what brands of recovery chutes are there

[Guest disperse]

Looking at chute options. so just wondering how many different manufacturers there are.

 

Troy

 

 

[Bigglesworth]

You sure love your chutes,

 

In my opinion, when your time's run out, at least admit it

 

I suppose they suit some people, but as for me; no chute, no airbags, seatbelts only to comply with the law, and that isn't always worthwhile.

 

I remember Michael Palin once had something of the ultimate safe airline with all sorts of safety features, climaxing with a heavy weight to stop the plane from leaving the ground.

 

;)

 

 

[Guest disperse]

Biggles, The chute is not for me!!!

 

The chute is for my kids ! should I just happen to drop dead at 5000ft.

 

THIS GIVES THEM ANOTHER "CHANCE".

 

Like you said "WHEN YOUR TIMES RUN OUT" , it's just going to happen. I'd just prefer that my kids at least had the opertunity to PULL A LEVER. instead of SCREAMING THIER GUTS OUT AS THEY SPIRAL INTO THE DECK.......

 

Makes sense to me!!!

 

 

[Flyer]

Considering that Cirrus aircraft have had their chutes tested a bit, I'd try to find out which one they use....;)

 

 

[Guest disperse]

Thanks Chris, was looking at BRS 1350HS. 600kg of weight and just over 180mph opening speed ( this was worked out on G Morgans new Serria)

 

price is $6000usd

 

 

[Guest Flyer40]

It's not in in-flight test, but it's something.........

 

http://www.sportaircraftworks.com/oto%20bin/sportcruiser_brs_test.htm#PressRelease

 

You might have to scroll UP!

 

 

[vk3auu]

One might think that Cirrus are not all that confident in the structural integrity of their aeroplane if they think it is necessary to install a chute.

 

I'm with Michael Palin.

 

David

 

 

[Guest Flyer40]

One might think that Cirrus are not all that confident in the structural integrity of their aeroplane if they think it is necessary to install a chute.I'm with Michael Palin.

 

David

David, I thought it was common knowledge that Cirrus installed a chute because they didn't demonstrate spin recovery for certification?

 

 

[facthunter]

BRS.

 

I would rather concentrate my efforts in getting the basics right & enjoying the result than taking a rather negative attitude which MIGHT guarantee my survival when I fail to competantly relate to the situation that I have willingly subjected myself to. If you are in a country where it is compulsory to have one of these back-ups fitted ,you are stuck with it and must go along with it. I am a great believer in the axiom that you make your own luck. In our game you do not have to trust the captain, the despatch engineer, casa etc. your safety rests predominately with YOU.. There is something just right about that. You can not pass the buck on to someone else. If you carry one of these devices ( and the choice is up to you) it is your prerogative, but fundamentally, you do not trust what you are doing, and you carry a weight penalty, A financial impost, and probably conduct your operations in a way that philosophically gives you some comfort in doing some things that from an airmanship point of view would be a little tenuous. Sorry if this is a little bit deep but I feel at the moment ready to address reality. Over to you Nev...

 

 

[Guest disperse]

Not for debate

 

This is not about the pro's and con's of haveing a chute

 

I've answered that for MYSELF (It dosen't matter how much of a airman I am WHEN IM DEAD, the plane is still going to crash).

 

this thread was started to try and find out about other manufacturers besides BRS.

 

are there any , if so are thier chutes as good as the others.

 

as for the debate on haveing a chute . REST EASY WITH YOUR DECISION as I do with mine

 

 

[facthunter]

Topic .

 

You are right, My apologies.. Try Junkers.. (German.) N...

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

I believe Junkers is the European brand name for Magnum ballistic parachutes (USA).

 

Another US manufacturer is Galaxy Rescue Systems

 

Hope that helps you (although I agree with Nev, David etc)

 

John

 

 

[Guest disperse]

THANKS ALL ....

 

 

[Guest Baphomet]

Have a look at Galaxy, they are imported by the X-Air dealer. I purchased one from an X-Air owner to use on a single seat project I'm building (on the back-burner since I bought the Bantam) . I've had it re-packed (6 year cycle) and will put it on the Bantam I have as it's rated for that machine. I'm not concerned about the structural integrity of the airframe, but the things that pose a risk are

 

1. Mid air collision

 

2. Loss of a prop blade, followed by separation of the engine from the airframe

 

3. Bird strike that leaves me incapable of flying the aircraft

 

4. Medical emergency to me (heart attack etc) and a non-pilot passenger.

 

I'm completely dismayed by the attitude of some, who decry the use of ballistic chutes, are they sitting at home trying to read by gas lights and cook on a wood stove? what? real pilots don't use chutes?

