BRS in a twin
Moderator
This discussion has naturally followed the path of highlighting the differing pilot preferences with respect to flying or riding to the ground following an "emergency". Those who would choose to have a parachute available are entitled to their opinion, though I do not share it.
As I think back over 35 years and 6400 hours of flying, I do not every recall a situation when I would have wanted to have a parachute available. When I flew jumpers, I was required to wear one, but only because of the risk of my being flung out of the aircraft's open door. I was happy to trust the seatbelt, they insisted on more protection.
A number of valid points have been made about the landing gear and general arrangement of the airframe being different in twins so as to loose some of the occupant protection characteristics common to BRS equipped types. Add to that the cost (both initial, and on going maintenance) of the system, and carrying that weight, and most pilots would shy away. Yes, a few conditions mentioned, like a forced landing into rugged terrain make the parachute attractive, but a pilot can choose to not fly there too!
Happily, pilots are not demanding en-mass, the provision of parachutes, so obviously there is a very low perceived risk of needing it, and I support that view...
As I think back over 35 years and 6400 hours of flying, I do not every recall a situation when I would have wanted to have a parachute available. When I flew jumpers, I was required to wear one, but only because of the risk of my being flung out of the aircraft's open door. I was happy to trust the seatbelt, they insisted on more protection.
A number of valid points have been made about the landing gear and general arrangement of the airframe being different in twins so as to loose some of the occupant protection characteristics common to BRS equipped types. Add to that the cost (both initial, and on going maintenance) of the system, and carrying that weight, and most pilots would shy away. Yes, a few conditions mentioned, like a forced landing into rugged terrain make the parachute attractive, but a pilot can choose to not fly there too!
Happily, pilots are not demanding en-mass, the provision of parachutes, so obviously there is a very low perceived risk of needing it, and I support that view...
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are certainly times when I would pull a chute
1 - over water
2 - over a forest
3 - over a solid cloud layer, believed to have a low bottom
4 - over the middle of the Pyrenees
5 - severe icing with no "descent to warm air" escape route, due to terrain
Except for 1. (which has a viable escape route: a life raft) one spends relatively little time in these places, without being able to glide somewhere.
In the context of a twin, you have the SE ceiling, which on most light twins is at a level which would suprise most people... if they want to e.g. cross mountains at FL180. Obviously the glide ratio is a lot better even then than the -1000fpm you can expect in the typical SE but there might be scenarios where a chute might be pulled. Especially given that twins have no max Vs figure for certification (60kt for SE).
OTOH ISTM that most twins that come down have either empty tanks, or the (multiple) tanks have been mismanaged, and carrying a 50-100kg BRS chute to cover that is not really good risk management
1 - over water
2 - over a forest
3 - over a solid cloud layer, believed to have a low bottom
4 - over the middle of the Pyrenees
5 - severe icing with no "descent to warm air" escape route, due to terrain
Except for 1. (which has a viable escape route: a life raft) one spends relatively little time in these places, without being able to glide somewhere.
In the context of a twin, you have the SE ceiling, which on most light twins is at a level which would suprise most people... if they want to e.g. cross mountains at FL180. Obviously the glide ratio is a lot better even then than the -1000fpm you can expect in the typical SE but there might be scenarios where a chute might be pulled. Especially given that twins have no max Vs figure for certification (60kt for SE).
OTOH ISTM that most twins that come down have either empty tanks, or the (multiple) tanks have been mismanaged, and carrying a 50-100kg BRS chute to cover that is not really good risk management
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happily, pilots are not demanding en-mass, the provision of parachutes, so obviously there is a very low perceived risk of needing it, and I support that view...
In any other class this is a moot point as the pilots can demand all day, there just aren't any twins or turboprops with chutes - although, intersting enough, the turboprop kitplane single Epic has one.
If I am ever in a position to spend half a million on an aircraft, and it is a 20 grand option, I would buy the chute even if it had four engines.
If I had that money and had to choose between the corvalis 400 and the sr22t, I would probably go for the sr22, although the corvalis is a better aircraft (if you have 800m runway). If I had the choice between two new twins, it would be similar for me.
