BRS equipped plane for training

[vjmehra]

I've got quite attached to the idea of a BRS now, since it was first suggested to me and it definitely re-assures the missus, so am keen to find a way of training with a BRS equipped plane.

Post PPL currently I like the idea of switching to a Cirrus, however it may be cheaper (and more interesting, for a bit of variety) to train in a more simplistic aircraft (of course I realise, very few are BRS equipped).

Is there anywhere that offers training in an Ikarus C42 (the VLA version, not the microlight version) with a BRS near(ish) London (or of course a similar BRS equipped alternative that I am not familiar with)?

[Genghis the Engineer]

The VLA version C42 is a homebuilt, so can only be used for training if you own it outright I'm afraid.

To be honest, the BRS is no big deal -it's really there in the Cirrus to get the manufacturer around some handling deficiencies (the spinning characteristics don't, I understand, comply with the certification standards). I'd just concentrate on finding a good school with a good training aeroplane.

The ubiquitous Cessna 152, PA28 and Cessna 172 are all great training aeroplanes, and very common. Finding a good school can be a little harder work! There are loads on threads on that subject however.

If you fancy learning in a C42, go to a good microlight school such as Airborne at Popham, who use the type. But most of those won't use the BRS either. The C42 is a very good training aeroplane and you'll enjoy it.

I can't say it would worry me - I've flown with BRS for test programmes, but would not regard it as far off the bottom of my wishlist for most flying. Good maintenance, and especially a really good instructor and a user friendly airfield, are far more important when learning - and a pilot's professionalism and currency thereafter.

G

[vjmehra]

Yeah, that does seem to be the conventional view. However having studied a decent number of NTSB crash reports it does seem that whilst it can't be proved, on a number of occasions chute's could have at least possibly prevented fatalities (speculation of course I realise).

I may well end up going down the route you suggest in reality, although I'm still on the look out if anyone can suggest anywhere (that saide, other than the Cirrus, with the Ikarus out of the question am I out of alternatives)?

[Pilot DAR]

I'm with Genghis on this one. In 35 years of flying, I have never once thought to myself "gosh, I wish I had a parachute right now", and this include the jumper flying I did, where they made me wear one!

Concentrate on getting good instruction, building your skills, flying within them, and flying well maintained aircraft, with enough fuel, and you're not going to need a BRS. If proper training, and your demonstrating your skills don't reassure you that a BRS is redundant, you should reassess you commitment to wanting to fly.

One half of the Cirrus accidents I can think of, involved fatalities, and the 'chute could not have helped even were it to have been deployed. Don't worry about having to hit the silk....

[vjmehra]

'If proper training, and your demonstrating your skills don't reassure you that a BRS is redundant, you should reassess you commitment to wanting to fly.'

I don't agree with this statement, good training and constant practice do not protect you from freak events such as structural failiure, incapacitation by bird strike or mid air collision (where you were following correct procedure and the other pilot wasn't).

I appreciate these events may be statistically improbable and I may yet decide to accept the risk, however I don't feel you can categorically say training can protect you from every eventuality and presumably part of being a good pilot is assessing risk and deciding the best course of action. In essence, thats what I'm trying to do here, there may be a minimal risk, but if possible I would like to reduce it even further!

Presumably enough people must be worried enough about events such as these, otherwise Cirrus planes wouldn't be so popular?

[Pilot DAR]

good training and constant practice do not protect you from freak events such as structural failiure, incapacitation by bird strike or mid air collision

I can't say that the foregoing never occur, but I can say that no pilot I know has ever suffered any of those at a severity which made deploying a 'chute something they would consider. A freak accident could as likely result from a failure of the 'chute to deploy! I just don't think to protect against these risks, other than the basic cautions of a good look out, and good maintenance.

What's the level of interest in BRS systems? They are STC'd into Cessna 150's, and for probably 6000 to 7000 of these aircraft flying, only three systems were sold. It would appear that the risk vs cost did not work well for everyone else.

