Value of BRS?

[farri]

The recent crash of the Pitts in the cane field at Ingham has got me thinking about the Balistic Reserve Parachute (BRS) on aerobatic aircraft.

 

Question.....Would a BRS on aerobatic aircraft be of any value or would they just be an added hazard.

 

Frank

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm not a particular fan, Wouldn't want to see them compulsory as they have their own associated hazards, but would not oppose those who wish to use them doing so.

 

They don't provide escape from all situations either. This subject has been aired extensively before and a reference to it might be appropriate. I'm not trying to stifle discussion either, so go for it.... Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

BRS gives you one more option if you get into trouble. There is no guarantee that your plane won't be written off after you deploy the shoot so its not a cheap solution.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

did you see the recent vid were a guy in Sth America pulled a wing off. bet he was glad he spent the extra bucks on a BRS.

 

This 'To BRS or Not' argument is very similar to the skydivers sometimes heated disscussion on whether to have an AAD (auto activation device) fitted to reserves. There have been a lot of actual saves but there have also been a few failures of them either due to not using the correct procedures or fitting of the unit or actual malfunction of the device. Best advice is to research all available information on the products, weigh up the facts then be confident with your decision. And yes i do have an AAD fitted to my rig at an investment of $1800 and the unit has a manufacturers life of 11 years then you toss it in the bin. I also have a backpak i wear when i go thermaling the Laz'. But i do belive that the decision to have one or not should be made by the individual and not be made mandatory by the regulators. There are some Australian drop zones that have made it law to have an AAD to jump on their DZs and this has come back on some of their members being grounded recently when one paticular brand developed problems and was removed from service leaving the owners grounded for several months while the powers and manufacturer argue over reinstating them or not. Fortunatley my drop zone does not make them mandatory for all, just those of lower experience as per the APF regs. I am confident in my abilities to handle an emergency as per my training and experience gained over the last 35 years in the sport. So when i weighed up all the pros and cons the things that pushed it to having one was age and incapacitation. Even if i suffer a heart attack in freefall and die i dont want to bounce. I prefer an open casket funeral when i kark it.

 

ozzie

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

There is no guarantee that your plane won't be written off after you deploy the shoot so its not a cheap solution.

As a wise man on the Uncontrolled Airspace podcast once said: "The moment you pull the handle, you are selling your aircraft to the insurance company".

It is highly unlikely the aircraft won't be written off, but that's what insurance is for.

 

I wouldn't go out of my way to get one installed in a "normal" aircraft; there seem to be very few crashes where having the chute would have helped, there also seem to be a few unnecessary deployments.

 

That said, if I were to build a Rans S-9 Chaos (the aircraft described above) or similar for aeros - and this is on my bucket list - I would probably put one in.

 

You know in the US you must wear a parachute when doing aeros? Not sure if a BRS on the aircraft satisfies that rule too.

 

 

[maddogmorgan]

"The moment you pull the handle, you are selling your aircraft to the insurance company".

 

Well I would think that the idea of a BRS is to save the occupants not the aircraft...The goal is to be able to walk away...Like you said Bass "That's what Insurance is for.." Many pilots have been killed by going for what seems a more likely option of less aircraft damage during a forced landing only to die trying to keep 'costs down', instead of the goal of walking away...A BRS isn't meant to protect people from poor piloting or decision making skills...

 

 

[maddogmorgan]

[Tracktop]

Personal choice sure - and that's how it should remain

 

I have one - I never rely on it, or factor it in to any flying decisions - EVER.

 

I think it is cheap insurance for the unexpected / unplanned hope it will never happen.

 

Never a guarantee you or your pax are going to land alive, intact, uninjured or that it will even deploy correctly

 

but

 

If something ever does happen and I didn't have one, I know I would be wishing for a BRS I trying to kick my butt all the way to the ground.

 

It just maybe offers another chance.

 

My research showed most if not all of the negativies were very early generation BRS devices that did not have the fail safe systems built into todays BRS's

 

Don't shoot me cfi

 

without looking too hard

 

It is a manufacturers site and it's not aerobatic specific

 

http://www.brsparachutes.com/lives_saved.aspx

 

 

[HEON]

BRS adds nearly 10% to most aircraft overall cost thus the initial cost and that of replacement has to be factured into the overall cost. Also weight of 20+kg for most.

