BRS in a twin
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
007heli
Just through interest is there a difference between the SR20 and 22 under the chute?
I would imagine the 20 would be a lot lighter?
Who knows I may get a share at some time : )
Pace
Just through interest is there a difference between the SR20 and 22 under the chute?
I would imagine the 20 would be a lot lighter?
Who knows I may get a share at some time : )
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
007heli
You make a good point. I think the philosophy among Cirrus pilots is different from the rest of the GA community. There has been so much ill informed reporting about the use of the chute that understandably it is difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff. I think COPA's position is if in doubt pull the chute.
Pace I dont doubt the integrity of your views but I would ask you this; have you flown with a range of PPLs recently and asked them to demonstrate a PFL without warning? Theory is well and good but we live and operate in the real world. Whether PPLs are as good at PFLs as the use to be is academic, we can only deal with reality. I ask because in my experience most dont practice PFLs and the outcome is far from predictable even when most of us would like what we see.
You make a good point. I think the philosophy among Cirrus pilots is different from the rest of the GA community. There has been so much ill informed reporting about the use of the chute that understandably it is difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff. I think COPA's position is if in doubt pull the chute.
Pace I dont doubt the integrity of your views but I would ask you this; have you flown with a range of PPLs recently and asked them to demonstrate a PFL without warning? Theory is well and good but we live and operate in the real world. Whether PPLs are as good at PFLs as the use to be is academic, we can only deal with reality. I ask because in my experience most dont practice PFLs and the outcome is far from predictable even when most of us would like what we see.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least in the US, insurance rates are mostly driven by hull value and secondly by pilot experience. I checked last year and a Bonanza was slightly more than a Cirrus having the same hull value.
The big negatives for the BRS system are cost (initial and 10 year repack), weight and space. On a twin that might mean a huge penalty.
There are a lot of scenarios where neither a second engine nor a BRS system help i.e. pattern stall, botched landing etc. where neither help.
Among Cirrus pilots there was a telling fatal in Florida where the pilot was known to be dismissive of BRS. He had an engine failure and decided to do an off field landing on what looked like good ground. Small wheels, 3400 max gross and a 59 knot stall speed led to a poor outcome. He and his wife died. There was another in the Florida Keys that had a better outcome without using BRS so it is just an odds thing. Stll, a Cirrus is very different from a Cub.
The big negatives for the BRS system are cost (initial and 10 year repack), weight and space. On a twin that might mean a huge penalty.
There are a lot of scenarios where neither a second engine nor a BRS system help i.e. pattern stall, botched landing etc. where neither help.
Among Cirrus pilots there was a telling fatal in Florida where the pilot was known to be dismissive of BRS. He had an engine failure and decided to do an off field landing on what looked like good ground. Small wheels, 3400 max gross and a 59 knot stall speed led to a poor outcome. He and his wife died. There was another in the Florida Keys that had a better outcome without using BRS so it is just an odds thing. Stll, a Cirrus is very different from a Cub.
Moderator
have you flown with a range of PPLs recently and asked them to demonstrate a PFL without warning?
What I see here is an odd triangular argument. Some argue that a BRS is needed, to be the most safe under the circumstances of most engine failures. This presupposes that these people think that engine failures are common (I'm not expressing an opinion right now). Others are saying that engine failures are really quite rare, and this is a low risk, thus not requiring the safety benefits of the BRS. Then others are saying that most PPLs do not maintain proficiency in PFLs, which they should be doing.
If engine failures are common enough to pose a real safety risk, this would be evident across all GA aircraft, and PPL's (and a whole bunch of CPLs too!) would simply be scared into regular PFLs. That does not seem to happen - evidence the agreed lack of PFL proficiency. This could be interpreted to mean that pilots think that the engines are pretty reliable, and forced landings are uncommon.
So why do we need the cost and weight of the BRS to mitigate engine failures?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Among Cirrus pilots there was a telling fatal in Florida where the pilot was known to be dismissive of BRS. He had an engine failure and decided to do an off field landing on what looked like good ground. Small wheels, 3400 max gross and a 59 knot stall speed led to a poor outcome. He and his wife died. There was another in the Florida Keys that had a better outcome without using BRS so it is just an odds thing.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For me, this has always been a non-subject.
Saying "I'd rather not have a chute onboard because I can land in a field" is a bit like saying "I'd rather not have that many lifeboats onboard my luxury ship because it has other factors which will save us" and we all know how that turned out.
