paul m Posted January 14, 2016 Report Share Posted January 14, 2016 Looks like other other manufacturers starting to see the value. CubCrafters adds emergency aircraft parachutes http://generalaviationnews.com/2016/01/13/cubcrafters-adds-emergency-aircraft-parachutes/?utm_source=The+Pulse+Subscribers&utm_campaign=5655c600a8-TPoA2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_62525a9780-5655c600a8-24149 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralarcon Posted January 14, 2016 Report Share Posted January 14, 2016 Looks like other other manufacturers starting to see the value. CubCrafters adds emergency aircraft parachutes http://generalaviationnews.com/2016/01/13/cubcrafters-adds-emergency-aircraft-parachutes/?utm_source=The+Pulse+Subscribers&utm_campaign=5655c600a8-TPoA2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_62525a9780-5655c600a8-24149 Nothing wrong with having an extra option. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT4ME Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 I see where the Lancair Evolution is now advertising a 'Chute, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 I think the chute systems are seeing momentum. People are looking at high performance airplanes like the Cirrus and the number of humans that would be dead in them without the BRS system, and that is driving companies to look hard at ways to incorporate them. Honestly, I kind of feel like I'm riding in a car without airbags now when I get in an airplane without a BRS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Hereford Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 Make no mistake...............The value of parachutes for aircraft manufacturer's comes in their (manufacturer's) ability to forego spin recovery requirements contained in the airworthiness standards rules for certified aircraft. While SLSA do not have these same requirements (ASTM consensus standards prevail), I have to believe that the same motivations exist. Not necessarily bashing BRS, just giving the devil's advocate point of view. Doug Hereford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted January 15, 2016 Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 Very specifically NOT the stated goal behind the BRS in the Cirrus. THAT was a result of one of the Klapmeier brothers having lived through a mid-air, and a commitment to give pilots a possible way out of such a circumstance. Any decisions as to spin certification came much later in the process. In any event, such spin tests were ultimately performed for European certification, regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul m Posted January 15, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2016 I disagree Doug. I think pilots just want them. I know I did when I bought my CT. Cub-crafters has a great plane (with slow stsll speed) that is already in production. Adding it now as an option has nothing to do with sarisfying any rules. It makes no sense to me not to have the option. I won't take my kids up in a GA plane without one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
procharger Posted January 16, 2016 Report Share Posted January 16, 2016 I think we should get a good break on insurance with BRS??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted January 16, 2016 Report Share Posted January 16, 2016 My insurer feels the positives are negated by the increased risk people might be willing to take with the parachute, and that parachute claims tend to be very expensive. Finally, parachutes save lives in the flight phase, but most accidents occur in the traffic pattern, where the chute effectiveness is reduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 16, 2016 Report Share Posted January 16, 2016 My insurer feels the positives are negated by the increased risk people might be willing to take with the parachute, and that parachute claims tend to be very expensive. Finally, parachutes save lives in the flight phase, but most accidents occur in the traffic pattern, where the chute effectiveness is reduced. I can understand owners not getting an insurance break, because the use of the chute, while saving lives, often destroys the airplane, which is usually the major insured asset. The idea that pilots with a BRS engage in significantly riskier behavior I believe to be largely a fiction. People do not drive like maniacs because their cars have airbags. If anything, a pilot that opts for a BRS will usually be a more conservative and safety-conscious pilot...which is why they want it! IMO of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted January 16, 2016 Report Share Posted January 16, 2016 The idea that pilots with a BRS engage in significantly riskier behavior I believe to be largely a fiction. "I would not even dream of flying IFR over the mountains at night if I didn't have a chute!" That, and similar sentiments often expressed on the Cirrus Owner's site. Just sayin'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted January 16, 2016 Report Share Posted January 16, 2016 Don't have one in my CT. Never flown plane with one .(except when passenger in a LS and a Cirrus) Do not affect my 'thinking' when flying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Hereford Posted January 16, 2016 Report Share Posted January 16, 2016 My point is just that I do not believe that aircraft manufacturer's incorporate BRS because they want to. I believe that they do so because they have to. The notion that some manufacturers are more concerned about my personal safety because their aircraft has BRS is false in my opinion. I think the BRS is a virtual non-issue from a safety standpoint. It is a big issue from a maintenance standpoint. My question to Cirrus is this: Can your aircraft meet spin recovery requirements of FAR 23.221? Their answer has to be one of two. Either "We don't know", or "No". Either way, the BRS is a equivalent means of satisfying that FAR design requirement. Fine. If Cirrus aircraft can meet 23.221 requirements, then why not offer the BRS as "optional" equipment? Then Cirrus could capture the market for BRS skeptics and advocates alike. They don't do this because they