Only when you enter cas-only, twin-turboprop or better operations it stops to make sense.
Moderator
I know nothing of the sales of the SR22 or Corvalis, but I would be surprised to find that the availability of a parachute is a large factor in the purchase choice. But I could be wrong. Like other things in our society, people are being offered "more protection" with new systems and products on a regular basis. Some people find security in knowing that these are available. Some pilots will choose to carry such systems and products for every flight, accepting the weight and cost penalties in doing so. That is their choice, and I hope that they feel suitably secure, and don't complain about the cost.
I have found comfort over all these years of flying, considering the risks of flying, and preparing appropriately. These preparations might include: G meter, life jacket, floater/immersion suit, raft, parachute, night vision, survival kit, winter wear, extra GPU battery, extra fuel, or a second engine or amphibian (requires different plane). I choose the ones I need for a particular flight, I don't carry all of them for every flight. The odd time when up, I consider that I could have a more appropriate choice conditions considered, so I mitigate in other ways to keep things safe. Generally this is the choice to fly around an in hospidible feature, rather than over it!
I have found comfort over all these years of flying, considering the risks of flying, and preparing appropriately. These preparations might include: G meter, life jacket, floater/immersion suit, raft, parachute, night vision, survival kit, winter wear, extra GPU battery, extra fuel, or a second engine or amphibian (requires different plane). I choose the ones I need for a particular flight, I don't carry all of them for every flight. The odd time when up, I consider that I could have a more appropriate choice conditions considered, so I mitigate in other ways to keep things safe. Generally this is the choice to fly around an in hospidible feature, rather than over it!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the principal US SR22 market segment is very appreciative of the chute.
Less so among experienced pilots who understand the technology and where the technology is strong and where it is weak, but that isn't the main SR22 market.
Less so among experienced pilots who understand the technology and where the technology is strong and where it is weak, but that isn't the main SR22 market.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is the Cirrus so heavy on insurance if it has such good safety benefits? other than the point that if you pull the chute you write off the airframe!
Down side is that flying the cirrus will give pilots false security and put them in situations where caution would not normally let them go.
That in itself will create chute situations.
The only positive side of the chute would be a midair or pilot incapacitation where a family well versed in its use could land back in relatively one piece.
Pace
Down side is that flying the cirrus will give pilots false security and put them in situations where caution would not normally let them go.
That in itself will create chute situations.
The only positive side of the chute would be a midair or pilot incapacitation where a family well versed in its use could land back in relatively one piece.
Pace
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is the Cirrus so heavy on insurance
In the UK, some underwriters have reacted badly to chute pulls in what they presumably regarded as circumstances not justifying the PIC's decision to write off the aircraft. I know of one case where the excess was jacked up about 5x, IIRC.
In the USA, from one informal survey I saw some years ago, SR22 premiums were running at about 4x TB20 premiums. To be fair, the hull value would have been different (due to different ages); the TB hull might have been insured for $150k average whereas the SR22 hull might have been insured for $300k.
The most eye watering figure I recall was a DA42 premium in Canada which was well over US$10k.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is the Cirrus so heavy on insurance if it has such good safety benefits?
It is very complex why the safety record is not better (and at times has been worse than average) I can not explain all those reasons.
The insurance I think is reasonable and no where near the figures above.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the UK, some underwriters have reacted badly to chute pulls in what they presumably regarded as circumstances not justifying the PIC's decision to write off the aircraft. I know of one case where the excess was jacked up about 5x, IIRC.
As far as I recall I am aware only one chute pull in the UK which was Oxford, a non IFR rated pilot in IMC I think. And touch wood the only fatality being the young guy leaving Biggin for Jersey, late in the day and very inexperienced.
Not many considering a reasonable size fleet and the hours flown.
However the total fleet size is 5000 + and we are sadly up to Cirrus Fatal accident No 88 which was an SR20 in UTAH, at high altitude, In the mountains, 4 up. Not a good recipe.
