Ballistic Recovery System
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No experience with BRS but if this is a device similar to a military ejector seat, fitting the safety pin should stop the firing mechanism but it won't stop the thing cooking off in a fire.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Maidenhead
Age: 41
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If its made out of metal again it won't have one.
With the new single seat deregulation it gets even more fun as any requirement to meet any safety standards at all has been removed for all single seaters - or increasingly older 2 seaters through simply removing the second seat.
G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: edinburgh
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again thanks for all the replies,seems to have opened a whole can of worms as to the legality of some of the retro fitted systems. Hopefully with the law of averages i wont encounter any............................
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget it. EASA has nothing to do with microlights, they remain under national rulings. AFAIK Germany is the only European country to make a BRS mandatory. Wouldn't be surprised about Austria and Switzerland, though, perhaps even Italy for the "ULM Avanzato" subcategory but I don't think so.
Last time I had a look at it they were trying to depress everybody under common regulations. Did they fail to grab the last piece of freedom now? That would be a little success story in all that mud.
Last time I had a look at it they were trying to depress everybody under common regulations. Did they fail to grab the last piece of freedom now? That would be a little success story in all that mud.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The C42 chute fires through the little hatch on the top rear fuselage, right behind the wing. They all have that hatch, so it doesn't help you identifying which have a BRS and which don't - only the stickers or the handle in the cockpit will clue you in to that.
Ours is a Junkers Magnum - Airmasters- Aircraft Maintenance & Rotax qualified service engineer - rather than all being contained in a 'pod' there's a small rocket in the back (quite near the fuel tank) and a separate big black bag containing the chute.
Ours is a Junkers Magnum - Airmasters- Aircraft Maintenance & Rotax qualified service engineer - rather than all being contained in a 'pod' there's a small rocket in the back (quite near the fuel tank) and a separate big black bag containing the chute.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its interesting to me that there are alot more of these things about than i presumed.
Now why does no other type seem to use them but cirrus is in the news all the time doing a red handle let down?
Now why does no other type seem to use them but cirrus is in the news all the time doing a red handle let down?
(1) Cirusses are prone to getting in trouble
(2) Cirusses are generally flown by people with far less flying ability than they think they have.
(3) Cirus mandate a 10 hour training course for all new pilots where it's beaten into them that the moment anything goes wrong (inadvertant flight into IMC, inadvertant spin, engine failure....) they should pull the handle.
I tend to think that (1) is a red herring as whilst I've never flown one myself, nothing I've heard from high ability pilots who have flown the type has suggested to me that there's anything wrong with the aeroplane.
G
...that would be the type that now has a fatal accident rate half that of any comparable type 
. But I guess it is so much better to punish pilots and their passengers with a death sentence even though a aircraft parachute could have saved everybody
I would suggest that your statement is a significant misrepresentation of the facts. The program teaches pilots to consider using the CAP's system in various scenarios. It is IMO the best type training program out their because it is structured around typical flight profiles, requires the pilot practice real world decision making skills and is evidence based.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That as well maybe.
Maybe they should market it as a method of avoiding Darwin working.
Why is there no reports of other types or i might add crashes where its reported the system wasn't used.
Maybe they should market it as a method of avoiding Darwin working.
Why is there no reports of other types or i might add crashes where its reported the system wasn't used.
Ah, finally, here's the next round of pro/con. I was beginning to fear this place was no longer its own true self. Go for it guys! Never mind the original question! All occasions and every opportunity must do, to repeat the same arguments over and over again!
</sarcasm>
</sarcasm>
I think that the original question got answers.
BPF - I've not done the course, but every thread I've seen on here or Flyer about the Cirrus courses has had Cirrus pilots saying that the default action being taught is to pull the handle in most cases.
I plan to do the course one of these days, simply because the aeroplane fascinates me. But the very high accident rate is a matter of record, from GASCo's website...
And from Avweb three years ago:-
For an extremely expensive aeroplane, mostly flying long trips - and thus less take-offs and landings (where most accidents occur) than the background fleet, loaded with what are supposed to be safety features, where the background population of aeroplanes are much older and more basic, that really doesn't look good does it when the C182 and DA42 are both showing much better safety records.
Half the fatality rate of the background fleet is, I'm afraid, just not true. It has a higher fatality rate than much older aeroplanes, despite far more safety features. Something's wrong somewhere.
G
BPF - I've not done the course, but every thread I've seen on here or Flyer about the Cirrus courses has had Cirrus pilots saying that the default action being taught is to pull the handle in most cases.
I plan to do the course one of these days, simply because the aeroplane fascinates me. But the very high accident rate is a matter of record, from GASCo's website...
The fatal accident rate of the Cirrus type has dropped to 1.01 per 100,000 hours, which is slightly less than the US average of 1.2. However, ten years ago in 2004 the Cirrus rate was about twice the US average at 2.6 per 100,000 hours. Two reasons are cited for the higher rate: firstly that it was a new aeroplane with which pilots were unfamiliar and secondly that this is a type used more for serious personal transport rather than pure recreational flying. These pilots are flying complex missions for long distances, a lot of weather and a lot of different types of terrain. But it’s still the same type of pilot who would normally fly around the traffic pattern so it’s a more challenging mission, argue the makers.
Cirrus aircraft finished lower when fatal rate is considered. The Cirrus combined rate (SR20 and SR22) is 1.6, compared to the GA average of 1.2/100,000. Diamond's DA40 has the lowest fatal rate at .35, followed by the Cessna 172 at .45, the Diamond DA42 at .54 and the Cessna 182 at .69. Cessna's Corvalis line, which began life as the Columbia, has a fatal rate of 1.0, a bit less than the GA average of 1.2. The Columbia/Corvalis models are essentially similar in construction and performance to the Cirrus SR22, but without the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS).
For an extremely expensive aeroplane, mostly flying long trips - and thus less take-offs and landings (where most accidents occur) than the background fleet, loaded with what are supposed to be safety features, where the background population of aeroplanes are much older and more basic, that really doesn't look good does it when the C182 and DA42 are both showing much better safety records.
Half the fatality rate of the background fleet is, I'm afraid, just not true. It has a higher fatality rate than much older aeroplanes, despite far more safety features. Something's wrong somewhere.
G
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For an extremely expensive aeroplane, mostly flying long trips - and thus less take-offs and landings (where most accidents occur) than the background fleet, loaded with what are supposed to be safety features, where the background population of aeroplanes are much older and more basic, that really doesn't look good does it.
There is a stink about it, quite what is smelling I don't know.
But there is definitely a nasty smell.
The religious heckling and trying to quash any talk on the subject is just that a cult formation who are blind to any negative talk.
I have shared a beer with one or two Cirrus company test pilots at conferences - they were military trained, so did know what they were doing. Their general view on the aeroplane was that it was neither better nor worse than any other similar performance aeroplane in terms of complexity, workload, or handling.
Which suggests that it has something to do with the pilot profile. Remember the old Bonanza that used to be called the "Doctor and Lawyer killer" - now that did have issues, but was still basically safe operated within the envelope - I do wonder if there's some similarities there.
I still want to do the course, even if I never fly a Cirrus again - simply from professional interest.
G
Which suggests that it has something to do with the pilot profile. Remember the old Bonanza that used to be called the "Doctor and Lawyer killer" - now that did have issues, but was still basically safe operated within the envelope - I do wonder if there's some similarities there.
I still want to do the course, even if I never fly a Cirrus again - simply from professional interest.
G