THE Ultimate Safety System - Recovery Parachute?

[NickLappos]

The below helps us yet again discuss the way to make our aircraft safer, including packing a get-out-of-jail-free-card, a recovery parachute. Worth the weight and cost? Not to this aircraft, apparently!

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Plane_Crash_Aircraft.html

Plane in NYC crash had safety parachute

By RICHARD PYLE
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER


A Cirrus SR20 plane is seen in this undated image made available by Cirrus Designs. A SR20 carrying New York Yankee Cory Lidle slammed into a 50-story skyscraper Wednesday, Oct. 11, 2006, apparently killing the pitcher and a second person in a crash that rained flaming debris onto the sidewalks and briefly raised fears of another terrorist attack. The SR20 is equipped with a parachute capable of floating the plane to the ground in case of emergency. (AP Photo/Cirrus Designs)
NEW YORK -- The plane that crashed into the side of a high-rise apartment building Wednesday comes equipped with a parachute designed to be triggered by the pilot in case of an aerial mishap, but there was no evidence the feature was used.

The Cirrus SR20 is the first production aircraft to have as standard equipment a Ballistic Recovery System parachute, which a pilot can activate if the engine fails or if the plane is involved in a collision. It also has energy-absorbing features meant to reduce impact in a crash.

The parachute, if triggered, should shoot out above the plane, allowing it to drift to safety belly first rather than crash.

"These airplanes are just absolutely cutting edge in terms of how modern they are, and they ought to be extremely safe," said Mike Radomsky, president of the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association, which conducts safety classes for Cirrus pilots.

The single-engine private aircraft can carry up to four people. It is steered by a joystick on the side of the cockpit rather than with a steering wheel in the front.

About 2,900 SR20s or its successor, the SR22, are in service around the world, and the 3,000th one is in production, said Kate Dougherty, spokeswoman for the Cirrus Design Corp. of Duluth, Minn., which makes the plane. She said she could not discuss the planes' safety record or provide any information about the one that crashed Wednesday.

New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle was killed in the crash, along with a second person. There was no official confirmation of Lidle's death from the city.

It was the second fatal accident involving an SR20 within a month, according to the National Transportation Safety Board. On Sept. 15, a private pilot was killed after reporting icing conditions. The NTSB is still investigating.



There have been a total of 12 accidents involving the Cirrus SR20, though one happened while the plane was still in an experimental stage. NTSB records indicate that six accidents were fatal, killing 13 people.

In two accidents this year, pilots reported engines losing power.

There are about 600 Cirrus SR20s registered to the Federal Aviation Administration. The plane was first flown as a prototype in March 1995, according to the Web site Airliners.net.

Safety problems related to the SR20 have figured in about a dozen lawsuits, some involving design and mechanical issues, some pilot error and some a combination of both, said Brian Alexander, an aviation lawyer for the New York-based firm Kreindler & Kreindler.

Several cases involved the parachute, which has deployed successfully sometimes and unsuccessfully other times, Alexander said. Problems generally had to do with the explosive mechanism, triggered by the pilot, that pushes out the parachute, he said.

The low-wing aircraft sells for about $280,000. Its 200-horsepower Teledyne Continental six-cylinder piston engine produces a maximum cruising speed of 160 mph. It has a roomier cabin and larger windows than many of its competitors.

Cirrus made flyable kit aircraft until 1993. Its original kit model, the VK30, was the basis of the SR20. The SR20 is made of a composite glass fiber and foam-core material, instead of the riveted aluminum of more traditional planes.

[The Hustler]

The BRS still has you decending at a quick-ish rate - the undercarriage then cushions the landing some more. This should mean that you land without injury.

Doesn't work too well over water though - I believe someone landed one in the Hudson, and because the undercarriage didn't aid in the deceleration upon impact, the body of the aircraft impacted on the water at it's full speed of decent, leading to a very sudden and rapid deceleration, much higher G-forces were then experienced, and it led to a broken back for the pilot.

We dont know if it would be relevent in the NY incident either. I believe the BRS is not supposed to be deployed at cruise speed.

There is no technology or gadget that will make all air travel safe - everything has it's limits.

The BRS is, however, a great idea. If you are in a situation where you cannot glide to a safe location to attempt a emergency landing, and you have no options left, then it does increase surviveability (any chance is better than none). It just seems that people may attempt to utilise the BRS when they haven't exhausted all other options. Lack of education possibly leading to user error?

