate is three times higher then the average fleet in the US...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 You surprise me,Winsor wanting it to be a legal requirement. I wouldn't fly if that sort of thinking came in.There are downside risks with a BRS. An intending rescuer could be killed by the explosive charge. To list some of them is not to oppose anyone using one . It's just a matter of balancing the argument. . The next step would be to ban the sport and just watch videos with sensors attached to your brain. Watch out for the thought police. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 I don't know what happened to these two pilots but I have flown lots of two strokes, operated correctly they are as good as a four strokes, had plenty of engine failures both two and four stroke, never felt the need for a BRS. To me the best way is to fly safe and practice glide approaches. 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 The two vs four. Is it really the issue? The type of aerodrome you operate from is a big factor. If you have clear paddocks all around you it makes your operation much safer. If you climb out just missing tall trees each time, you are putting the odds against you. The % of two strokes is reducing with less available. No aircooled Rotax's and no new parts from normal sources. There's no reason why people who know what they are doing won't fly them satisfactorily. There just won't be the level of experience to draw on. It might even get difficult to get the 2S on your ticket...Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alf jessup Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Like I said earlier I didn't put a BRS on my old trike because I though it was going to have a structural failure or my flying skills were lacking, I put it on because of the unforeseen things that can surprise you, like coming out of a turn which you previously scanned for hazards prior to commencing that turn and to have 4 ibis about 100 ft above you and 100 meters in front of you just fold their wings and drop because that's what birds do when they are threatened, and have one of those up to 20lb i guess birds miss the leading edge spar by what looked like inches to me and the rest by a few feet all while your doing a massive 60kts. Sure put the wind up me, I actually a few seconds after they passed pictured in my field of view where I was going to be spiraling towards the ground to end my days after my wing collapsed. Its a personal choice, its a possible second chance at living and its the things you don't see that might just help kill you, bird strike, collision in the circuit, wake turb ect. Its not for everyone but it was for me, I don't have one on my Tecnam but i know it is just as vulnerable to the listed above as my trike but just feels slightly better than a 3" aluminum tube under tension. Alf 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 I agree A 20 pound ibis or a pelican will ruin your day and they do dive generally. I've had a few bird strikes Lots of seagulls .and a few near misses with big ones. Frigate birds and Pelicans and wedge tail eagles. There's a lot of them around now. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 You surprise me,Winsor wanting it to be a legal requirement. I wouldn't fly if that sort of thinking came in.There are downside risks with a BRS. An intending rescuer could be killed by the explosive charge. To list some of them is not to oppose anyone using one . It's just a matter of balancing the argument.. The next step would be to ban the sport and just watch videos with sensors attached to your brain. Watch out for the thought police. Nev You misunderstand... You are taking it as a legal requirement across the sport... I am talking about a single class of rego... an alternative if you want. Experimental with the requirement that you have a chute when the experiment goes wrong. I understand the data suggests the chute in the CIRRUS has not helped its safety record... I don't take this to mean that a BRS can't be a safer option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 If you are worried a few kilo of backup chute is going to put you overweight then consider going on a diet. Put it on anyway and tell the ramp check dude to go jump. I wouldn't worry about pyro types an old Parachutes Australia Bullet type with a spring loaded pilot chute will do or even the old bag full of canopy hand deploy will do the job. I used an old skydive rig with a round canopy. My thoughts were mid air with an eagle while soaring or thermalling or getting hit from behind by something faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downunder Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 There is also the chance that ballistic chutes will give people MORE confidence to do things they ordinarily wouldn't, which is dangerous in itself. "Yeah, I know it's tiger country but hey, I've got my chute...." 1 1 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