BRS Parachute News

[FlyingMonkey]

Doug H, the argument could be made that any accident can be prevented by better decision making. So how about a rule that says anybody who has an incident or accident loses their license, no exceptions?

 

Because humans are not robots, that's why. They make mistakes. Some are dreadful, some are more of the wrong place / wrong time type. Should everybody involved in a car crash where they are at fault lose their drivers license forever?

 

I just don't understand your reasoning on this, or your idea that a BRS has no safety benefits. Like Eddie...speechless.

[Doug Hereford]

Mr. Morden,

I NEVER said that BRS has no safety benefit. Read my replies. The benefit to BRS is no greater than the benefit provided by a design that complies with 23.221 in my opinion. Please read what I have posted before you render yourself speechless.

As pilots....the lives we are responsible for are everyone elses first, ours last.

 

Doug Hereford

[Ed Cesnalis]

All things being equal I would rather fly a design that I know by experience could recover from a spin.

[paul m]

Nothing like a good parachute thread.

[Cluemeister]

Still being new to the world of airplanes, I find the conversations about parachutes the same as seat belts 30 years ago.

[AZAV8OR]

I thought that was understood, maybe I am too subtle.

Looks like my irony sensor was turned off! :-)

[FlyingMonkey]

Mr. Morden,

I NEVER said that BRS has no safety benefit. Read my replies. The benefit to BRS is no greater than the benefit provided by a design that complies with 23.221 in my opinion. Please read what I have posted before you render yourself speechless.

As pilots....the lives we are responsible for are everyone elses first, ours last.

Doug Hereford

I read it. But it still makes little sense. A spin certified airplane enables a pilot to potentially survive an inadvertent spin. A BRS equipped airplane allows a pilot to potentially survive an inadvertent spin, midair collision, VFR into IMC, structural failure, engine failure over hostile terrain, and other scenarios.

 

Additionally, a lack of certification does not mean an airplane is unrecoverable in a spin. Most spin prohibited GA singles will recover from a spin with standard inputs. This includes the Cirrus, CTSW, and other chute equipped airplanes.

[Doug Hereford]

Mr. Morden,

I pretty much agree with everything you said.

In a mid-air collision, the chute may save the occupants, provided that the aircraft and or chute system is not damaged beyond functional limits. I It would definitely save you if the engine quits and you are not near the ground.

If a pilot transitions VFR into IMC, it would also definitely save the occupants (get me off of this ride).

Lack of certification for spin recovery means to me that no one knows whether the plane will recover or not.

 

Again, I don't like the idea that as a pilot, I can just pull that handle and save my skin whenever I think I need to ("pull early, pull often"). That is why I would purpose a stiff consequence for doing so in cases where reasonable airmenship could have prevented the incident. Once the chute is pulled, you are on God's good humor as to who's house you land on. I think to the Cirrus chute pull over the ocean. The pilot is taking a selfie or video or something as he floats down to a conveniently waiting vessel. This is disturbing to me. As far as I know, that plane has not been recovered to determine what went wrong.

 

This all takes me back to a neutral position on the issue and I realize that my position is  not very popular. I would (and have) gladly put myself and my family in a Cirrus, but also in Cessna, Beechcraft, Piper, etc.......aircraft. I will do it again.

 

Doug Hereford

[ralarcon]

Mr. Morden,

I pretty much agree with everything you said.

In a mid-air collision, the chute may save the occupants, provided that the aircraft and or chute system is not damaged beyond functional limits. I It would definitely save you if the engine quits and you are not near the ground.

If a pilot transitions VFR into IMC, it would also definitely save the occupants (get me off of this ride).

Lack of certification for spin recovery means to me that no one knows whether the plane will recover or not.

 

Again, I don't like the idea that as a pilot, I can just pull that handle and save my skin whenever I think I need to ("pull early, pull often"). That is why I would purpose a stiff consequence for doing so in cases where reasonable airmenship could have prevented the incident. Once the chute is pulled, you are on God's good humor as to who's house you land on. I think to the Cirrus chute pull over the ocean. The pilot is taking a selfie or video or something as he floats down to a conveniently waiting vessel. This is disturbing to me. As far as I know, that plane has not been recovered to determine what went wrong.

 

This all takes me back to a neutral position on the issue and I realize that my position is  not very popular. I would (and have) gladly put myself and my family in a Cirrus, but also in Cessna, Beechcraft, Piper, etc.......aircraft. I will do it again.

 

Doug Hereford

Don't be disturbed, it is just an extra option. I would "rather" have it than not.

 

Cheers

[Doug G.]

The pilot of that Cirrus ran out of fuel ferrying to Hawaii. He knew well into the flight that he was going to run out short of the islands. He let the Coast Guard know, and pulled the chute as the best option when he ran out of fuel. That's why there was video.

I suspect that the winds were stronger than predicted. Otherwise, I suspect the FAA had a "conversation" with him about flight planning and he may not be flying.

[Tom Baker]

The pilot of that Cirrus ran out of fuel ferrying to Hawaii. He knew well into the flight that he was going to run out short of the islands. He let the Coast Guard know, and pulled the chute as the best option when he ran out of fuel. That's why there was video.

