Ballistic Chute

[Admin]

I know this has been discussed in many other threads but for clarity - Should the Master come with a ballistic chute as standard or should it be just an option?

 

Currently it has one but my suggestion to them was that it should be an option as the space/weight that it takes up can be used for luggage. All testing at the moment has the chute installed so we would need to tell them to consider having no chute and no luggage in its space, no chute and luggage, chute in the rear and no front luggage etc etc etc.

 

My guess is that you will say it should be an option.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

My guess is that you will say it should be an option.

Well Ian as I'm not allowed to fly the wretched thing it had better have a 'chute so I can at least travel in it:black_eye:

 

Seriously you're spot on - an option.

 

Mike

 

 

[Ben Longden]

I would keep it as an optional extra.

 

On that subject is there any solid research that shows them to be of benefit?

 

Ben

 

 

[Guest Flyer40]

Ian,

 

I suspect that Millennium will be defining an entirely new segment of the aviation industry. Which gives it a lot in common with another company that recently did the same. That company's brand image is synonymous with BRS and they went straight to the top of their class.

 

In terms of your customer profile, my view is that you will attract more sales by having BRS as standard equipment, than you will loose due to the increased cost. The people who don't want BRS aren't likely to buy your plane anyway.

 

And Ben, one BRS manufacturer is claiming 201 lives saved. http://www.brsparachutes.com/files/Documents/Lives-Saved.pdf

 

That's real world data, which is more solid than any research can be. You could try to argue that not every one of those 201 had no option but to use a chute, but why would you? The people who want them, want them.

 

Mal

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Ian, it would be great to have all the aircraft going out the door fitted with a BRS. But until it becomes a mandatory piece of equipment, it won't happen due to the expense of purchase and service of them. But I do think it would be of benifit to build it BRS ready, it gives the owner/builder the option to fit one later or the aircraft may change hands. (or be incorporated with the airbag mandate package.)

 

 

[Towering Cu]

G'day Ian,

 

You should see how much money I spend a year on insurance for the house, contents, car, Loss of licence etc etc. A small fortune. Fortunately I have never needed to make a claim.

 

One day in the future I may look back on all that money spent and wonder if it was really necessary to have?? For peace of mind, you bet.

 

As I've mentioned, I have yet to get involved actively with Recreational Flying but am looking forward to in the coming months. I even fantasize with the idea of perhaps building something someday.

 

Whilst I have never held any great fears for my own safety in light aircraft (not to say I haven't had some scares!) or those that I have flown and traveled with over the years I was gaining my ATPL, it's a completely different story now that I have children. I can't bear the idea of placing them in harms way.

 

I love the idea of having the safety of the chute. Would probably never need it, but for me at least, more insurance money happily spent.

 

I imagine most people here would say make it an option. I understand this as most Rec flyers are naturally trying to reduce their costs.

 

However, your Millennium project aircraft is being targeted at those that are after a high performance 2 place aircraft in the vicinity of $120k.

 

In my opinion only, go with the chute standard..

 

Regards and good luck,

 

Mike.

 

 

[Mick]

Optional!

 

I currently own and operate a top end performance LSA aircraft, the Dova Skylark, that is fitted with a rescue chute.

 

There are many more considerations than just cost and servicing.

 

You also have to consider the weight penalty, a fitted chute can add up to around 20 kg. As a percentage this is a fair chunk of our usable load.

 

In the case of my aircraft the chute is mounted in the nose. Once you have your head down in the foot wells to adjust / bleed brakes you become very aware that there is an explosive device only inches from your right ear.

 

Also when working under my aircraft you tend to be very concious of the exhaust tube coming out through the bottom of the fuse. Unlike some others, the manufacturers of the Skylark have put a duct in to direct the exhaust gases out the bottom so the cockpit does not fill with deadly gases while you float serenely down under your "rescue" chute.

 

Personally I also worry about the chute being pulled in panic. I know of at least one case in Europe where a chute was deployed by a paniced student during forced landing training in a situation where the instructor was perfectly comfortable. This deployment then opens up the possibility of injuries on impact ( remember they don't come down all that gentley ), it also does considerable damage to the airframe.

 

Another horrific scenerio is where a chute is deployed in panic with an in-flight fire. Remember that once the chute is deployed you are along for the ride, good bad or otherwise.

 

You must also consider the possibility of the chute deploying on impact in a forced landing or some other form of minor accident. This has the potential of turning something minor into a really bad situation.

 

Further to that senario, I do not imagine that most people ( professional rescuers or just the first ones to get to you ) coming to your assitance after an accident will be aware that your aircraft contains such an explosive device that may have had it's activation system damaged.