I think that being equipped with a BRS would be only one of many factors which would make the Cirrus popular. As Genghis mentions, I understand it was required to make up for other handling deficiencies. It would be those deficiencies which would worry me! I understand that it is a somewhat limited envelope of flight, for which the 'chute can be deployed, what about all the flying you do which is not in that envelope? If the Cirrus had flying characteristics which did not require a BRS, and it was a factory option, I would buy the plane without, given the choice.

These systems are heavy, expensive to buy, and expensive to maintain. You can pay those costs, which are very certainly built into the rental cost of the aircraft, if you want, but know that you are paying a cost which most other pilots consider unnecessary.

I don't intend the foregoing to come across as patronizing, but rather reassuring. You would probably not wear a nomex flight suit for every flight, but I expect that a fire is a greater risk! There are so many "low level" risks in flying, guarding against every one, all the time, gets very heavy and costly.

Your choice though....

[chrisN]

Aviation Video: Collision With a Glider Tow Line | Patrick's Aviation

“This amazing video (excerpted from CNN) shows an aircraft deploying an all-aircraft parachute made by Ballistic Recovery Systems of St. Paul, MN, after colliding with a glider tow-plane.”

I wish I had one in my glider. I doubt if I could get out to use my personal parachute, even if I were to survive a collision in a condition and high enough to deploy it.

Chris N
==================

[NazgulAir]

Presumably enough people must be worried enough about events such as these, otherwise Cirrus planes wouldn't be so popular?

Perhaps it's a different approach to caution that leads some people to think BRS-equipped aircraft are safer. People who might think that flying without a BRS is unsafe for some reason?

I find it worrying that there are so many of them that they can make BRS-equipped aircraft so popular.

Unexpected structural failures and sudden unexpected loss of control -- two instances where I'd regret not having a BRS -- are so rare a risk that it's ludicrous to call an aircraft safer because it has a BRS. The more common causes of accidents resulting in serious injuries or death are chains of events in which human error is a factor, and I'd much rather spend money on training and safety awareness foremost instead of relying on a piece of equipment to get me out of trouble.

The statistics are not encouraging and seem to suggest that the on-board BRS might give some people a false sense of security. It certainly isn't the answer to all emergencies.

[Tinstaafl]

I think the money spent on a BRS system is better spent on training & currency. By & large, training, currency & good airmanship negate the need. Look at the two greatest factors in GA accidents: Fuel starvation/exhaustion, and flight into IMC by an insufficiently qualified pilot. Provided you know the fuel system and are conservative with your decisions about fuel & weather, you've pretty much eliminated the major of the risks in flying.

BRS isn't an unlimited 'get out of jail free card'. There are limitations on when it can be deployed. The aircraft has to be above a certain altitude achieve stability under canopy so that removes most approach & landing accidents (a relatively high risk stage of flight), it has to be within certain speed so spiral dives are out (and anyway are recoverable conventionally outside BRS limits). In fact, pretty much any time speed is above manoevering speed so even normal cruise can be too fast. CFIT is often unintentional as a result of scud running so not good then either. Spins? I think spin avoidance *and* recovery training along with an airframe certified for spin recovery ie most single engine aircraft *except* Cirrus, is a better bet.

Even if a forced landing is necessary, statistics show that arriving in a reasonably clear area, under control at a low speed has a rather good outcome in terms of survival.

I think you're making your decision based on a misapprehension of where the real risks lie and just how beneficial a BRS would be.

[A and C]

Tinstaafi

You have hit the nail on the head, I completely agree.

[peterh337]

I very much agree. The vast majority of Cirrus chute pulls have been in circumstances where there was no need to use the chute.

However, the report of "the wife" liking the chute option is awfully persistent

Like the "simple" fixed landing gear, and the "simple" but awfully crude way they did away with the prop RPM lever (which causes every SR20/22 owner to burn perhaps 5% more juice) it is very good marketing.

[gasax]

From the context of the questions you have asked you do not have much personal knowledge.

So good idea to post here and get a much more considered reply. Might also be worth looking for a copy of January's Flying magazine. It has a very telling article from a flight instructor on her views of people learning in what in the US is called a TAA - Technically Advanced Aircraft - actually a Cirrus.

