BRS in a twin
 

Largely because I'm still up, I got thinking, is this likely to happen...

Would there be a market for this, after all surely this would then kill the debate, what would you rather have a BRS or an extra engine when flying over mountains or water?

Well, having just spent a good part of the day flight testing a very nice twin with one engine shut down and feathered, I'm thinking the extra engine would be far superior!

As a matter of fact, I cannot imagine myself ever wanting a BRS on an aircraft I am to fly, as long as I am able to mitigate the associated safety factors!

I can imagine some non pilot "spouses" liking the BRS idea, and if that is the go/no go factor that keeps a couple flying happily together, then I do see the value in that if they do.... but not for me....

Yep, that is largely the case with me, the parachute re-assures her!

Out of curiosity though why would you not want a BRS system?

I can understand why you may not wish to use one and would prefer more traditional methods of getting back to the ground, in the event of engine failiure's etc, but if its a free option, why would you not have one installed?

You know what? A twin amphibian with BRS would suit me just fine. Then I'd launch over the Atlantic/Pacific without a second thought.

I'd have a second engine any day, but they are to achieve different things. I don't think a pilot will pull a BRS unless the wings fall off (seen that vid?!)

For most BRS flying pilots I know the BRS lever is briefed to the passenger for pilot incapacitation.

Might be handy on a twin if the fuel runs dry or pilot collapses. I wonder if tecnam type light twins could have it?

BRS in a twin?? There would be little benefit and more weight as the shute would have to be bigger.
More weight means less single engine climb performance so the only benefit would be single pilot incapacitation and maybe structural damage.
I believe the Cirrus uses the undercarriage as an inherent part of energy absorbing structure and landing on water with no forward motion can lead to broken backs.
So not sure I would use one with an engine failure over sea.

Pace

True. And guess what... A twin typically has a retractable undercarriage.

So it's not just a matter of adding the BRS (in itself quite a complex undertaking) but you also need to redesign the undercarriage so that it deploys automatically upon BRS deployment (and how do you do that in a dual engine failure with possibly no hydraulics available?), and that it can handle its part of the vertical impact load.

So in theory it may sound like a good idea but there are some construction details and weight penalties that will make it very hard to implement.

We are all trained that should the engine quit on us (single engine) to look for a suitable landing site. I know most pilots (me included) will keep an eye out for suitable sites as part of their en-route checks.

The only time I could see a BRS system being effective (apart from structural failure) would be in the even of an engine failure over mountainous terrain where no safe landing site would be available. Of course an extra engine would help to clear terrain.

In the case of the SEP Cirrus the chute has saved lives over 25 now I believe.
A pilot taking his precious cargo ie his family on trips must worry about what would happen to them if anything happened to him.
Briefing them in the use of a chute must take a certain worry away.
Midairs? structural damage loss of control?

Then we get into areas where the chute probably creates the situation where the chute is deployed by adding overconfidence to press on in weather not suited to the pilot or aircraft.

Icing springs to mind as does flying into bad weather in IMC and loss of control!
Undertaking night trips which caution would normally stop you doing?
It would be interesting to have a breakdown of reasons for deploying the chute to know if the overconfidence in having the chute created the breeding ground for having to use it?

Pace

I believe that the seats in a Cirrus have some form of impact attenuation device within them too, so it's not all in the undercarriage.

An interesting (but short article on Cirrus pulls here):

Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) pull #32: Splashdown in the Bahamas - Golf Hotel Whiskey

Some interesting points made so far though, especially about undercarriage, although that got me thinking, isn't the Cabri G2 Helicopter supposodly one of the most 'crashworthy' cockpits around? Could this sort of design be used on fixed wing craft (I don't know the design details, so maybe the answer is no).

Also interesting point on Tecnams, this whole thread was started as I had the exact same thought, what if they fit a BRS to the P2006t...

As a Cirrus owner and pilot I would generally use the CAPS in virtually all situations that required an off airport landing due to engine failure or loss of control etc.

This was not my original opinion when I first purchased a Cirrus and it took several years to change my opinion from what I was originally trained to do and often practiced (ie a PFL)

Having read more or less all the Cirrus Fatality reports and also all the CAPS reports my opinion now for me is that I have tried to re programme myself to accept what is likely to be the safest outcome for me and any Pax.