 

In event of something happening that makes the aircraft uncontrollable you would be a convert for life, however it's use removes any option on how you land which in a more "normal" event may hurt you more.

 

To me comes down to the decision if the cost is worth the risk of aircraft becomming uncontrollable...thankfully a decision we are still allowed to make!

 

 

[Tracktop]

They should really only be used when you can no longer control or recover control of the ac.

 

I do know someone that has deployed one in anger. Pilot and pax survive with minor injuries and I think from memory about $2500

 

ac damage ( and no it wasn't in 1966 when $2.5k was a lot of money).

 

There is a real stat for you cfi. And he has a BRS ( brand?) on his current ac

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

http://www.brsparachutes.com/lives_saved.aspx

I'm delighted that having a BRS doesn't affect your flying Ray but the list of BRS "saves" suggests to me that not everyone shows such good airmanship. Whilst there isn't a lot of detail for many of them, I don't see too many examples which definitively fit the "doomsday act-of-god" scenario. For example there are a lot of engine failures over unlandable terrain and the very first report I looked at started with the sentence "Pilot ran out of fuel while flying over a densely wooded terrain at an altitude of 200 feet with no visible landing site" !

 

I looked at these stats before deciding not to buy a BRS & reviewing them again hasn't changed my mind that there are very very few unavoidable scenarios where having one would help. Nor has it alleviated my suspicion that having one does affect pilot behaviour. Nevertheless I completely support your choice to reach a different conclusion :thumb_up:

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Admin]

I had a BRS in my CT (demanded by Corrine) and one thing it gave me was just simply psychological peace of mind. It was one thing that I hoped I would never have to use and my guess was I probably would never need it but it was just psychological. I had the big chute and was good for just over VNE of the CT but it weighed 20kgs. Now the CT was certified at 600kg so the 20kg of the BRS wasn't really a problem. However, I also did not want to register the CT as LSA so I registered it at 544KG. The good thing was the BRS weight was not included in that 544kg so my legal MTOW was 564kg.

 

As I said, I gathered that I would probably never use it and I didn't care about the aircraft if I ever did (it was insured) as long as I was able to just go home and have a roast with the wife and kids that night.

 

 

[Tracktop]

And I support your decision not to - The beauty of choice John.

 

Life is all about compromise. There is no one fits all

 

To me the trikes weakness is the tumble or no recovery from inversion. In that situation I don't know if I would even get to the handle but at least I know I have a handle to try with.

 

The other prime scenario I guess is a pilot medical issue - especially if there is a pax on board to operate the handle - my wife often sits in the back.

 

I avoid the 1st one like the plague and hope I never have a problem with the second one.

 

So hopefully expensive fireworks, well one rocket launch anyway, at my place in about 10 yrs time

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

'Gods must be Crazy 2' the girl in the lazair.LOL

 

 

[Admin]

Is that a CASA or RA-Aus ruling?

Not sure but the RAAus Tech Manager advised me of it

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

Ian,

 

Does it apply sto all aircraft or is it specific to he CT which, I understand has a 600kg BEW design factor.

 

I believe in the passengers peace of mind and the use when all else fails e.g. pilot incapacitation an structural failure.

 

 

[eastmeg2]

Is that a CASA or RA-Aus ruling?

If I recall correctly, extra weight allowance for ballistic parachutes is written into the CAO's.

 

 

[Admin]

Yes...if I had registered the CT as LSA and thus have a 600kg MTOW, the 20kg chute would be included in that weight because the CT is certified at 600 MTOW. It was only that I chose to register it at 544kg so I was not governed by the LSA rules in terms of things like adding an extra gauge or putting carpets in etc, where I would have had to get factory approval, is why the weight of the chute (safety item) is added to the 544.

 

I really think that when I purchase another new aircraft I would definitely do the same again...an aircraft that is certified to 600kg, have a BRS and register it as 544kg