 

The popularity of rescue chutes outside of Australia I beleive is influenced by the differences in the terrain available for forced landings. There are few countries that have the open space that we have in Australia.

 

Personally I think the only senario where I would want to deploy a chute would be major structural failure. Realistically these do not often occur in an aircraft that has been flown with in it's designed flight envelope.

 

Having owned aircraft with and with out chutes, and having given alot of serious thought to the pro's and con's, I would rather not have one.

 

 

[Bigglesworth]

Personally no chute, as Mick says, they really are only wanted in the case of structural failure, which is rare.

 

Or Pilot failure (heart attack etc) and deployed by passenger. Also rare.

 

I would much prefer to try a forced landing by flying the thing under control, than to be out of control.

 

But an option might be wanted by some. (after all, some people even like airbags;))

 

 

[Ben Longden]

Hard to say which way to go. I like Mikes idea of peace of mind, but then Mick brings up the point about bent airframes when deployed.

 

When I was in Road Accident rescue, we had to do a special course in dealing with pranged cars that had undeployed airbags.... we had to whack a sticker on the windscreen to alert others, and then bolt an octopus thing over the wheel in case it deployed while we were extricating the driver. Sometimes, if the windscreen was gone, we would be working through the hole in front to support the drivers neck and airway while Ambos were doing their thing.

 

Not a pretty thought to contemplate if the bag self initiated.

 

As for its value, I attended a high speed T-bone collision, where the deceased in a merc was hit side on by a Holden wagon at highway speed. It was unsurvivable.

 

The airbag in the Holden deployed, and the driver got out of the car without a bloody scratch. Likewise his toddler son.

 

Airbags, I loove them... but am always wary of them.

 

Which brings me to another question, based on ignorance I guess (and the late hour).. What particular circumstances would warrant the BRS deployment, other than say an EFATO?

 

Ben

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Ben, a lot of the Cirrus saves I read about tend to have unsuitable weather (pilot unsuited to the flight conditions would be a better description) as a facter leading to deployment.

 

In the U.S. a couple of days ogo, an SR22 spun in on final with the loss of 4 people - no mention of a chute.

 

I attended a two day Cirrus back ground course the importer holds at YBAF. During the course I was told that if the parachute is removed from the rocket caseing, that the caseing will travel 5'000 feet verticly when fired - thats better then some rifle bullets. Unfired, it is not something to be playing around with at an acciedent scene - considering the parrachute part may have been burnt off.

 

HPD

 

(I do not own a Cirrus)

 

 

[Admin]

Chutes seem to be a personal thing which in itself would mean that it should only be an option.

 

As for me personally - I just wouldn't like the last thing for me to say "darn it, I should have bought that chute!"

 

When I was trying to decide on whether to get the CT with a chute or not I made such a big thing out of the decision, asked a lot of people their thoughts, pondered and pondered, asked the wife, family etc so it got to the point where the decision was made for me - I got it as I made such a big thing about it, it was like someone was telling me I had to get it. Naturally I didn't need it but who knows, perhaps for the life of my CT that maybe, and I say reluctantly, that it may one day be needed and that person in maybe 5 years or 10 years will thank me for getting it.

 

 

[facthunter]

Escape.

 

Nothing is ever certain except death & taxes they say. Make it optional Ian. You don't take a parachute when you go flying in a commercial thingy do you? I notice they are carried in the big Antonov (slightly bigger than a C5A )but it's cargo and maybe they don't fix them. Can't see what use they are at low altitude,(just after take-off) but I'm listening. If you are testing something, Fine use it. I'd rather have the extra weight in the structure, because I dont like the thought of a structural failure at all. If you are on fire, can't see what use. The idea when you are on fire (it happens) is to get down quickly. The risk to others post-crash, has to be included in the assessment. If the individual wants one far be it from me to in any way to stop him. The Cirrus HAS to have one so I don't see that as part of the equation. Might have been better if it had been built so that it was optional. To my way of thinking, a curious design philosophy there. Nev..

 

 

[Yenn]

As facthunter has pointed out the Cirrus has to have a chute. It will not recover from a spin so that is their answer. If they are claiming lots of lives saved is that a fair claim? I wold say that any life saved by deployment of a chute to recover from a spin is not really a plus. The design is a fault.

 

Deployment to recover from bad airmanship also is not really countable as a life saved in my opinion.

 

How many accidents have occurred where a chute was not available and resulted in death is what we should consider. A couple of friends of mine have died in turn back accidents. I doubt that a chute would have been any use. Another friend lost a wing at about 300'. He would probably have survived if a chute had been fitted.