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Ballistic chutes have been around for at least 20 years so they are hardly a new invention. Even if they were, I can assure you that being some kind of luddite is absolutely not the reason I don't have, or want, one.

 

Considering your scenarios -

 

1 Possibly if you make a habit of formation flying or towing gliders. If not what happened to see & avoid.

 

2 I've had a prop blade come off (well 3/4 of it anyway). Kill the engine & dead stick landing

 

3 Struggling a bit to visualise this one - maybe in a fast jet but a Bantam ?

 

4 Possible but I'm guessing you spend far more time driving with a passenger than flying with one. Does your car have ejector seats for them to use ?

 

I intend no offence & respect any pilots decision on this but, I think that for most pilots, the cost of a BRS would be better spent on flight training to deal with the sort of emergencies which occur, and unfortunately hurt people, on a far more regular basis than these scenarios

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Flyer]

I'm not concerned about the structural integrity of the airframe, but the things that pose a risk are1. Mid air collision

2. Loss of a prop blade, followed by separation of the engine from the airframe

 

3. Bird strike that leaves me incapable of flying the aircraft

 

4. Medical emergency to me (heart attack etc) and a non-pilot passenger.

 

I'm completely dismayed by the attitude of some, who decry the use of ballistic chutes, are they sitting at home trying to read by gas lights and cook on a wood stove? what? real pilots don't use chutes?

Looking at the points raised here....

 

1. It happens but not often...

 

2. Various opinions on how quickly the engine falls out Cant train for a sudden massive rearward departing C of G

 

3. Lets hope not.... but a wedgie in the cockpit could be interesting and having read the latest RAA mag a Brown snake in the cockpit sounds pretty exciting as well. Both could be very incapacitating.

 

4. Medical emergency. Heart attacks and strokes are very incapacitating and hard to train for.

 

How many people fly Recreational Aircraft because they're a bit suspect on a GA medical? Heart attack material maybe ??

 

Let those who fly decide....It may not be your own life you save but the persons house below that you auger through....bring on the BRS ;)

 

Phil

 

 

[Guest Baphomet]

Well, you only need to read through the "saves" on the BRS site to recognise their value in certain situations. Ballistic chutes are NOT an excuse for poor airmanship, they simply offer an alternative to what could be a very bad outcome if the unexpected does happen. There is of course the purely purcunial aspect, i.e. if you die in an ultralight accident, your family in most cases won't see a cent from your insurance company, as the "accident" is of a form specifically excluded from cover in most policies (don't believe me?, look it up). Flying ultralight aircraft is statistically a risky business, someone finds a way of hitting the ground very hard almost once a month at the moment. Insurance companies take a very dim view of that. So weigh the cost of a chute against the value in terms of hardship, your demise will mean to your family.

 

 

[Guest Flyer40]

BRS is about managing certain risks that have NOTHING to do with airmanship. No amount of training will will reduce exposure the hazards that Baphomet outlined.

 

I'm amazed at the irrational and illogical arguments being put forward to denounce a safety enhancement. What's wrong with you people?

 

For those struggling to comprehend the bird strike risk, there were 1530 bird strikes reported to Airservices Australia in the four years to 2006. Although most occur at low altitude around aerodromes, it's hardly a rare occurrence.

 

[ATTACH]4101.vB[/ATTACH]

 

Here we have something that has come along to mitigate the severity of several risk categories that have traditionally been outside the control of the pilot. I see room for nothing but applause for the makers of this safety equipment and the pilots who adopt it.

 

I confidently predict that a decade from now when market expectations have caused BRS to become standard equipment in all new aircraft, and when the media have lost interest the "occupants walk away after aircraft parachutes to safety" headline, that attitudes about small aircraft safety will be turned around.

 

No other single bit of GA kit has the potential to save so many lives. I still can't believe anyone would criticise it.

 

 

 

[eastmeg2]

Baphomet, how did you go with getting your GRS re-packed?

 

I've heard from another forum member once that he had trouble getting GRS to re-pack, or might have been that he couldn't wait for the turn around time that caused him to simply buy another after he used his first one.

 

Reason I ask is that the GRS on my trike will be due for a re-pack in another year or 2.

 

Cheers,

 

Glen

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

BRS is about managing certain risks that have NOTHING to do with airmanship.

It certainly SHOULD be but the largest single category of "lives saved" on the BRS website seems to be engine failure / unlandable. So what were they doing flying there in the first place and, more to the point, would they have been in that position if they hadn't been equiped with a BRS ?

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[slartibartfast]

And before you reply Flyer40, in my capacity as moderator could I just warn you that "what's wrong with you people" crossed the line in the way we like to treat each other on this forum.

 

By all means, argue your point, but do it with respect.

 

We now return you to your regular program.

