Ballistic Chute or not

[SkySketch]

This is a topic that started on another thread and thought it would be a great topic to discuss!

I write this with respect, I apologize if it seems ruse and disrespectful!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruse

According the above website:

A ruse is an action or plan which is intended to deceive someone.

Thanks, now I also know.

If the intension was to write "rude", its still not a problem. BRS is unfortunately one of those items on which everyone has there own opinion on. Don't know of any cases where a BRS actually saved someone, although I can think of a couple where pilots who didn't have them could have been saved if they had them on board.

[SkySketch]

Here are some saves from BRS, there are many different brands of recovery systems so there are PLENTY more

Save#:
239 & 240
Pilot Name:
Unknown
Lives Saved:
2
Altitude Deployed:
Unknown
Aircraft:
CTSW
Date:
07/2009
Reason for Use:
Aircraft entered IMC and pilot lost control. Deployed at approximately 6,000'. Aircraft was totalled after landing in forested area. Both pilot and passenger walked away unscathed. Location: Sweden.

Save#:
237 & 238
Pilot Name:
Tom Defino
Lives Saved:
2
Altitude Deployed:
300 ft
Aircraft:
Airborne Trike
Date:
8/1/2009
Reason for Use:
Loss of control after encountering severe turbulence

Save#:
233
Pilot Name:
Russ Bowers
Lives Saved:
1
Altitude Deployed:
300 ft
Aircraft:
Quicksilver MX
Date:
10/14/2008
Reason for Use:
Structural failure causing loss of control

Save#:
230
Pilot Name:
Randy Higgins
Lives Saved:
1
Altitude Deployed:
300 ft
Aircraft:
Rans S-17
Date:
4/4/2009
Reason for Use:
Structural failure upon encountering wind shear on approach caused loss of control.

Save#:
199
Pilot Name:
Rick Logan
Lives Saved:
1
Altitude Deployed:
50 ft
Aircraft:
Hi-Max
Date:
Reason for Use:
Flight Control Problem

Save#:
182-184
Pilot Name:
Kerwin Day
Lives Saved:
3
Altitude Deployed:
6000ft
Aircraft:
SR-22
Date:
1/13/2006
Reason for Use:
loss of control

Save#:

180-181
Pilot Name:
Robert Cliff
Lives Saved:
2
Altitude Deployed:
670 ft
Aircraft:
Seawing Trike
Date:
8/7/2005
Reason for Use:
right wing failure

Save#:
Pilot Name:
Dave Sharafinski
Lives Saved:
Altitude Deployed:
670 ft
Aircraft:
Date:
Reason for Use:

Save#:
179
Pilot Name:
Ilan Reich
Lives Saved:
1
Altitude Deployed:
1900 ft
Aircraft:
Cirrus Sr-22
Date:
6/30/2005
Reason for Use:
Incapacitated by a seizure

Save#:
178
Pilot Name:
Frank Murdock
Lives Saved:
1
Altitude Deployed:
200 ft
Aircraft:
Challenger II
Date:
9/22/2002
Reason for Use:
Engine out over unlandable terrain

Save#:
176-177
Pilot Name:
Mr. Soll
Lives Saved:
2
Altitude Deployed:
2000 ft
Aircraft:
FK-12 Comet
Date:
10/9/2004
Reason for Use:
Loss of Control

Save#:
174-175
Pilot Name:
Southern German Pilot
Lives Saved:
2
Altitude Deployed:
100 ft
Aircraft:
Avid
Date:
10/2/2004
Reason for Use:
Installation of improper propeller

Save#:
172-173
Pilot Name:
Moroccan pilot and passenger
Lives Saved:
2
Altitude Deployed:
60 ft
Aircraft:
Flight Design CT
Date:
10/9/2004
Reason for Use:
Attempted Go around

Save#:
170-171
Pilot Name:
John Sotirianos
Lives Saved:
2
Altitude Deployed:
900 ft
Aircraft:
Savannah MX 740
Date:
Reason for Use:

"a joining bolt that held the spring connecting the elevator control surface and the yoke went loose"

[SkySketch]

These are only a couple
Have a look at http://www.brsparachutes.com/lives_saved.aspx you can see the rest,240 lives saved since 1983! I think that is brilliant and proves that this is a effective (only) recovery system and should on a later stage become compulsory!

[SkySketch]

2007: 200th Life Saved by BRS Whole-Airplane Parachute System!
2010: 250th Life Saved by BRS Aerospace Parachute

That means 50 lives in 3 years!

[RV4ker (RIP)]

Why compulsary. Some of the systems cost more than a 503 Windlass. What happened to freedom of choice.

Different folks have different idea's of risk and thus how to manage it. Forcing yours onto someone else is IMHO a problem....

I don;t have one in the RV4, but if I drove a 2 stroke over any rough terraign then I would have one. If I drove around the patch and that patch happened to be open vlaktes I would not have one....

[SkySketch]

Why compulsary. Some of the systems cost more than a 503 Windlass. What happened to freedom of choice.

Different folks have different idea's of risk and thus how to manage it. Forcing yours onto someone else is IMHO a problem....

I don;t have one in the RV4, but if I drove a 2 stroke over any rough terraign then I would have one. If I drove around the patch and that patch happened to be open vlaktes I would not have one....

Sorry yes, I broke one of my own rules there, "never enforce your opinion on anybody else"! This is my choice and I will make it compulsory to myself, all planes I will own one day will have ballistic chutes! It is obviously your decision in the end, although in Germany it is compulsory to have one in LSA and there safety record is not looking not to bad!