[Graviman]

In a former life i was a crash engineer in the auto industry, specialising in structures. It used to amaze me how many injuries can be attributed to airbags going off when the occupant is "out of position" - arm across steering wheel and that sort of thing. When you consider that the airbag is only really there because folks won't accept a full 4-point harness seatbelt as part of the seat, you wonder how sane the world is.

BRS should be seen in the same light. It no way guarantees every accident is survivable, but it does present more options. Hurling air at the gound to defy gravity is by it's very nature risky, so options are good. Maybe there needs to be an option of autodeploy, so that a BRS untrained pilot has a reliable backup. Maybe there needs to be an option of flaring, so the BRS works over more varied terrain. Certainly a parachute riser ring so the aircraft can be recovered from speed is a must.

Mart

[Dave_Jackson]

An alternative.

http://www.unicopter.com/Skyhook.jpeg

The Skyhook.

[NickLappos]

I love the debate, because it goes to the heart of how we get safer things. The weight of the parachute is large (about 75 lbs for an aircraft with 1200 pounds of total weight!)

Is the parachute the best place to spend the next 75 pounds of weight? I seriously doubt it, based on what causes accidents that the 'chute cannot possibly help. I would contend that a list of how to spend 75 pounds to make a machine safer could be drawn up from the list of what makes us crash.

[Graviman]

Well the obvious solution is get rid of those wing things, and put a rotor system on it. This must be safer than a parachute since it is always there and fully controlable (albeit not stable without pilot input). If the cost was to go down, and the aerodynamic efficiency was to go up there would likely be many converts.

I did a small handfull of static line jumps (mostly to see that i could exit after putting a glider into less than ideal situations - in truth too low for BRS to help). The interesting thing is that the concern is that the parachute won't deploy properly, but once deployed all is fine. An emergency situation already presents pressures, and i wonder how many pilots would see the deploy button as a "give up" strategy. This might delay deployment to the point where the BRS is ineffective.

Then again 34kg (in fangly european terminology) is not a lot to play with. For rotorcraft i would say control system. For fixed wing i would say anything which gives the potential for a point landing is good - especially for a high wing loading aircraft.

Mart

[slowrotor]

The parachute will not work at low altitude and most crashes happen at low altitude. I read that Cirrus installed the chute (not optional) to avoid compliance with FAA certification standards for spin recovery. The logic in that escapes me because most fatal spins occur below 500 to 1000ft where a parachute won't help.
The Cirrus is built of fiberglass, not as good as metal for absorbing kinetic energy. Only a good crash structure can help in low altitude events. Airbags might be a better choice if the weight is low.

I don't think a fiberglass automobile could pass any crash test. Just my opinion on the subject.

[Graviman]

Slowrotor, composites absorb a lot of energy because they fail after reaching high stresses. Look at all those F1 crashes. Steel is good, as long as you don't let it locally buckle. Aluminium is suprisingly forgiving since it is very ductile, so stiff sections will generally yield before they buckle. Normally a structure that crashes well is also good in fatigue, particularly if the loads are going in the same direction (there are always exceptions by local fatigue cracking).

A lot of powered aircraft don't spin recover well, mostly due to high Z-axis rotational inertia (ie masses like engines at the extremes). Any roll soon becomes yaw so the spin can flatten after a few turns, obviously natural pitch down helps to unstall the wings. Gliders are quite different: It used to amaze me that a K8 (wood) would recover just by relaxing the backpressure. A K21 (composite) would just go into a mushing turn. Not really flown properly for some years now though. :(

Agreed about old school, Um...lifting - just wish i had the money/time to enjoy it. :)

Mart

[Dave_Jackson]

I've got to vote with Nick. The parachute uses (75/(1025 655/2)) = 9% of the available payload. The wings aren't going to fall off; therefore some of the parachute's weight and cost can go into improving the few moving parts, such as the flight controls and the engine.


Two additional improvements would be the inclusion of a pair of Magic buttons on the console.

http://www.unicopter.com/MagicButton.gif http://www.unicopter.com/MagicButton.gif

The first button pops out and hits the pilot in the head when the fuel gets low.