It essentially says if you teach people to fly in a TAA - using the auto pilot and glass screens - they have insufficient flying skill to manage the aircraft if the autos give up - which then leaves them with only the 'chute as an option. A very thought provoking article.

[172driver]

While I don't really agree with most sentiments re the BRS here - to me it smacks a little of the 'don't use GPS for navigation' argument - I wholeheartedly agree with this:

It essentially says if you teach people to fly in a TAA - using the auto pilot and glass screens - they have insufficient flying skill to manage the aircraft if theautos give up - which then leaves then with only the 'chute as an option.

In fact, you can read a lot more about this general trend right here on Pprune, just pop over to the R&N forum and read the AF477 thread(s) and some others. Scary stuff.

By all means get yourself a BRS equipped a/c, I think it'll be a great thing to have, but learn to FLY airplanes first! That way you will hopefully never need it.

[patowalker]

If you fancy learning in a C42, go to a good microlight school such as Airborne at Popham, who use the type. But most of those won't use the BRS either.

A bit off topic, but some C42 microlights are now being fitted with parachutes to take advantage of the increase in MTOW. The allowance is 22.5kg and fitting the approved Galaxy system means there is about 11kgs available for additional fuel or crew weight.
Ironically, many think they are being fitted for safety reasons.

[Rod1]

“I don't agree with this statement, good training and constant practice do not protect you from freak events such as structural failure, incapacitation by bird strike or mid air collision (where you were following correct procedure and the other pilot wasn't).”

Proper training can certainly reduce your chances of mid air collisions. Structural failure due to miss handling the aircraft does happen occasionally, but again good training will impact this, wings falling off for no reason never happens as far as I can remember. Birds do not usually make the airframe to uncontrollable. If you are really wedded to the idea, and your training is safer than your first 100 h as a PPL, then find an aerobatic machine that will accept a conventional chute.
A BRS was an option on my aircraft but I sis not fit it. It can cause accidents due to reduced performance etc as well as bail you out. Excellent marketing idea, the other ½ will love it.

Rod1

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Tinstaafl

I think the money spent on a BRS system is better spent on training & currency. By & large, training, currency & good airmanship negate the need. Look at the two greatest factors in GA accidents: Fuel starvation/exhaustion, and flight into IMC by an insufficiently qualified pilot.

Sorry Freelunch, but you are miles out (although as I'll explain in a moment, I still agree with your conclusions).

The well regarded GASCo 29 year fatal accidents study showed the following proportions of accident causal factors in the UK:

LoC VFR: 25%
Low flying and aeros: 16%
CFIT: 12%
Forced landing: 12%
LoC IMC: 8%
Mid-air: 6%
Ground collision: 5%
Airframe failure: 4%
Problem on low approach: 4%
Medical / suicide: 3%
Unknown: 5%

A proportion of the LoC IMC accidents will be from inadvertent flight into IMC - let's guess half. A proportion of the forced landings will be due to fuel mismanagement, let's guess half again. That puts your "two greatest factors" contributing to about 10% of fatal accidents.

The reason that I agree with your conclusions however are that of the rest - virtually all of the LoC VFR are due to manoeuvring at low level, and maybe a quarter of the LoC IMC. Ground collision is ground collision, so is a problem on low approach, so are mishandled low level aeros. Add all those up and you get about 64% of all fatal accidents - let's call it two thirds, are at low level where the parachute has not enough time to do any good.

Add to that mid-airs, a proportion of which will either kill you outright or disable the parachute, let's guess half again; also assume that some of the unknowns were too low-level for the chute, and some of the medical ones the pilot was unconscious anyhow from a heart attack or some other issue, so unable to pull the handle....


... And *maybe* in 30% of fatal accident scenarios, a BRS would have had value. That's 30% of a (statistically) 1 in 70,000 hrs event.

So, multiple the odds of being in a fatal accident circumstance, by the odds of the BRS then being able to help you - and I reckon you get about 1 in 230,000 chances, per flying hour, of it doing any good.

Fly 100 hours a year (quite a lot, but roughly what I do), then assume a 40 year flying career, and you get a 1 in 60 chance of ever actually needing that chute.