[Tumbleweed]

Still can't understand why the manufactueres dont train and licence a dealer to 'zero hour' service the chutes and save on all the drama of sending the units via 'dangerous cargo' for a re-fill.

Maybe even schedule a couple of service orders and come over and it here.I believe you don't pay for the service only the cartage, still costs a lot.

[RV4ker (RIP)]

Sorry yes, I broke one of my own rules there, "never enforce your opinion on anybody else"! This is my choice and I will make it compulsory to myself, all planes I will own one day will have ballistic chutes! It is obviously your decision in the end, although in Germany it is compulsory to have one in LSA and there safety record is not looking not to bad!

Fine if you only flying light stuff. Don't seem that popular on the Namibia air donkey (210 ). No chutes for the Albat available and few have been successfully fitted to the RV's. Have a look at the safety record of the airframe. Few RV in flight break ups for eg. Most are landing or take off related where chute has zero value or there is automotive engine and fuel problems.

LSA seem to be more prone to structural failure (generalization I know, but none the less there has been Samba, technam, etc). Why pay R1'000'000 for airframe if you don't have faith in it's ability? Respect the numbers and the limits as well as your own and you should never need the chute.... I know a couple oukes who fly with a chute and as a result are a danger to themselves and pax (WX looks iffy, but what the hell we have a chute). 1 guy who pranged near queenstown a while back was a prime eg... A chute is maybe not always a good thing. Usually the reason you need the chute is pilot induced, so just don't induce it and you no worse off... I'm a half full kinda guy.

For me in high risk ops there may well be a case, but for general A-B I am not convinced. Takes space and reduces payload. Then there is the repack and the HAZ MAT cargo crap.

Just thinking alloud.... BRS is a good idea and I think when I eventually own a trike (especially if it an older budget friendly version) it will have a chute (mainly to keep my life insurance co happy)) but if I spend R1bar on a new plastic fantastic LSA for eg I sure as hell am not wanting to fit a BRS as well. How do jou justify th R1bar spend if not convinced the aerie wont let you down . Rather then just buy a RV

[Biggles]

Like everyone here I have at some piont considered a chute. I have looked at my usual flight profile and I rarely fly over rough terrain. As a fair weather flyer I am unlikely to accidently stray into IMC or experience loss of control due to adverse weather conditions. So in a hundred hours of flying I have done maybe a total of 30minutes over terrain that would have been a disaster in an engine out condition. Given that in those hundred hours my engine has not missed a beat. So the chances of me requiring a parachute are very small. I would therefore prefer to rely on my training and practice to put the trike down safely if there is an engine out.Someone that frequently flies over ruff terrain, or does alot of touring and has a higher chance of getting caught out by the weather then a chute is more for you.

[ystervark7]

Well I am sure that there are strong opinions about this so to start off I want to say that I do have a ballistic shoot on my trike but I do not think that it should be compulsory.

Personally I will only deploy the ballistic chute if my trike has a structural failure and I can not control the trike at all. This is because I think that there is a real danger that the parachute and wing might get tangled up and/or that ropes might get hooked around the wing in a very unfavorable position, e.g. if the parachute rope pulls in such a way that it presses the bar right into your body (and I think that the changes of this is about 50/50)

I also feel that people might have a false sense of security when they do have a ballistic chute (as pointed out already) and take more risks. Further more the cases quoted by BRS does not mean that the people would have died, it simply means that they have pulled the ballistic chutes. I am sure that in at least some cases they have panicked and in some other cases they might have even landed successfully without any injury or damage.



These chutes are also not fool proof. There are 2 cases that I know of that the chutes did not open - obviously BRS do not publish the cases where the chutes did not work. Both cases were during test flights: the first the Cessna Sky catcher and the second case the Sling. In both cases the test pilots only survived because they were wearing parachutes. The Sling was covered on this forum and I quote the second case from Avweb. :

"Cessna spokesman Doug Oliver told AVweb this week. "He got into a flat spin and couldn't recover," Oliver said. The airplane, which was one of several used in the test program, remained intact until it hit the ground. The spin testing started at about 10,000 feet, and the pilot bailed out safely at about 5,000 feet above the ground. The kind of testing it was undergoing was beyond what is required for the airplane's intended ASTM light sport aircraft certification, Oliver said. He added that the accident is still under investigation but he doesn't expect the findings will result in any plans to modify the design. The airplane was equipped with a BRS ballistic recovery parachute, which was activated by the test pilot but failed to deploy. Larry Williams, CEO of BRS, told AVweb this week it is too early to determine exactly why the chute didn't work."

[Biggles]

I think the new topless wings offer an excellent position for a BRS chute. The top of the wing where the kingpost would go. You could have it looped around the hangblock and attached to the safety cable that runs through the pylon. It leaves a clear uncluttered deployment area. You will come down in a flat orientation, rather than face first, so you have the suspension to cushion the blow. Much less chance of damage to the aircraft.

[thys bas]

BRS is not the only brand available. What about the GRS system? The agent flies out of a private field near Harties (Pretoria). This system works the same as the BRS, is about half the cost and servicing is much cheaper. It comes from Eastern Europe somewhere if I am not mistaken. Perhaps the agent is even a Microlighter and flies an aircraft with BMW engine. The system is available in a soft canvas holder as well as a hard container, even with and without rocket (manual) system.

[RV4ker (RIP)]

I think because BRS was first (maybe?) folks refer to the Chute as BRS as opposed to a BRS Chute as BRS... A bit like Champaign vs sparkling wine...