The second button is for the passenger. She hits the button when the pilot has a heart attack or when he makes an attempt to initiate her into the Mile High Club. The activation of this button transfers control of the craft to someone sitting at a desk somewhere.


A third idea. The glide-slope of a fixed wing provides a relatively large area in which to put down and every pilot 'should' be continually aware of the wind-direction and terrain. The money and weight saving could be put into retractable landing gear and greater flap area. In addition to improving flight and glide ratio, emergency landings could be done at a slower speed and with a clean underbelly to minimize pitch-over.

Nick and I are in total agreement. 'Band-Aids' should not be used to mask inherent flaws. ;)

[NickLappos]

Give Dave one Attaboy!!:ok::ok:

[rudestuff]

....and I thought most crashes occurred at zero altitude!!

[MSP Aviation]

what i want to know is how a young flight instructor from california would EVER think of entering the NYC class B vfr corridor without some type of training or experience. it's one thing for a pilot to go on that type of endeavor uneducated, but for someone excercising the capacity of flight INSTRUCTOR to jump into something so complex and "local" is mind-boggling.

oh yeah, about the parachute, reporters are complaining on the news that it didn't "automatically deploy." well, after hitting a building, i don't thing anything is going to be doing much on that aircraft. not to mention, they expect it to be effective at ~500 feet?

[blave]

I have always valued and enjoyed Nick's posts, but this time I'm a bit baffled by the motivation behind his initial post here about the BRS system.
Of course it will not save 100% of the Cirrus pilots out there - it all depends on whether the situation allows the pilot time and thought process to decide to deploy it - but in the relatively short history of the Cirrus type there are numerous cases where the BRS has "let down" SR20/22 aircraft in a manner that not only saved the lives of the people on board, but also allowed those airplanes to fly again. Certainly it seems (to me anyway) that in some cases the BRS saved pilots from their own stupidity but the fact remains that it *saved* them to learn and hopefully not do that again.
It will take the NTSB some time to figure out what happened in this particular accident, but again I don't understand why there is a "piling on" to the concept of equipping an aircraft with BRS.
Disclaimers: I have about 25 hours in rented Cirrus SR20s, out of about 250 hours total in fixed wing aircraft, and found it to be an excellent airplane and very enjoyable to fly (although it lands nothing like a Cessna!). I'm also a low-timer in fling-wingers, with about 190 hours in those things.
To be honest the TCAS traffic avoidance system in the SR20 that I flew was the biggest leg-up for me in terms of perceived safety, but it was also nice knowing that if things went totally pear-shaped I had the option of pulling the BRS handle.
In summary - would I pay the extra $ to get the BRS option for an aircraft that I was lucky enough to be able to purchase? - you bet.
Dave Blevins

[Matthew Parsons]

Nick and Dave, of course you're right in theory. This is a heavy fix to mask a problem that couldn't get past certification.

Unfortunately it is probably the only economic fix. An aerodynamic fix may have been possible, but would have cost the company and ultimately the customer. That fix may also have come with a performance penalty that is worse than the loss of 75lb of payload.

I don't have the stats on other fleets, but it seems that this aircraft's short life has already had more than its share of accidents and media attention.

[slowrotor]

Composite
The late Paul Schweizer said that Europian fiberglass gliders did not have the crash absorbing quality of a metal Schweizer glider. They refused to switch to glass and ended production of gliders. The demand for increased performance dictated the switch to fiberglass with a loss in crash safety.
Schweizer builds helicopters now instead of gliders.
Some glass airplanes have a steel tube cockpit cage for crashes, but I don't think the Cirrus has a metal cage.
Carbon fiber is even more brittle than glass and leaves sharp needles when it breaks. Glass doesn't absorb the impact like metal. Metal bends and actually gets warm to the touch (try it), this absorbs the impact energy. Glass will hold the energy and then rebound, which is not good for the occupant.
I want metal around me. Just like race cars.

[NickLappos]

Umm and Blave, you have actually got the message that sparked my orignal post.

As long as pilots think of a piece of kit as "good" or "bad" we are lost. My wife's pocketbook is full of "good" stuff that is all very "necessary" and as long as there is no limit to what it weighs, no limit to what she can carry, everything that is "good" is included.

The real test for us is to actually not ask an individual question, "Is kit A good?" and so forth, it is to ask, "Is Kit A better than 6 of Kit W plus 2 of Kit G?"

