Ballistic shute deployed

[Guest SrPilot]

ever since cirrus rolled out the BRS chute and people have been getting killed in SR22's, the anti-chute people have been saying the presence of the chute is encouraging people to take more risks there by nullifying the safety benefit.

Well f_t, I hear the same thing in the U.S. We had a Cirrus crash (1 fatal) night before last at an airport I frequent about 40 miles from here. He was turning final and stalled into an inverted attitude before hitting the hard deck. Chute did not play a role; he would not have had time or altitude to even try it.

 

Me? I am not against chutes, even ballistic chutes. Heck, I have two in my CJ6A which I purchased new and have the repacked by the factory, and my Aeroprakt A22LS is in a container somewhere between Poland and the U.S. with a ballistic chute in it.

 

That said, I do think there are some people who push the envelope at least in part because they have a chute on-board. Press the flight into the night (without adequate training or currency), fly over inhospitable terrain when a much better route involves only a minor deviation, penetrate weather, or just by over their competency level because a panic button (autopilot activation, roll to level) or a t-handle (to the ballistic chute) will save their bacon.

 

That debate (or versions of it) has been going on for a long, long time. Decades ago it was the Swift or the Bonanza ("they learned to fly in a Cub and went out and bought more than they could fly"), or advanced steam gauges ("he got his first standard T instrument panel and flew right into a line of thunderstorms"), or weather detection equipment ("he got a radar/Stormscope/Strikefinder - take your pick - and decided to penetrate a cold front"), or twin engines, or pressurized airplanes.

 

I don't think the equipment causes such accidents. I think skewed mind set of the pilot (e.g., risk taker), or overconfidence, or inadequate training, or lack of currency, or just a bad choice more frequently is the bigger problem. It's just that sometimes we'd rather blame a piece of equipment than a fellow pilot.

 

 

[facthunter]

I think we often compartmentalise our thinking. If I do this/that something will be taken care of. ( This pill will make me well). It's most likely your bad flying or decisions will kill you rather than anything else. When you pull the chute your plane is likely a write off. You may also be injured .That's OK as we don't put our plane before our life. Certainly there are situations where the chute will be very welcome but if far from covers ALL situations, so it's NOT a "CURE ALL", and there are times when it's an extra hazard. Does it make people do more risky things? That's quite possible and may be likely with some personalities. Does it give a sense of security?. I would say so.

 

Again, you don't have anything like it in a BIG PLANE. If the guys up the front don't do the right thing it's over for you, and a lot of others.. I have been in the Cabin of a big Antonov and it had parachutes for the crew, But it might be interesting as to how effective it would be getting out of the plane, under the circumstances where you might wish to. Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

All true Nev, but big planes have a few safety features that little'uns don't.

 

Firstly, they're generally flown by highly trained and well-practiced crew.

 

Secondly, they've got the security of multiple engines. (I believe a 747 can maintain height on only one engine, is that true?)

 

Thirdly, they're built in factories to exacting specifications by serious engineers, not knocked up in a shed by someone who's never bent aluminium or pulled more than 10 rivets at a time before (being a little autobiographical there).

 

I agree that the chute should only be one factor in the safety regime, and it should be the individual's choice whether or not to include that.

 

 

[facthunter]

The individual can choose to do whatever they like Marty, but don't make it compulsory for ME, or people who feel as I do. As long as the plane can fly I will ride it down . Nev

 

 

[Guest SrPilot]

* * * big planes have a few safety features that little'uns don't. * * * they've got the security of multiple engines [and they're] not knocked up in a shed by someone who's never bent aluminium or pulled more than 10 rivets at a time before * * *

Interesting, M_d. I trained on the KC135, B-47, B-52, and B-58. Our assessment of multi-engines was "lots more things to go wrong." And we knew that if something did go wrong (which it sometimes did) we couldn't "set 'er down" in someone's paddock. Mass, energy, angle, lots of fuel and hot engines, and not much in the way of energy absorption didn't allow the big birds to match up well against my RV-3 in an emergency. I always thought I'd be able to walk away from in an emergency landing in the RV if I could find at least two average sized backyards (U.S. sizing, maybe 250 feet, about 80 meters or so) separated by a chain-link fence. Sorta like landing on an aircraft carrier. The plane may not want to stop in the room available but the fence will both give and restrain.

 

I've been playing around with experimentals for a while now, and I know lots of builders, but I am not sure any of us knew you could "knock up" an airplane. [Apparently, something is lost in the translation. We "knock out" [finish] a product; "knock up" evidently means something quite different in the U.S. than it does in the Great Downunder.

 

 

[facthunter]

With multi engines (of the normal on the wings configuration) you have very little protection from the front. you also have hot engines very close to fuel usually with a wheel well to make the fire more likely behind the inboard motors. Many didn't have anti skid either which makes tyre blow out more likely.