(PS apologies thread creep)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: India
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i prefer the other engine. heard of candeling issues in some cases. in additiion, most pilots would probably try thr engine out procedures and then decide on the chute. time critical decision.
Last edited by pilotinstructor; 22nd Jun 2012 at 18:07.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pilotinstructor,
the one scenario where the chute helps least is also the most critcal in a twin - engine failure immediately after take off. Although there are documented successful deployments from around 500ft, that is probably high enough to take the edge off the transition to asymmetric flight.
And yes, given sufficient altitude, the level headed cirrus pilot will trim for the glide, point towards somewhere landable and then try a re-start, see if they can make a sensible field, and then pull the chute.
I can also understand DAR Pilot s attitude that he considers no field sensible because you cannot tell if it really is sensible from a safe BRS deployment altitude. I do not share it, though - an opinion formed from once landing in a field... but his point is valid, I vividly remember how the number of poles, telegraph lines, overhead railway wires, bushes etc. increases HUGELY when you are coming down...
the one scenario where the chute helps least is also the most critcal in a twin - engine failure immediately after take off. Although there are documented successful deployments from around 500ft, that is probably high enough to take the edge off the transition to asymmetric flight.
And yes, given sufficient altitude, the level headed cirrus pilot will trim for the glide, point towards somewhere landable and then try a re-start, see if they can make a sensible field, and then pull the chute.
I can also understand DAR Pilot s attitude that he considers no field sensible because you cannot tell if it really is sensible from a safe BRS deployment altitude. I do not share it, though - an opinion formed from once landing in a field... but his point is valid, I vividly remember how the number of poles, telegraph lines, overhead railway wires, bushes etc. increases HUGELY when you are coming down...
Recent fatal accident in USA (not Cirrus) where the aircraft had been fitted with a balistic recovery system, but the CPL opted to attempt to land with elevator disconnected,
ERA12FA395
ERA12FA395
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cobalt
I have had one forced landing into a field and lost an engine at 200-300 after takeoff in a twin.
I did not have an option of a chute. A twin will handle an engine out if treated correctly and a single if flown correctly with an ability to take in possible landing sites 45 degrees or more either side of the nose so you have options and do not fixate on the one point at any cost.
The same with the twin analyse the situation and use all the tools and best options available do not fixate on one.
Pulling the chute and you become a passenger for wherever the aircraft decides to come down into which might be anything from power lines to a fast flowing river or into someones house or a car group of people or whatever.
While you are in control of the aircraft you choose. Fail and its you who cocks up not the aircraft.
Pace
I have had one forced landing into a field and lost an engine at 200-300 after takeoff in a twin.
I did not have an option of a chute. A twin will handle an engine out if treated correctly and a single if flown correctly with an ability to take in possible landing sites 45 degrees or more either side of the nose so you have options and do not fixate on the one point at any cost.
The same with the twin analyse the situation and use all the tools and best options available do not fixate on one.
Pulling the chute and you become a passenger for wherever the aircraft decides to come down into which might be anything from power lines to a fast flowing river or into someones house or a car group of people or whatever.
While you are in control of the aircraft you choose. Fail and its you who cocks up not the aircraft.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 22nd Jun 2012 at 20:23.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace,
You should have addressed your comment to DAR Pilot - he is the one who will pull the chute instead of attempting a forced landing (although, to be fair, he was not talking about EFATO, which is too low).
You should have addressed your comment to DAR Pilot - he is the one who will pull the chute instead of attempting a forced landing (although, to be fair, he was not talking about EFATO, which is too low).
Moderator
DAR Pilot - he is the one who will pull the chute instead of attempting a forced landing
Though I acknowledge a very few infrequent circumstances, where things line up, and pulling the 'chute would be a good idea, particularly for a non pilot occupant, I am not a supporter of the BRS as a design feature as a catch all safety feature. I agree with the suggestions that it fosters taking chances, and complacency.