More likely for a typical keen PPL - 20 hours per year for 20 years, and it becomes around 1 in 600.

For the financial investment, I think that training, good aircraft maintenance, and maintaining currency - will show a far better return. It'll help avoid the other 2/3 of accidents! A good moving map GPS with current airspace and terrain databases, plus an aeroplane which happens to have a really loud and intrusive stall warned, will betweeen them offer far greater benefits, for a lot less money. So will instrument training, and keeping that training current.


BRS are mandatory in Germany on Ultralights - and if you look at their structural standards, and history of in-flight breakups particularly of high performance ultralights, that's appropriate. FAR-103 ultralights in the USA have no structural or maintenance oversight, so I'd probably want one on one of those as well. I have several times in my life insisted on a BRS before flying a spinning programme on an aeroplane that I couldn't bale out of.

But on any British microlight, or any aeroplane worldwide with a CofA, frankly they're decoration - and can cause problems themselves given that you have an explosive device which might potentially fire inadvertently following a survivable crash, making the situation worse, not better.

G

[paulp]

To be honest, the BRS is no big deal -it's really there in the Cirrus to get the manufacturer around some handling deficiencies (the spinning characteristics don't, I understand, comply with the certification standards).

Not true. The BRS system was included as standard because Alan Klapmeirer was involved in a midair and pressured his brother, Dale, to make it standard. Dale wanted to make it an option. Once that decision was made, it was decided to save money by using the Equivalent Level of Safety provision to reduce certification cost. A limited spin series was conducted for European certification which the Cirrus passed with no issues.

I'm with Genghis on this one. In 35 years of flying, I have never once thought to myself "gosh, I wish I had a parachute right now", and this include the jumper flying I did, where they made me wear one!

For me the main times I think about the chute is night and over low overcast.

One half of the Cirrus accidents I can think of, involved fatalities, and the 'chute could not have helped even were it to have been deployed.

I don't know if the 50% number is correct but I agree in principle. The BRS system is useful in only a subset of instances. It will not help if you fly into the side of a mountain. More importantly, it won't help in a base to final stall incident.

I can say that no pilot I know has ever suffered any of those at a severity which made deploying a 'chute something they would consider. A freak accident could as likely result from a failure of the 'chute to deploy!

I have. I also had a friend die because he tried to make the airport rather than pull. He staled just shy of the runway. Listening to his 9 year old daughter talk about missing her dad was tough.

These systems are heavy, expensive to buy, and expensive to maintain.

Very true. Just like a second engine, more seats, a bigger engine, thESE are very valid reasons for not wanting the system. Aircraft are a tradeoff of many things and BRS is one of those tradeoff decisions. For example, you need to budget about $1,000US/yr for the 10 year refit.

Even if a forced landing is necessary, statistics show that arriving in a reasonably clear area, under control at a low speed has a rather good outcome in terms of survival.

This is one area where I like the BRS system. While survivable, many off airport landings result in severe injuries. Take your car and drive over a field at 100km/hr. Now imagine being on small tires without shocks. The record of BRS is very good as far as injuries. Also, the record for off airport landings is bolstered by planes with low stall speeds. The percentage of accidents that result in fatalities goes up almost linearly with stall speed. The SR22 has a 59kt stall speed. In many ways it is much closer to a C310 than a C172.

BRS works well above 200m and has worked at much lower altitudes. Actual deployments have succeeded at 180kts although 133 indicated is the POH number.

The psychology of the BRS system is interesting whether you like it or don't. To the people enthralled by it I want to remind them that it is not a cure all and doesn't apply to a wide variety of accident scenarios. On the other hand, those against it talk about spin accidents as if being spin certified would make a difference. Twins aren't spin certified but people don't seem bothered by that. A stall in the pattern is too low for spin recover to be an issue. Stall recovery is what is important and the Cirrus has excellent stall recovery characteristics.

The vast majority of Cirrus chute pulls have been in circumstances where there was no need to use the chute.

I strongly disagree with this. What I see is more a case of people not pulling when they should have.