 

The thing about landing (conventional) light aircraft is IF you can get the plane on the ground at a reasonable slow speed and apply brakes you will wash of most of the energy (if not all ) fairly quickly. Much better hitting the far boundary nearly stopped than an object at the near one at flying speed.. Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

Interesting, M_d. I trained on the KC135, B-47, B-52, and B-58. Our assessment of multi-engines was "lots more things to go wrong." And we knew that if something did go wrong (which it sometimes did) we couldn't "set 'er down" in someone's paddock. Mass, energy, angle, lots of fuel and hot engines, and not much in the way of energy absorption didn't allow the big birds to match up well against my RV-3 in an emergency. I always thought I'd be able to walk away from in an emergency landing in the RV if I could find at least two average sized backyards (U.S. sizing, maybe 250 feet, about 80 meters or so) separated by a chain-link fence. Sorta like landing on an aircraft carrier. The plane may not want to stop in the room available but the fence will both give and restrain.I've been playing around with experimentals for a while now, and I know lots of builders, but I am not sure any of us knew you could "knock up" an airplane. [Apparently, something is lost in the translation. We "knock out" [finish] a product; "knock up" evidently means something quite different in the U.S. than it does in the Great Downunder.

I think "knock up" has multiple meanings here too...

 

(And who says you can't knock up an aeroplane...)

 

 

 

[Guest SrPilot]

(And who says you can't knock up an aeroplane...)[ATTACH=full]37603[/ATTACH]

Point taken. What's the expected date of birth? Trike or taildragger?

 

 

[Marty_d]

Point taken. What's the expected date of birth? Trike or taildragger?

Gestation periods are always longer than expected with aircraft... it's been over 6 years since conception (buying the materials) so very reluctant to make any predictions about birth. We're expecting a trike.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Actually, M_d, I'd rather do neither one.

Thus far SR,. . . . I certainly have not thought of ANY of the posts you have made here as longwinded,. . . au contraire Sir,. . . after a couple of examples of unwarranted (IMHO) lambasting of your opinions in the past, I am surprised and gratified that you still bother to post you thoughts from a general / U.S. angle on things. . . . I may well not agree with everything that you write, But thank you for posting anyway.

 

Kind regards,

 

Phil

 

 

[Phil Perry]

airfactsjournal.com/2015/02/fatal-cirrus-crashes-way-thank-parachute

Interesting read, the stats on surviving a crash if you pull the chute are way better than if you dont

What,. . .like the pilot in the USA some years past, who pulled the chute because he had an engine failure ? . . .by the time the remains reached the ground they had their own private aerial crematorium. . . . I wonder how many Ballistic Chute manufacturers have an "OMG, I SHOULDN'T HAVE PULLED THAT HANDLE - GOT TO JETTISON IT. . ." procedure ? ? Not many I'll wager.

 

So perhaps there IS a good reason for thinking first, with what time you MAY have so to do ? Or is this just one of those "Black and White" arguments which go nowhere ?

 

Phil

 

 

[Phil Perry]

What......that we have a lot of very optimistic or thick pilots?Sign in one flight line office I have frequented...

 

"If you fly a single engine helicopter (could be any aircraft) over water for any length of time, sooner or later you will get wet".

Truisms are free. . . .EXPERIENCE. . . . is expensive. . . . . . .

 

 

[fly_tornado]

What,. . .like the pilot in the USA some years past, who pulled the chute because he had an engine failure ? . . .by the time the remains reached the ground they had their own private aerial crematorium. . . . I wonder how many Ballistic Chute manufacturers have an "OMG, I SHOULDN'T HAVE PULLED THAT HANDLE - GOT TO JETTISON IT. . ." procedure ? ? Not many I'll wager.So perhaps there IS a good reason for thinking first, with what time you MAY have so to do ? Or is this just one of those "Black and White" arguments which go nowhere ?

 

Phil

where can I find the NTSB report?

 

 

[cooperplace]

Interesting, M_d. I trained on the KC135, B-47, B-52, and B-58. Our assessment of multi-engines was "lots more things to go wrong." And we knew that if something did go wrong (which it sometimes did) we couldn't "set 'er down" in someone's paddock. Mass, energy, angle, lots of fuel and hot engines, and not much in the way of energy absorption didn't allow the big birds to match up well against my RV-3 in an emergency. I always thought I'd be able to walk away from in an emergency landing in the RV if I could find at least two average sized backyards (U.S. sizing, maybe 250 feet, about 80 meters or so) separated by a chain-link fence. Sorta like landing on an aircraft carrier. The plane may not want to stop in the room available but the fence will both give and restrain.I've been playing around with experimentals for a while now, and I know lots of builders, but I am not sure any of us knew you could "knock up" an airplane. [Apparently, something is lost in the translation. We "knock out" [finish] a product; "knock up" evidently means something quite different in the U.S. than it does in the Great Downunder.

SnPilot, you have fabulous experience, we would all like to hear more about that. Especially the B58, or any of them for that matter. And aerial refuelling in the KC135 must have been interesting. I'd be very happy to hear more about your experiences.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Be like a skydiver they are trained to 1, Realize 2, Analise and then 3, apply the appropriate Emergency Procedure(EP)

 

 

[Phil Perry]

where can I find the NTSB report?