Saying "because you'll get yourself into danger by relying on the fact it's there" is exactly what the "road hero dinasaurs" of the past said about anti-lock brakes, and air bags.
Having the chute onboard does not remove any options, it only adds to them. Whether you pull it or not is up to the pilot in command at the time.
For me : over water, forrest, built-up area (not able to glide clear), mountains, very wet ground, etc.. I'd look around, pick an approximate region to land in, position myself as best I can, and pull the chute.
It doesn't matter how much of a hero you are beyind a yoke, unless you have Superman-Vision you can't tell your chosen field has a bloody great pot hole in the middle of it that you're skillfully lining yourself up perfectly to place your front wheel into.
ABS, Airbags, Grippier Tyres, Crumple Zones, Safety Cells, Head Restraints, Improved Seatbelts, etc have all made driving safer, it hasn't instead caused everyone to go completely nuts driving around like F1 super stars. Of course, one or two people are predisposed to thinking "wow! I have a chute, I'm invincible!" and if you're one of those types of people then deliberately selecting a more dangerous aeroplane to temper that probably isn't the right solution for you. Fortunately, I'm not predisposed to this kind of thought process, so would rather have a conveniently placed ADDITIONAL safety mechanism within easy reach, should I deem it appropriate in an emergency.
Saying "I'd rather not have a chute onboard because I can land in a field" is a bit like saying "I'd rather not have that many lifeboats onboard my luxury ship because it has other factors which will save us" and we all know how that turned out.
Saying "because you'll get yourself into danger by relying on the fact it's there" is exactly what the "road hero dinasaurs" of the past said about anti-lock brakes, and air bags.
Having the chute onboard does not remove any options, it only adds to them. Whether you pull it or not is up to the pilot in command at the time.
For me : over water, forrest, built-up area (not able to glide clear), mountains, very wet ground, etc.. I'd look around, pick an approximate region to land in, position myself as best I can, and pull the chute.
It doesn't matter how much of a hero you are beyind a yoke, unless you have Superman-Vision you can't tell your chosen field has a bloody great pot hole in the middle of it that you're skillfully lining yourself up perfectly to place your front wheel into.
ABS, Airbags, Grippier Tyres, Crumple Zones, Safety Cells, Head Restraints, Improved Seatbelts, etc have all made driving safer, it hasn't instead caused everyone to go completely nuts driving around like F1 super stars. Of course, one or two people are predisposed to thinking "wow! I have a chute, I'm invincible!" and if you're one of those types of people then deliberately selecting a more dangerous aeroplane to temper that probably isn't the right solution for you. Fortunately, I'm not predisposed to this kind of thought process, so would rather have a conveniently placed ADDITIONAL safety mechanism within easy reach, should I deem it appropriate in an emergency.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just through interest is there a difference between the SR20 and 22 under the chute?
I would imagine the 20 would be a lot lighter?
Who knows I may get a share at some time : )
I would imagine the 20 would be a lot lighter?
Who knows I may get a share at some time : )
Seriously I do not know the answer and have not heard of any significant difference between the 20 & 22 as far as BRS.
It would be extremely interesting if you did get one, perhaps you would then more closely look at the pros and cons and after a couple of years see if your standpoint had changed in any way.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In respect of Insurance.
Insurance costs are based on financial risk, not human safety risk. It stands to reason, that having a handle in the aeroplane which dramatically reduces the risk of death, but also writes off the aeroplane, is going to be a financial risk.
So the insurance is more expensive.
Good maintenance and backup instruments cost money too, but I'd personally rather pay for the safety the provide, than save the money and take the extra risk.
Insurance costs are based on financial risk, not human safety risk. It stands to reason, that having a handle in the aeroplane which dramatically reduces the risk of death, but also writes off the aeroplane, is going to be a financial risk.
So the insurance is more expensive.
Good maintenance and backup instruments cost money too, but I'd personally rather pay for the safety the provide, than save the money and take the extra risk.
Last edited by SDB73; 24th Jun 2012 at 16:25.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know not representative but those odds are 50/50, I am sure there are Cirrus forced landing's that are successful that we never get to here about, we always here about the botched ones.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
007Heli
I am not against a chute at all or using it for engine failure over heavely wooded areas or rough terrain.
I am against using it as a standard procedure for engine failure when there are good fields available or over built areas and well populated areas where by using the chute I am risking people on the ground.
It goes against the grain to abandon a serviceable aircraft just because I have lost the one engine while I still have all the potential energy available to me from the aircraft ie becoming a glider.