I suspect that the winds were stronger than predicted. Otherwise, I suspect the FAA had a "conversation" with him about flight planning and he may not be flying.

 

Doug, it had nothing to do with poor planning or stronger winds. It was a mechanical failure of a valve. The failure made it so he couldn't access some of the fuel on board.

[Doug Hereford]

Tom,

Correct. It sounds like he had a problem with the ferry fuel system. I was just amazed by his selfie. I would be much too preoccupied to pull off a picture. It is also interesting to me that he was rescued by Holland America instead of the Coast Guard.

 

Again, not necessarily bashing BRS, but it appears that the plane capsized and sank in less than one minute, rolling away from the open cabin door. It appears that it was a combination of strong wind and the chute that contributed to this. Had the plane been facing the other way, I wonder if he could have gotten out.

Also, as hard-nosed as I have sounded about cert. action after a BRS activation, from what I know about this incident, there would be no reason to go that route with this pilot in my opinion.

Since the plane is on the bottom, we will probably never know what exactly whappened unfortunately.

 

Doug Hereford

[Tom Baker]

Doug H, are you aware of any BRS deployments that you can say for sure should not have been made? 

Do you know first hand of people taking greater risk than they would without having a BRS?

[Runtoeat]

FWIW, I made 4 trips from Michigan across Northern Pennsylvania and New York and Connecticut in 2014.  These trips were not pleasure trips but were required to ferry my airplane to FDUSA for repairs.  During the times I was over the mountainous areas of these states, I was very glad I had a BRS.  A constant concern of mine was the possibility that an emergency situation would occur due to a mechanical problem. Or, I might have a physical problem and become unable to continue on.  Had an emergency landing been required, this would have been caused by something beyond my control and would not have been a result of  reckless behavior or poor flight planning on my part.  Below me, there were no roads.  Only rugged terrain with rocks and trees for many miles.  Although the BRS offers no guarantee of a safe landing, I am convinced that picking what looked like the best spot in all of the bad ones and knowing the wind direction and it's speed and making the choice to utilize the BRS system would have been the safest choice compared to my other option of attempting to make a (possibly) engine out full flap, full stall landing in the trees and rocks.  From the reports I've read, and these are not official reports, I get the impression that there might be a reluctance to using the BRS by pilots rather than an over use of this.  This might be due to the "I can beat this" attitude of many pilots who choose to "fly the thing as far into the crash as possible".   Analyzing the details of accidents involving use of the BRS would be educational but I don't know how to filter out the data to look into this.

[FlyingMonkey]

Doug H, I see what you are saying, but why single out BRS as a "get out of jail free" option?  Why not also jerk the cert of every pilot that declares an emergency that is not due to a mechanical failure?  after all, declaring lets you disregard any rule you want!  To get in a position to need that, you must have done something terribly wrong, right? 

 

I think the answer is the same:  You don't want pilots that really NEED that option to hesitate to use it out of fear of certificate action, and getting killed as a result.  That's letting the perfect get in the way of the good, IMO.

[Doug Hereford]

Tom,

My answer to both of your questions is no.

I don't know what the Cirrus AFM says about ditching. According to what I read, the coast guard was dispatched to another aircraft ditching accident near the Cirrus one......according to what was reported, it was non-BRS c172 with 3 souls on board, one of which was a baby. They lived. If the Cirrus that ditched under canopy had had those same three on board, I am not sure they would have all gotten out based on the video footage I saw.

I do know that there is a phrase out there: "Pull early, pull often". I have to wonder if this thought process actually speaks to your first question. To me the phrase should read: "Pull when, and only when the operating instructions say to". That doesn't exactly roll off of the tongue though does it?

 

Mr. Morden,

If I declare an emergency and it turns out that I should not have done so, who is likely physically harmed? I see a big difference from an enforcement standpoint. Also, the regs only allow for relief of any rule in an emergency to the extent necessary to handle the situation.

 

Doug Hereford

[Doug Hereford]

Tom,

I would add, for me if I made any flight in a BRS aircraft that I would personally not make in a non-BRS aircraft, that would fall into the second question category that you asked.

For example, if I'm VFR, but elect to fly just a little closer to the weather because my plane is BRS equipped, my thinking is very unsafe.

I don't personally know of anyone who has done this, but it sure seems conceivable.

 

Doug Hereford

[Doug G.]

Doug, it had nothing to do with poor planning or stronger winds. It was a mechanical failure of a valve. The failure made it so he couldn't access some of the fuel on board.

Sorry, I forgot that part of the story. I should have looked it up.

[IrishAl]

 

I’ve never commented on parachutes before so here’s my tuppence (two cents) worth.

 

 

Airframe chutes are here to stay – no question about it.

 

It is also certain that they will grow in popularity - we're already at the point where aircraft are much harder to sell if they don't have one.

 

 

These facts are interesting because the primary driver of this success is a very, very small risk.  The vast majority of chutes will never be used, and a significant proportion of those who have deployed them would have survived anyway if they had elected to make a forced landing instead.   The real number of 'saves' is significantly smaller than claimed. 