I suggest that if every pilot who would willingly pay the initial and on going cost of the BRS, and the cost of the lesser utility of the BRS equipped aircraft, would instead devote that money to more and recurrent training as to how to not need the 'chute, we'd all be better off. That pilot would have better skills and decision making, for any type of aircraft they flew. Better to prevent completely, than to allow to happen, then mitigate maybe....
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, what have I written that leaves you with that impression? I'll be flying the plane to the ground/water no matter what
I also stated at the outset that each to their own but I would ask Pilot DAR and this is not being a smart ass as you have many more hours and experience than I ever will have, but have you done any amount of hours on a BRS equipped aircraft or any training on the benefits?
I would argue that without an engine in a SEP you have in effect lost control of the aircraft and if you are lucky and very skilled will be able to land it in a random field that is reasonably good terrain.
If we took a cross section of average PPL's and put them in a genuine engine failure situation completely randomly, out of 100 how many would die attempting to land in what ever terrain was at their disposal?
I personally think a reasonable percentage but no statistics I am aware of exist to verify this.
Regarding Chute pulls I only have Cirrus numbers out of 33 that have been conducted within the operating limits there has been ZERO fatalities and these have been over Sea, Running Water, Towns, Forests, Mountains, Open Fields etc.
My mind has been firmly made up, I just hope in the heat of the moment I do follow through as many a an aircraft has ended up in a hole with dead pilots and families and a perfectly good chute intact.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This Remos 15th June 2012, I pilot fatality, had a BRS
ERA12FA395
The ballistic parachute system parachute was not activated and found strewn along the debris path. The activation handle was found in the main wreckage secured with a padlock.
The key for the padlock was found on a key ring
An effing Padlock !!, in the Cirrus we have a pull pin, mine is allways removed before flight and the handle active, others Cirrus pilots refer to leave theirs in, one Cirrus fatality was found with the handle bent and the pin in !! , what a waste.
ERA12FA395
The ballistic parachute system parachute was not activated and found strewn along the debris path. The activation handle was found in the main wreckage secured with a padlock.
The key for the padlock was found on a key ringAn effing Padlock !!, in the Cirrus we have a pull pin, mine is allways removed before flight and the handle active, others Cirrus pilots refer to leave theirs in, one Cirrus fatality was found with the handle bent and the pin in !! , what a waste.
Last edited by 007helicopter; 23rd Jun 2012 at 07:15.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
007Heli
I cannot agree with the above statement in any form if that was the case then every glider pilot would be deemed to have lost control.
An aircraft which flies has airflow which creates lift that makes it fly. To get that airflow without getting into too much detail you require an energy source! You have two to play with the energy source available from the engine and the energy source available from the airframe.
In still air the glider only has the one source from the airframe so the glider is loosing height to maintain flying speed.
How on earth have you lost control by loosing the one energy source ie the engine? You still have as much control as you would have with the engine albeit you will be trading altitude to maintain that control.
By the time you land you will be near the stall speed. Most light singles dont need Heathrow to land on.
Taking out a hedge probably will not kill you! Stalling will as will other poor decision making or lack of skills.
As soon as you pull that chute the aircraft enters a state of NOT flying and you no longer have control.
Remember too that the descent rate and vertical impact with the ground is high and not to be taken lightly.
I too can see situations mainly pilot incapacitation and structural failure where the chute should be used but thats about it!
Under the chute with a high descent rate you in the lap of the Gods as to where you come down and as stated you could get severe back problems from the impact.
The negative side of having a chute is that pilots will push their luck with a false sense of security flying into conditions which neither they or the aircraft are up too.
Like Pilot Dar I think pilots are better placed honing their flying skills.
Get away from this modern mentality of creating aircraft drivers and back to creating pilots again?
Training pilots to handle and experience all sorts of situations! The very tragic crash of the PC12 where the aircraft broke up in a very high speed dive worries me that we do not do enough with basic flying skills in and out of the envelope and spend too much time on avoidance.
As with a twin which has an extra engine that extra engine gives you more options. With more options comes more choices! With more choices comes the option to make more wrong choices the same with the chute!