I do think pilots should spend a lot more time in practising forced landings and field selection as the chute still should be a last resort not a primary solution.
You will without doubt wreck the aircraft which probably should not be damaged in a well executed forced landing.
But I do like the Cirrus and can see many benefits as well as negatives in having a chute.
Negatives that confidence of having a chute will draw you into the very situation where you need to use it.
Pace
I am not against a chute at all or using it for engine failure over heavely wooded areas or rough terrain.
I am against using it as a standard procedure for engine failure when there are good fields available or over built areas and well populated areas where by using the chute I am risking people on the ground.
It goes against the grain to abandon a serviceable aircraft just because I have lost the one engine while I still have all the potential energy available to me from the aircraft ie becoming a glider.
I do think pilots should spend a lot more time in practising forced landings and field selection as the chute still should be a last resort not a primary solution.
You will without doubt wreck the aircraft which probably should not be damaged in a well executed forced landing.
But I do like the Cirrus and can see many benefits as well as negatives in having a chute.
Negatives that confidence of having a chute will draw you into the very situation where you need to use it.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 24th Jun 2012 at 19:09.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Negatives that confidence of having a chute will draw you into the very situation where you need to use it.
Now I know you are getting desperate.
You shouldn't resist safety enhancements because they might drag a pilot into something he shouldn't be. Where would we be? No autopilot because the pilot might rely on it when he should be able to hand steer in IMC. No green button to recover the aircraft when he discovers he cant. No moving maps and IAPs painted on grand glass screens because the pilot will have more confidence he can fly an IAP when he should be able to do so using just a 6 pack.
It doesn't wash and I suspect you know it doesn't.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will without doubt wreck the aircraft which probably should not be damaged in a well executed forced landing
On this point I have again spent a fair amount of time considering this and have totally ruled out the need or desire to save the ship, if I find myself having to land off airfield then the only outcome I care about is walking away for me and my occupants and that is my sole focus on the best and safest way to do that.
Another point not raised so far is in an attempt to make a field, when caught out and coming up short there is a huge chance while impossibly trying to stretch the glide of stalling into the ground, this is rarely survivable and has caught out some extremely experienced and now dead pilots.
You shouldn't resist safety enhancements because they might drag a pilot into something he shouldn't be.
It's controversial...
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the loss of payload is a big factor.
A modern 4-seater plane (SR22, TB20 kind of thing) has about 500kg payload. Actually that is pretty good going.
Put in full fuel and you are down to say 250kg.
Put in full TKS and you are down to 150kg.
Put in a chute and you are down to 100kg
You can play with the numbers but it is not insignificant.
Cirrus got away with it because it gave them a huge marketing advantage. The extra fuel burn due to that and the fixed gear is not questioned.
A modern 4-seater plane (SR22, TB20 kind of thing) has about 500kg payload. Actually that is pretty good going.
Put in full fuel and you are down to say 250kg.
Put in full TKS and you are down to 150kg.
Put in a chute and you are down to 100kg
You can play with the numbers but it is not insignificant.
Cirrus got away with it because it gave them a huge marketing advantage. The extra fuel burn due to that and the fixed gear is not questioned.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes but the full fuel payload of an sr22 is 20lb more than a tb20.
Some drivers may drive more quickly and some pilots fly more challenging missions but that still doesnt justify ignoring safety enhancements that would be just that based on two equivalent flights.
If the argument held true air bags could equally full into the same category.
However the chute probably does mean some pilots will fly profiles they wouldnt without. Personally i have never been keen on night in a sep, or for that matter flying over fog or very low cloud bases, i am not that keen on sea crossings if its rough but much more comfortable with a chute. So sure guilty i approach flying a sep differently if it has caps.
Some drivers may drive more quickly and some pilots fly more challenging missions but that still doesnt justify ignoring safety enhancements that would be just that based on two equivalent flights.
If the argument held true air bags could equally full into the same category.
However the chute probably does mean some pilots will fly profiles they wouldnt without. Personally i have never been keen on night in a sep, or for that matter flying over fog or very low cloud bases, i am not that keen on sea crossings if its rough but much more comfortable with a chute. So sure guilty i approach flying a sep differently if it has caps.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a friend die just shy of the runway. He had an emergency and was performing an engine out landing. He stalled trying to get over some trees and nosed into the ground. At the funeral while listening to his 9 year old daughter talk about her dad I couldn't help but think how different things would have been had he pulled. He was in a Cirrus.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look guys I am not making an argument against a chute. It is likely that when I stop flying jets I may join up into a group and would select the Cirrus for the safety benefits of the chute.