 

 

Logic and reason, many people will argue, proves that this risk is so small that it’s entirely tolerable and we don’t need parachutes at all, and I have to say that I agree with them – logically speaking.

 

 

But people don't make decisions based on logic alone. Take the statistician, for example, who has a fear of flying.  He knows with certainty that driving to the airport is four times more likely to kill him than getting on the plane, yet he's happy to drive his car every day, but he refuses to get on a passenger jet just one time.  That’s an entirely emotive response, and often, emotive responses overrule our logic and reason.

 

 

I think the appeal of a parachute is primarily emotive - millions of us flew without them for years and never batted an eyelid.  Until they became available, that is.  

 

 

But now that they are available, why not have one?  The risk, however small, is still a real risk, so why not eliminate it if we can?   Logic dictates it, after all.

 

However, I will not allow myself to become so emotively driven about it that I am afraid to fly without one.

[IrishAl]

From the above, I can only assume we live on different planets.

 

I'm literally speechless.

 Eddie, would I be right in saying that you completely misunderstood his statement?

 

I think the BRS is a virtual non-issue from a safety standpoint. It is a big issue from a maintenance standpoint.

 

 

I think he is saying that he has no contention over the safety benefits of BRS, but has with the very high cost of maintenance - ?

[FlyingMonkey]

Mr. Morden,

If I declare an emergency and it turns out that I should not have done so, who is likely physically harmed? I see a big difference from an enforcement standpoint. Also, the regs only allow for relief of any rule in an emergency to the extent necessary to handle the situation.

 

Doug Hereford

 

Who is physically harmed by a BRS deployment?  I don't know of anybody on the ground ever being hurt by an airplane under a chute, and if deployment is inside the published envelope, nobody has been hurt in the airplane either.  If the deployment is outside the envelope, it's likely there will be no survivor to take certificate action against.  More people are killed in BRS-equipped airplanes for *failure* to use the system than for actually using it.

 

Do you feel the same way about ejection seats on military aircraft?  In the case of an ejection for other than a mechanical failure, should the pilot be drummed out of the military?  If not, why not?

[FastEddieB]

Eddie, would I be right in saying that you completely misunderstood his statement?

 

 

 

I think he is saying that he has no contention over the safety benefits of BRS, but has with the very high cost of maintenance - ?

If that is the case, then yes, I did misinterpret it.

 

Sorry if I did, but it still seems oddly worded enough to allow for my take on it.

[FlyingMonkey]

Tom,

I would add, for me if I made any flight in a BRS aircraft that I would personally not make in a non-BRS aircraft, that would fall into the second question category that you asked.

For example, if I'm VFR, but elect to fly just a little closer to the weather because my plane is BRS equipped, my thinking is very unsafe.

I don't personally know of anyone who has done this, but it sure seems conceivable.

 

Doug Hereford

 

I don't think anybody here has argued that flights should be made that otherwise would not be without the BRS.  

 

But in some cases, like flying over rocky or hostile terrain, I'd say "so what"?  If somebody chooses to make that flight because they feel the BRS gives them a viable survival option, it's not different from being willing to make an over water flight because you have a raft and/or personal flotation device, where you would not make that flight without it.  Obviously weather decisions should not factor the BRS in.  

 

Overall, I'd say the pilot making the occasional flight over tough terrain because of a BRS is safer than one who never has the parachute option on *any* flight.

 

I know when I was flying to Page, over mazes of mesas and cliffs a hundred miles from the nearest airport, I was glad to have the BRS.  I would have made the flight without it, but there were several points where the chances for survival in an engine out would have been grim.

[FlyingMonkey]

As far as the "pull early, pull often" saying, what I hear more from the Cirrus trainers is "consider CAPS".  

 

In other words, when a problem arises, one of the first things to consider is "does this problem warrant use of the BRS?"  Not necessarily to pull it, but to have it in your mind immediately as an option.  Why?  Simulation and real-world incidents have shown time and again that many pilots get so busy trying to fly the airplane that they get killed without even thinking about the parachute when they should be.  Ask Eddie about his sim experience if you don't believe it.

[Doug Hereford]

Mr. Morden,

I would not adjust my personal minimums for BRS. That is what I was trying to say.

 

I see the military ejection seat scenario as an "apples to oranges" comparison.

 

If no one has ever been hurt on the ground, I would have to say that it is only a matter of time. This is not to say that BRS should not be used on that basis. After all, if the aircraft is in an uncontrollable attitude, and cannot be recovered in flight, It might hit someone anyway. I am more concerned about aircraft that can still glide, but the chute is pulled on a more elective basis............Now the aircraft is out of control.

 

Again, I see obvious benefits to parachutes, I see obvious negatives. From what I currently think I know about them,  it is a virtual wash. I also certainly see why my position is very unpopular, especially with those who own and operate BRS equipped aircraft.

 

Irish Al, You are probably right about the future of parachutes.............................I wasn't sold on the third brake light on cars either, but try buying one without it.

 

Doug Hereford