That particular youtube clip was doing the rounds quite a while back FT, possibly as far back as 2007 ish, might still be archived. It was highlighted by LAA / BMAA, when BRS chutes were in their early days.

 

Other than that, I do not have a current reference. There was no suggestion at the time that it may have been a fake clip. Be interesting if it could be found.

 

Phil

 

 

[Happyflyer]

That particular youtube clip was doing the rounds quite a while back FT, possibly as far back as 2007 ish, might still be archived. It was highlighted by LAA / BMAA, when BRS chutes were in their early days.Other than that, I do not have a current reference. There was no suggestion at the time that it may have been a fake clip. Be interesting if it could be found.

 

Phil

Perhaps it was this one. Not an engine failure but aircraft on fire while descending under a chute after a midair.

NTSB report CEN10FA115B

 

News article http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14350203

 

 

[fly_tornado]

must be another one

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/deadly-plane-collision-aftermath/

 

the sound is all screwed up due to them slowing the video down

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Perhaps it was this one. Not an engine failure but aircraft on fire while descending under a chute after a midair.NTSB report CEN10FA115B

 

News article http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14350203

Thanks Happy and FT, the quality is fairly poor, but the clip was originally quoted by the local pundits as an in flight "Engine fire" and an example of when it is maybe NOT a good idea to deploy the BRS. . . Anyway, surely the crux of the discussion must still be that there is really NO formula with regard to when to deploy; as any and every incident will be somewhat different. Only the aftermath of the pilot's decision can really be analysed / deconstructed post event, as the right or perhaps wrong move when the particular circumstances become apparent ?

 

I wonder if anyone else has thought of the technology which would be required in an "Altered Decision with sufficient altitude for an alternative plan" scenario. . . .?

 

Synchronous explosive thread in the lanyard strops maybe ( ! ! ! ) Then of course, you'd need a "Gee Dick, I wish I hadn't done that" knob, or lever. . . .then there's the Un-Mayday radio call. . . .

 

Phil

 

( Ignore me please,. .. I'm just being silly now. )

 

 

[Guest SrPilot]

I may well not agree with everything that you write, But thank you for posting anyway. Kind regards, Phil

Thanks my friend. I am used to people taking sides - sometimes mine, sometimes another side. That's normal. If everyone agreed with me, I'd be bored. If someone disagrees when I express an opinion or state a fact (to my knowledge), all I ask is that they keep the conversation on the issue more-or-less and not get personal. I'm always open to learning or correction. Ergo, I stick around even when challenged; it's a good way to learn something. However, I learned long ago not to argue with a fence post. It does no good. Neither of us learn a thing. And although I speak U.S., I don't try to sell the U.S. approach on anything because, frankly, I'm not sold on a lot of it myself and I am more interested in learning about other approaches then comparing them so I learn from them. So do not read me as saying "ours is better." It probably "ain't"!

 

 

[Guest SrPilot]

SnPilot, you have fabulous experience, we would all like to hear more about that. Especially the B58, or any of them for that matter. And aerial refuelling in the KC135 must have been interesting. I'd be very happy to hear more about your experiences.

Actually I had fun in the USAF but I cannot say it was a big deal. I was just one guy in a very big organization. I always seemed to be training for something else, but I probably never learned that much. They tried to get me into "electronics," which I always thought would put me in a ballistic missile hole in the middle of nowhere or aboard some airborne listening post off someone's coast trying to hear what they were saying. So I touched a lot of stuff, and spent a lot of time in various schools, and flew around quite a bit, but it was during the "cold war," and they always seemed to want me in some cold place - well, maybe with the exceptions of Spain and Morocco. Multiple TDY tours in Spain; a couple of runs down to Morocco. I volunteered for Vietnam but they didn't need my type there. (I'm not crazy; this was during the early Vietnam period. I was separating from service about the time the Marines were really putting boots in country. Up until then it mostly involved "advising" in a relatively safe place and they didn't need my advice.) I was just a single guy looking for adventure and warm weather, and the personnel office told me the only way out their loop was for me to volunteer for something with a higher priority. I said "what's that?" He said "Vietnam?" I think I said something like "okay, where's that?" (it was early, remember?). [Actually, I knew quite a bit about Vietnam or French Indo-China. I knew about Air America, the French Foreign Legion, Dien Bien Phu (May 1954), etc. About this time, I was reading about the place. I cannot remember exactly when I read Bernard Fall's Street Without Joy" but I knew the history of the French Indo-China War even then. I read such books. The problem is that such books just make me want to go "take a look."

 

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Actually I had fun in the USAF but I cannot say it was a big deal. I was just one guy in a very big organization. I always seemed to be training for something else

Got a little historical query for you SR, But I'll ask it in the "OFF TOPIC" bit of the forum. . . .

 

Phil

 

 

[Garfly]

Ha, ha ... thanks SrPilot, it was fun hearing Johnny Cash doing that song.

 

Actually, the author of the song was once an AirForce guy, too. (RAAF ;-)

 

You can hear the original '62 recording here:

 

http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-culture/2012/06/aussie-song-has-been-everywhere,-man/