If I had 75 pounds of design value to spend, I would spend it on the next most likely accident cause! If that is "wing failure", or "engine failure and unsurvivable terrain below" then I would buy the 'chute, but it is not, guys.

Here are some data to help decide what the next pound of safety gear might have to be to save the next accident from happening:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/01nall.pdf

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/mostwanted/aviation_issues.htm

[Matthew Parsons]

Nick, if the kit is an option that the company or the customer are choosing, then I completely agree with you. However, I was under the impression that for the Cirrus it was a required piece of kit to conform to certification. I heard something about a spin recovery issue but could find nothing concrete.

[chuks]

I was interested to hear that, here in the UK, the Cirrus is not approved because it hasn't got demonstrated spin recovery. The one I was looking at was 'N' registered and this was given as the reason for that. The CAA don't accept the BRS as a substitute, it would seem.

From my point of view I would rather have two engines, assuming enough power easily to fly on one, over any other safety system.

You get into a lot of statistics with this one, of course, plus you need enough skill to control a twin in an asymmetric condition where with the Cirrus I suppose you would hope to simply actuate the BRS and float to earth.

There you would have the argument for 'active' versus 'passive' safety. Either you can actively avoid a forced landing with the twin or else you can passively avoid injury with the BRS.

It's sort of like driving a BMW or else a Land Cruiser. Either you hope to avoid a crash by deft driving or else you just plan to ride it out inside your safety cage.

It's pretty interesting to look at all these light aircraft after a long time away. The most attractive one I have seen is the Diamond DA-42 TwinStar. It seems to have a fairly high level of inherent safety (twin engines, redundant displays, StormScope, some kind of basic TCAS, known icing approval, etc,)with a lot of sophisticated modern systems in a small package, plus it burns Jet-A at about 10 gallons per hour. Of course I have no idea what it costs but it can't be cheap!

[NickLappos]

It appears that the Cirrus types NEED the chute, as it is part of their Type Cert Data Sheet, and there is an equivilent safty finding about spins, which are covered by 23.221. Here is the excerpt from their TCDS:

http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/1.jpg


The whole TCDS is at:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/7a3e22e51d22377c862571c4005374f4/$FILE/A00009CH.pdf

[Dave_Jackson]

Um... lifting...

If your position is "don't leave home without it" then may I suggest you purchase a mobile home.


Dave

[chuks]

There's something else on that list for the Cirrus, the last item, which refers, I believe, to a sort of shoulder harness with an airbag built in. (Some airliners use that for these new seats that are off-axis, the luxury ones that lie flat.)

Weren't they trying airbags for attack helicopters recently?

I think that many manufacturers are trying to find ways to make their products more user-friendly and inherently safer, aircraft included.

I recently renewed my CFI in the States, when I was surprised to see all the new categories for recreational pilot licences. The idea of skill levels below the FAA PPL seems a bit odd to me, but hey, it gets more guys into the air!

You can see a certain level of friction here, I think, with many people being a bit sceptical about the R-22 and R-44 as not being 'proper' helicopters in some essential ways. All I can say is that I don't really like to see things held together with blind rivets, but that might be just being old-fashioned.

When you combine the low-skilled licence and the cheap airframe then you do seem to get a certain sort of accident, though. With you guys it seems to be, typically, mast-bumping and with us it seems to be operating beyond one's skill level. That could be the same thing, perhaps.

There's a new kind of entrepreneur around who looks at aviation as a pure business opportunity. You build something to a price, market it 'so' and make big bucks. The idea of backing way off to take a careful look at what sort of trouble your new class of customer can get into doesn't seem to come into that. There has always been the dream of an aerial vehicle as simple to operate as a family car. Of course most people don't stop to think just how dangerous even the family car can be!

Some of the high-profile accidents seem to be people buying into this dream and then getting themselves into big trouble, so that I wonder if the FAA will move to tighten up the rules again, reversing what seems to be the trend.

Soon there shall be a lot of VLJ (Very Light Jet) aircraft coming to market, perfect for your hard-charging executive types, or so it would seem. It may turn out to be the modern version of the old joke about how if there weren't so many doctors then the airport ramps would be crammed with Beech Bonanzas!

From the professional pilot's point of view, without wishing anyone to come to harm, I think it's clear that we would like the dream of owner-flown business aircraft to remain just that!