For me the chute is an option which I may or may not take depending on how I would read the situation.
I am going to put a scenerio to both Fuji and 007 which is a likely scenerio.
You have taken off out of an airport where the climb out crosses built up areas! I can think of many like that.
You are climbing on runway heading through 1000 feet when bang and a dead prop.
You push the nose over and survey your options! Below a built up area with no landing sites ahead and within gliding distance some smallish fields with a few trees and hedges. No Heathrow sized fields but enough to get down on and maybe take out a hedge.
What will both iof you do? I know what i would do and it would not be pulling the chute.
Fuji I am not getting desperate it is well documented that one of the problems with the chute is the knowledge that having one leads you into flying in conditions that you and the aircraft are not up to
Pace
For me the chute is an option which I may or may not take depending on how I would read the situation.
I am going to put a scenerio to both Fuji and 007 which is a likely scenerio.
You have taken off out of an airport where the climb out crosses built up areas! I can think of many like that.
You are climbing on runway heading through 1000 feet when bang and a dead prop.
You push the nose over and survey your options! Below a built up area with no landing sites ahead and within gliding distance some smallish fields with a few trees and hedges. No Heathrow sized fields but enough to get down on and maybe take out a hedge.
What will both iof you do? I know what i would do and it would not be pulling the chute.
Fuji I am not getting desperate it is well documented that one of the problems with the chute is the knowledge that having one leads you into flying in conditions that you and the aircraft are not up to
Pace
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace, morning, I can tell you without hesitation I hope I would remember to pull the chute.
This to me is a classic situation where it is a no brainer to use the Chute IMHO
My take off procedure is at 500ft I religiously do a simple thing which I was taught at CPPP called "Flaps and Caps"
As I raise the flaps my hand then goes immediately to touch the CAPS handle to remind me CAPS is now active and I actually say it out aloud.
So as not to lose split seconds in this critical phase you describe I would pull it.
Below 500ft I would stuff the nose down and point at the largest open space that came immediately to view and try and fly it to the ground.
Also after power checks on the ground if I am with another Pilot I brief them that this is what I will do.
If they do not like it they are welcome to get out at that point.
PS My home field Rochester EGTO has pretty much what you describe on several of the main departure tracks, the others not build up but mainly trees.
This to me is a classic situation where it is a no brainer to use the Chute IMHO
My take off procedure is at 500ft I religiously do a simple thing which I was taught at CPPP called "Flaps and Caps"
As I raise the flaps my hand then goes immediately to touch the CAPS handle to remind me CAPS is now active and I actually say it out aloud.
So as not to lose split seconds in this critical phase you describe I would pull it.
Below 500ft I would stuff the nose down and point at the largest open space that came immediately to view and try and fly it to the ground.
Also after power checks on the ground if I am with another Pilot I brief them that this is what I will do.
If they do not like it they are welcome to get out at that point.
PS My home field Rochester EGTO has pretty much what you describe on several of the main departure tracks, the others not build up but mainly trees.
Last edited by 007helicopter; 25th Jun 2012 at 08:11.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it is well documented that one of the problems with the chute is the knowledge that having one leads you into flying in conditions that you and the aircraft are not up to
Likewise you could say training pesky PPL's to fly aircraft leads them into flying conditions that the aircraft or Pilot are not up to, which is often the reality of our hobby. They do not need a chute to do this.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
007Heli
You say it's a no brainer but for me it would be! Pulling the chute over a heavily built up area would mean that you would come down into those houses, cars , gardens , people , schools etc.
If that is a no brainer decision ?
The result would be massive publicity and chances if killing someone on the ground are pretty high.
For me it's a no brainer I would glide away from the built up area and then pull the chute or use my skills to force land.
I can assure you I would definately not stall and I have taken out a tree stumped hedge before so that does not worry me unduly : )
Pace
You say it's a no brainer but for me it would be! Pulling the chute over a heavily built up area would mean that you would come down into those houses, cars , gardens , people , schools etc.
If that is a no brainer decision ?
The result would be massive publicity and chances if killing someone on the ground are pretty high.
For me it's a no brainer I would glide away from the built up area and then pull the chute or use my skills to force land.
I can assure you I would definately not stall and I have taken out a tree stumped hedge before so that does not worry me unduly : )
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 25th Jun 2012 at 08:35.