 

We can all make ourselves just about bullet proof. All we need to do is keep away from aircraft, but that is not my option.

 

 

[Guest Flyer40]

I don' think it's correct to say that a Cirrus will not recover from a spin because I'm not sure it's ever been tested. My understanding is that Cirrus chose to install a chute as part of their standard specification. This was acceptable to the FAA as an alternative to doing spin testing for certification. So they didn't waste time and money on pursuing something that wasn't necessary. Happy to be corrected if someone has evidence to the contrary.

 

In the earlier post it was the BRS manufacturer claiming the lives saved. That data comes from a whole range of different airframes, not just Cirrus.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I think you'll actually find that the Cirrus can't exit a spin without the chute being deployed, hence it was required for certification. From memory the flight manual details spin recovery, as parachute deployment! I'll have a read of it on the weekend if I remember when I'm in it and let you know if I'm wrong. I would not like to get it into a spin. The rudder is small and so is the elevator, all designed for going fast, no spinning around!

 

 

[facthunter]

Ineffective rudder.

 

There are old-fashioned rules of thumb regarding blanking of the rudder by the horizontal tailplane surfaces, which can affect recovery (spin) technique. In an extreme case it would indicate that recovery is unlikely at all. I believe the Cirrus to be such an instance. The GA 8 airvan had a bit of difficulty also, which is well documented, and it's not a high performance aircraft.. Nev..

 

 

[Yenn]

Cirrus cannot have much faith in their spin recovery. I don't think you can buy one without the chute.

 

 

[vk3auu]

As I recall, the Airvan difficulty was caused by the CoG being too far back and the pilot was unable to correct the problem in flight.

 

David

 

 

[timshel]

"Avid" pilot died today (1/12/07) north of Latrobe valley, after mid-air collision with a cessna 172- both on final . I wonder if a chute had have been an option for this poor man would it have saved him..We will sadly have to await facts.

 

I have ordered a factory fitted chute on my new tecnam and would only consider using it in the following circumstances

 

Water ditching...

 

Mid Air collision/ large structural failure..

 

Accidental entry into IMC (prolonged)..obviously bad airmanship but I would still be grateful.

 

Engine out over inhospitable terrain..

 

And I will train my passengers to use it in case I am incapacitated..

 

Otherwise surely a controlled forced landing is preferrable.

 

Some facts I remeber from the Galaxy chutes LSA (600kg) model.

 

Maximum deployment speed 132kt

 

Minimum deployment altitude 300ft but have examples on website as low as 90ft?

 

Cost Approx $7000 AUD fitted. Weight 13kg. Service intervals 7 yrs.

 

There is some freaky video on this very forum whereby the deployment of a chute - A) saved a life for sure b) probably killed someone. It can go either way. I am still keeping mine as the Tecnam has good useful payload.

 

 

[Bigglesworth]

[quote=timshel;

 

Engine out over inhospitable terrain..

 

I would risk a fast landing in a place I chose than to be gently placed at the top of a 70m Gum tree, or dangling from a chute caught in a tree.

 

 

[Guest disperse]

It won't bother me either way because I would take one ..... Airbags ......truly a life saving invention.... I would be upset if I didn't want one but had to buy it anyway.

 

so option..

 

 

[vk3auu]

I understand that the fatality at LV last week end did have a chute.

 

David

 

 

[timshel]

"I understand that the fatality at LV last week end did have a chute.

 

David"

 

You mean the por man in the AVID? I did not see anything about a chute being deployed or otherwise in the reports? Did you read/hear that in the news or did you know the plane? Any ideas as to why it was not deployed? Also does anyone know for sure if the young student in the cessna was solo? If so he/she must have a cool head to land after such a fright.

 

Tim

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

i read in one of the sydney papers that the pilot was thrown from the aircraft before it hit the ground. any truth to this. maybe he was incapacited in the collision and could not deploy the canopy.

 

ozzie

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I believe David is correct and the aircraft was fitted with a chute. I would be surprised if any type of chute would have been effective due to the very low altitude it would have to had been deployed from. Apparently emergency services were reluctant to approach the aircraft for fear of setting off the explosives in the chute. This of course could be an error as it came from the media.

 

It would surprise me if the pilot was ejected prior to impact, given that severe burns were received and I would be surprised if they were obtained in the air.

 

FYI - The chute in the Cirrus comes standard with all models, due to the fact that it is required fo rspin certification. Deployment of the chute will cost you around $100k in damage/repacking repairs, not including damage to the aircraft. There have been demonstrated deployments of the Cirrus chutes that seemingly have saved lives. A couple of other instances have occurred where it seems that they could pull the handle just because it was there.