can't. Eddie, I agree. It would be a marketing disaster for Klapmeier to say that the BRS is installed in their aircraft because it does not comply with 23.221. Doug Hereford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted January 16, 2016 Report Share Posted January 16, 2016 The idea that pilots with a BRS engage in significantly riskier behavior I believe to be largely a fiction. People do not drive like maniacs because their cars have airbags. If anything, a pilot that opts for a BRS will usually be a more conservative and safety-conscious pilot...which is why they want it! IMO of course. I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but painting with a broad stroke brush won't find the answer . Anyways, I don't think we can compare the BRS to airbags. I don't think there is really anything in a car that is comparable to a BRS. I would almost say "brakes" as both the BRS and brakes can prevent a fatal accident, but since brakes are also used for normal use, the analogy breaks down then then . If there was some device that would stop a car much faster than normal brakes, then it would be comparable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Hereford Posted January 16, 2016 Report Share Posted January 16, 2016 Maybe the FAA could adopt a rule that states if a pilot deploys BRS for any reason other than unforseen mechanical failure.........their pilot previleges are revoked. Glad you are not dead, now surrender your ticket. Doug Hereford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted January 16, 2016 Report Share Posted January 16, 2016 I think the BRS is a virtual non-issue from a safety standpoint. From the above, I can only assume we live on different planets. I'm literally speechless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted January 16, 2016 Report Share Posted January 16, 2016 I doubt we will hear from anyone who wishes they had one, but didn't. I suspect most VFR into IMC incidents could have used one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZAV8OR Posted January 16, 2016 Report Share Posted January 16, 2016 From the above, I can only assume we live on different planets. I'm literally speechless. As am I! Tell that to the 80+ people that walked away from Cirrus chute pulls. I'd lay down good money to bet you'd get an earful of disagreement! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZAV8OR Posted January 16, 2016 Report Share Posted January 16, 2016 I doubt we will hear from anyone who wishes they had one, but didn't. I suspect most VFR into IMC incidents could have used one. Because they are likely DEAD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul m Posted January 16, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2016 Maybe the FAA could adopt a rule that states if a pilot deploys BRS for any reason other than unforseen mechanical failure.........their pilot previleges are revoked. Glad you are not dead, now surrender your ticket. Doug Hereford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul m Posted January 16, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2016 That's as old school as it gets. We should all enjoy our pilot privileges as long as we can. Right after mandating driverless cars the gov't will mandate pilotless planes. No more loss of life. No more cost to society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted January 17, 2016 Report Share Posted January 17, 2016 Because they are likely DEAD!I thought that was understood, maybe I am too subtle.???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted January 17, 2016 Report Share Posted January 17, 2016 That's as old school as it gets. We should all enjoy our pilot privileges as long as we can. Right after mandating driverless cars the gov't will mandate pilotless planes. No more loss of life. No more cost to society.Domino effect since they allowed horseless carriages it has been going that way. ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Hereford Posted January 17, 2016 Report Share Posted January 17, 2016 Eddie, I am sure that I dont know why my reply left you speechless. There must be thousands of aircraft purchased each year. I would bet that leas than one percent of them incorporate BRS, but I would bet that almost every one of those new owners is aware of BRS. Does that make them cavalier with regard to safety. Of all those saved by BRS, I would like to know which of those incidents could have been prevented by adequate aeronautical decision making. I would bet that the answer is.......most all of them. That is why I purpose that if you pull your chute, and you accident proves to have been preventable by good pilot judgement/skill or otherwise not you fault, your certificate is revoked. Also, what about the truely innocent people on thw ground? If in the unlikely event I do enter a spin in an aircraft that meets 23.221, I can recover in flight. In a Cirrus for example, I am under canopy and out of directional control. Who hasnt heard of the truely heroic aviators who actually fly their aircraft right down to the ground in an effort to save people who are not aboard.......Hudson river comes to mind. Cant imagine the loss of life if that aircraft were under canopy. Again I stand firmly that BRS is fine, but electing to fly an aircraft without it doea not put one at any more risk......and should not leave a fellow responsible aviator "speechless". Doug Hereford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted January 17, 2016 Report Share Posted January 17, 2016 Maybe the FAA could adopt a rule that states if a pilot deploys BRS for any reason other than unforseen mechanical failure.........their pilot previleges are revoked. Glad you are not dead, now surrender your ticket. Doug Hereford So VFR into IMC, just die like a real man? If you manage to escape by luck, no repercussions, but if you actively do something to protect your life, we pull your ticket...I don't get this logic. There are already plenty of provisions for the FAA to jerk a pilot's ticket, making a pilot hesitate and second guess his decision to try to save his life is not going to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.