I agree with the training comments on TAA aircraft but there is also the issue of making sure you know how to use what you have. A good autopilot can really help if you get into trouble and know how to use it. As an example of not knowing your aircraft I like the NASA report where the pilot busted class B because a message covered his GPS screen and he didn't know how to clear it. You need to fully know the systems.

With respect to Cirrus, an interesting statistic is that 22% of accidents involve IMC as opposed to 5% for Diamond. If you go to Flightaware.com and look at planes in the ATC system you see a lot of Cirrus aircraft. This is a fast, cross country plane and the accident record reflects that. Someone once said "You don't buy a twin to fly circuits." You don't get an SR22 to just take local flights in good weather. I tell people that the SR22 is dangerous because it is fast and comfortable. When I transitioned, my "awakenings" were:

1) Need for approach planning. About 20nm out I start planning altitude and consider reducing power.

2) Weather. Even a fun practice flight involves a serious look at weather since it is easy to wind up far from where I started.

3) Speed management especially on landing. At 3400lb max gross and about 80 kts over the numbers there is a lot of kinetic energy on landing. Combine that with small tires and springy gear (no shocks) and you see you can't be sloppy.

As for the combined throttle/prop control on the Cirrus, you can get the same effect as a prop control when the throttle is wide open but you do have less flexibility elsewhere. From 2500 RPM to 2700 RPM the "throttle" is really fully open ant it is just a prop control. I have a very slow SR22. Why I don't know. I get about 160kts @ 10.5GPH at 17K' and about 167kts at 15 gph at 5000'.

[patowalker]

and can cause problems themselves given that you have an explosive device which might potentially fire inadvertently following a survivable crash, making the situation worse, not better.

I would hate to be lying injured in aircraft wreckage with a live BRS while Fireman Sam deciphers this http://brsparachutes.com/files/brspa...Responders.pdf

[Mechta]

It certainly seems bizarre to me, as a glider pilot, that it is normal to wear a parachute in a pure glider, but not in a motor glider (Falke) which is often in the same thermals. Sitting in the middle of the Falke's fuel system (tank behind, gascolator etc. somewhere above my knees and the engine only a few inches in front of that) and in a fabric covered aircraft to boot, the risk from fire seems pretty high, and the risk of collision the same as the glider.

In the cases of the three mid-air collisions suffered by Air Cadet Grob Tutors on air experience flights, reading between the lines of the accident reports, it would appear that had ballistically deployed airframe parachutes been fitted, that could have been operated by a briefed cadet, lives would have been saved. I hope they are included in the specification of any future replacement.

Expecting a first time flier to make a successful exit, make what is probably their first free fall parachute jump and steer it to a safe landing, is a tall order, although I am aware of at least two instances in which it has happened.

Pulling a BRS handle and staying where you are (in all cases except fire) strikes me as giving the average person the best chance of survival.

To criticise the Cirrus pilots who have made successful parachute recoveries, once they had evaluated the situation they were in and and assessed the skills and experience available, seems churlish. Any sim pilot can, after a few attempts come up with an alternative scenario, but the choice with the highest chance of survival at the time is the one that matters.

[sdbeach]

To be honest, the BRS is no big deal -it's really there in the Cirrus to get the manufacturer around some handling deficiencies (the spinning characteristics don't, I understand, comply with the certification standards).

This misinformation needs to stop. Read this web info: Why Cirrus (CAPS & Stall/Spin)
Spinning characteristics in the Cirrus SR20/SR22 are conventional. The Europeans did test spin characteristics and published a report to this effect.

What happened is that Cirrus and the FAA both agreed that including a ballistic parachute would afford a pilot additional recovery options for stall/spin accidents. Their research showed that pilots died in planes certified for spins because the pilots either failed to recover correctly or did not have the altitude to recover. Consequently, the FAA (and all subsequent national certifications such as the Europeans) approved an Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) for complying with the spin certification requirement. To qualify, Cirrus had to demonstrate that the ballistic parachute would recover a plane in a fully developed spin after 1-1/2 turns. The parachute did.

Cheers
Rick