 

Ross

 

 

[Matt]

Do you drive your car with less care because you have a seat belt, one or more airbags, ABS, stability control, crumple zones etc. protecting you? Initially safety items in cars were seen to be an added cost with little benefit and impeding on our 'freedoms', funny that a few years down the track we can't fit enough of the stuff into our cars...or come up with enough acroynyms for them all :) - why should aviation be any different?

 

These items (for cars, planes or any other human operated equipment) are there to save you when things go bad, and things will go bad at some point for someone despite the best equipment, intentions and planning - I'm sure we've all seen Air Crash Investigators.

 

I'm with Flyer on this, it's about risk management - if there's something that can be put into aircraft, systems or operators to reduce the risks and improve the safety of our operations for ourselves & our passengers - bring it on.

 

 

[Guest disperse]

I'd just like to say, that in all the opinions and arguments AGAINST BRS chutes.

 

there has NOT BEEN 1 SINGLE ARGUEMENT AGAINST MY REASONING for having a chute fitted (well I've factored this into my budget)

 

So I ask you : what does my 5yo daughter do / what does my 65yo father do / what does my 27yo wife do / what does my 36yo best mate do / what does my 12 yo daughter do / what does my 38yo brother do / what does my 30yo sister do . . . . .SO PLEASE TELL ME without the opportunity of a BRS chute . what do all these people do. SHOULD I DROP DEAD.

 

None of them have any flying experience .... but everyone of them will be shown/told how to operate the chute.

 

so it going to cost me an extra $6000. and I loose 20kg. the $6000 I'll get over within a couple of weeks (once it's gone it's gone) and the 20kg could be offset by using the LSA, but regardless of this . Do you choose a plane just because it's 20kg lighter than another. or do you weigh this against the benefits

 

I personally don't understand some of the staunch arguments against a BRS.

 

and YES I do take into account the number of AIRBAGS in a car when deciding on a new one.

 

Cause I KNOW that SOMETIMES it doesnt matter how CAREFULL you are. because THINGS HAPPEN. and chance's are It will be someone else's STUPIDITY that causes it.

 

 

[facthunter]

Rely on BRS.

 

I can assure you that people fly over TIGER country with a BRS fitted, that they wouldn't have done before, this is reliance in the equipment to get you out of trouble, rather than a safer procedure. There would be other examples of behaviour modification, based on reliance. Not everyone would do it, but think about it.

 

Note..

 

You are not guaranteed of not being injured with a chute.

 

The chute is a missile which can do serious injury to rescuers.(or kill them)

 

If you are incapacitated you may not be able to activate it.

 

There are plenty of areas where it is no use, stall on approach/ Take-off, collision on ground, serious mid-air collision (you are dead of impact forces already) any low- level loss of control, take-off or landing accident , in-flight fire etc.

 

It's a European requirement directed at a doubt as to the structural integrity& airworthiness ( primarily ) of these categories of aircraft.

 

If you want to fit and use one go ahead and do it. I wouldn't want to stop you, but don't make it mandatory for me. That's fair isn't it? Nev....

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Please note I'm not arguing against individuals' right and obligation to choose as they see fit. I respect that and indeed expect it.

 

I'd just like to add some other points to the discussion.

 

I like to think of these things in terms of relative value/relative likelihood. If you are going to die in one of our aircraft I would wager that the most likely cause will be CFIT. A BRS is not going to help that in general. There are lots of other interventions that can be undertaken to reduce CFIT deaths. For mine I'd like to see us as an organisation/group picking the low hanging fruit like CFIT training. That is different to the decision that we might make as an individual about safety equipment for our aircraft.

 

Secondly is the matter of weight. From recollection a chute will weigh in at between 12 and 20 kg. As an example a Tecnam has a baggage limit behind the seat of 20kg and if you are at MTOW without a chute then you are leaving either some fuel or your baggage behind. Fuel exhaustion BTW is a major cause of engine failure for GA and I don't expect that we are any different. 20kg fuel is about 27 litres - around 1.5 hours in said Tecnam. In some aircraft the 12-20 kg will be the decider between taking a second person or not in a 2 seater or leaving at all in a small single seater - the chute or the fuel!

 

We need to be aware of some accidents where the chute ends up tangled in the tail surfaces. You are then going down fast, chute not deployed and no tail control surfaces. I unfortunately can't find the link to a rather tragic report I read on this.

 

Finally as others have pointed out Cirrus implemented the CAPS because they either didn't wish to or couldn't meet the FAR23 spin recovery requirement. AFAIK the airframe on a Cirrus is aa write off after chute deployment.

 

Safety in aircraft is about managing multiple threats and errors. As Nev has suggested there is a risk that we take risks "because the chute will save us if we get into strife". That for me is a net negative for safety.

 

Regards

 

Mike