I fully understand the arguments for and against and if anyone has time or inclination this one hour presentation sums up the arguments for in a way I never could and I try and watch it a few times a year to remind myself.

http://www.cirruspilots.org/media/p/593875.aspx

In a twin I accept it is a different argument but I see plenty of fatalities in twins where one engine failed, they seem like a real handful.

Pace I do not disagree the Chute in some cases must create in some Pilots to accept a higher degree of risk and yes I must confess to being one of them.

For example I like flying in Mountain areas, would I do it in a SEP without a chute, maybe, but I do now feel a lot more comfortable with a Chute and therefore do it more. But do not see anything wrong with this.

The second engine only helps in the case of a single engine failure. The parachute helps in case of

• mid-air collision (well, most of them)
• loss of control (if not too extreme / too low)
• structural failure
• dual engine failure (e.g. fuel starvation, fuel icing) and no landable terrain
• severe icing encounters (boots have given up, freezing level on the deck)
• engine failure over mountains with mountain tops above SE ceiling

The Cirrus has the parachute primarily because the co-founder of Cirrus, Alan Klapmeier, had a mid-air collision where the other aircraft crashed and the pilot died; he himself barely made it to the ground with 3ft of his wing missing.

The case for a parachute in a light twin is almost as strong as in a light single - but the market will be much smaller.

I would 100%, no other decision personally.

The Damage your back theory is not factual and a bit of an OWT

Benefits:

Time to prepare
Unlikely to flip over
Not hitting a wave at 60+ knots
Gives notice to boats (loud bang)
Gives visual to search and rescue, ie large orange parachute.

There may be disadvantages but I am not sure of them.

Relative to the thread in a twin of course you could carry on with single engine failure which would be a massive advantage.

I do quite regular sea crossings and remind myself each time this is what I will do.

007helicopter, BRS over water is also what the POH says. It also recommends using the BRS over un-landable terrain, at night etc, but recommends a forced landing for engine failure over hospitable terrain.

You also write you would use it in case of engine failure over green pastures - do I understand you correctly? Why is that? Now if you decide on the way down the approach to the field is not going well, fine, but if you glide nicely, why not land?

I am sure the "rep" from the Cirrus owners group (USA) will be along in a moment....

because imho what looks nice field at 1000ft can be a different story when inspected from the ground and the dangers of coming up short, hitting wires, tree stumps, ditches, gradients, water logged, rocks etc.

The Cirrus would be a worse aircraft to land in a field compared to say a Robin, due to its smaller wheels and relatively higher stall speed, 60 knots or so is a lot of energy to hit something or cart wheel.

Many people have successfully forced landed Cirrus just like any other aircraft but a reasonable percentage have failed with fatal consequences and they had a perfectly good chute that for ever reason they chose not to pull.

I appreciate this view may differ from 95% + of other readers and each to their own.

As I said my view has changed from thinking I would only use in the event of mid air or catastrophic failure etc to a serious consideration in the event of an off airfiled landing for whatever reason.

This thinking does take a certain change of attitude.

Because you will almost certainly be at too low a level to deploy the chute by the time you have decided you need it.

The other difference over the sea is that your aircraft is likely to be a write-off whether you fly or go down by 'chute, whereas at least if you're overhead a green field you may be able to keep the aircraft intact.

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...

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 :)

At the higher end of the piston single Market they do - the sr22tn outsells the corvalis 400 by an extreme margin, not all can be explained by price alone.

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.

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 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.

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

I think that this is a consequence of the marketing in the USA, drawing out a larger % of pilots with different "characteristics".

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.

It has safety benefits but the reality is a fatality rate now about the same average for other similar TAA

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.

I would be genuinely interested to know more about that case, reg no, date etc, a pm is fine of prefer.

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)

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.

007, PM sent on insurance.

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...

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

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

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).

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 had never received any training which told me that there was a point at which to give up flying, and pull a handle (other than the jump flying, where they presumed that I was no longer in the plane anyway).

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....

Pilot DAR I don't think you said anything as I was the one saying it was generally my preferred option. (which has changed over the years from stay in control and fly it to the ground)

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.

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. :ugh: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.

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

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.