Pace
I would argue that without an engine in a SEP you have in effect lost control of the aircraft and if you are lucky and very skilled will be able to land it in a random field that is reasonably good terrain.
An aircraft which flies has airflow which creates lift that makes it fly. To get that airflow without getting into too much detail you require an energy source! You have two to play with the energy source available from the engine and the energy source available from the airframe.
In still air the glider only has the one source from the airframe so the glider is loosing height to maintain flying speed.
How on earth have you lost control by loosing the one energy source ie the engine? You still have as much control as you would have with the engine albeit you will be trading altitude to maintain that control.
By the time you land you will be near the stall speed. Most light singles dont need Heathrow to land on.
Taking out a hedge probably will not kill you! Stalling will as will other poor decision making or lack of skills.
As soon as you pull that chute the aircraft enters a state of NOT flying and you no longer have control.
Remember too that the descent rate and vertical impact with the ground is high and not to be taken lightly.
I too can see situations mainly pilot incapacitation and structural failure where the chute should be used but thats about it!
Under the chute with a high descent rate you in the lap of the Gods as to where you come down and as stated you could get severe back problems from the impact.
The negative side of having a chute is that pilots will push their luck with a false sense of security flying into conditions which neither they or the aircraft are up too.
Like Pilot Dar I think pilots are better placed honing their flying skills.
Get away from this modern mentality of creating aircraft drivers and back to creating pilots again?
Training pilots to handle and experience all sorts of situations! The very tragic crash of the PC12 where the aircraft broke up in a very high speed dive worries me that we do not do enough with basic flying skills in and out of the envelope and spend too much time on avoidance.
As with a twin which has an extra engine that extra engine gives you more options. With more options comes more choices! With more choices comes the option to make more wrong choices the same with the chute!
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 23rd Jun 2012 at 08:43.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace, sure I appreciate glider Pilots are trained to land in fields and have no engine power and also have air brakes and much lower landing speeds with greater glide ranges and are doing what they are designed to do.
I do not agree this is a fair comparison of your average PPL in a spam can (me included)
My point perhaps not made very well is that without an engine a normal SEP has much reduced and limited control would be a better way of saying it, ie you can not control exactly where you are going to end up and I think many misjudge it, usually with a bad outcome. I know that from doing my own PFL's and observing others, many seem to end up short of the anticipated landing area, combine that with challenging wind, visibility, adrenaline etc. In the heat of the moment in a real forced landing I bet decision making power and skill reduce dramatically.
I am just saying what my preference is with the tools I have available to me and what I have trained to use.
I totally agree with investing time and money in basic recurrent training which again my personal observation is the majority do not.
[QUOTE]Get away from this modern mentality of creating aircraft drivers and back to creating pilots again?[QUOTE]
What is wrong with using Modern mentality? if the tools exist why not use them ?
When you say creating pilots again I must say looking over the years at accidents with or without modern tools it is generally the pilot error or decision making that causes the fatality.
Given the choice, Twin, Single whatever if BRS was an option I would have it on board.
I do not agree this is a fair comparison of your average PPL in a spam can (me included)
My point perhaps not made very well is that without an engine a normal SEP has much reduced and limited control would be a better way of saying it, ie you can not control exactly where you are going to end up and I think many misjudge it, usually with a bad outcome. I know that from doing my own PFL's and observing others, many seem to end up short of the anticipated landing area, combine that with challenging wind, visibility, adrenaline etc. In the heat of the moment in a real forced landing I bet decision making power and skill reduce dramatically.
I am just saying what my preference is with the tools I have available to me and what I have trained to use.
I totally agree with investing time and money in basic recurrent training which again my personal observation is the majority do not.
[QUOTE]Get away from this modern mentality of creating aircraft drivers and back to creating pilots again?[QUOTE]
What is wrong with using Modern mentality? if the tools exist why not use them ?
When you say creating pilots again I must say looking over the years at accidents with or without modern tools it is generally the pilot error or decision making that causes the fatality.
Given the choice, Twin, Single whatever if BRS was an option I would have it on board.