Anyone Fitted A BRS To A Thruster?

[jackc]

Well, you would think our powers that be would facilitate the fitment of BRS, I am not saying MANDATE.

Being a safety item I thought some kind of interest may have been shown by RAA when I enquired, they and CASA are always banging on about safety.  I make an enquiry and get the impression I have been branded a leper.

Well, I am not expecting them to have all the answers but showing interest would be a good start.

Probably too big of an ask of RAA,  members, just keep tipping your yearly membership fees into the coffers, and do as we say.……

[facthunter]

I think it's simply where they best feel their resources be directed. As a thruster owner you fit a very  small section of what they choose to cover.

  IF I was asked to nominate a priority for action I doubt it would be setting up a process for fitting parachutes to thrusters. Don't take this personally. It's just where We and the current management are AT. The expertise is probably not there either.  In MY view it's NOT there for all manner of things. I'd like Instructor skills enhanced as an example. That helps ALL members Nev

[jackc]

I guess my main e reason is medical at my age,  whilst I am fit and can walk/run quite well  it possible to take a turn for no reason.

Studying internal medicine for 8 years has taught me a lot and the older I get, the closer I get to having a problem with little prior warning.  A BRS may not save me in a medical event BUT it may save me cleaning up someone with the plane IF it all goes pear shaped.

[facthunter]

I don't think there are many situations where you will clean up others. Incapacitation in a car might involve others more likely.  People cross over lanes into the opposite direction traffic and it's multivehicle. The "USUAL" sudden event involves fibrillation. You probably know all that  Your body often signals "something's not right" Don't fly (SOLO) if you aren't normal.. My wife and I used to go to various places and I'd tell her to come on the controls when I'm taking off or Landing so if was" out to" it  ever she'd have a good idea what to do.  I got my first Instructor rating about 1964 .  Nev

[aro]

20 hours ago, jackc said:

Well, you would think our powers that be would facilitate the fitment of BRS, I am not saying MANDATE.

Being a safety item I thought some kind of interest may have been shown by RAA when I enquired, they and CASA are always banging on about safety.

25 reg aircraft were certified to a particular standard. The RAA's job is to make sure that the aircraft continues to meet that standard.

 

If you want to modify it, someone needs to make sure that it still meets the airworthiness standards for 25 reg. That might include flight testing (if there are aerodynamic changes e.g. an external canister), weight and balance, and structural assessments. Among other things, 25 reg is supposed to provide an assurance that the aircraft has not been modified without that level of scrutiny.

 

I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if the cost to have a qualified person do that type of assessment and sign it off was in the 5 figure range. That's not what your RAA membership is paying for.

[jackc]

1 minute ago, aro said:

25 reg aircraft were certified to a particular standard. The RAA's job is to make sure that the aircraft continues to meet that standard.

 

If you want to modify it, someone needs to make sure that it still meets the airworthiness standards for 25 reg. That might include flight testing (if there are aerodynamic changes e.g. an external canister), weight and balance, and structural assessments. Among other things, 25 reg is supposed to provide an assurance that the aircraft has not been modified without that level of scrutiny.

 

I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if the cost to have a qualified person do that type of assessment and sign it off was in the 5 figure range. That's not what your RAA membership is paying for.

Yes, and I am pleased about that standard, too. One of the reasons I bought it. Well, will see what happens…..but IF some engineer decides I am a gold mine for the taking……for a primary safety item in an aircraft that is not rocket science to fit……then I will have something to say IF the cost can’t be justified.  My last experience with an engineer turned my Aeropup into a flying death trap that my totally unqualified self is still working on it to make it right.

 

[facthunter]

 Might be easier if you register it 19 XXXX. Nev

[jackc]

Nev, I wonder IF the engineering requirements are different between a 19 or 25 rego aircraft, in essence they should not be as its a modification to an aircraft despite rego differences?  One would think that engineering costs are the same, regardless of rego status?

 

[aro]

I don't know how the rules work for 19 reg. My understanding is that it is for Amateur Built, i.e. not built to a specific standard - even if most 19- aircraft are common designs built from kits. In theory that might mean more freedom to modify.

 

I don't know how you classify a 25- reg aircraft as amateur built though.

[facthunter]

With VH planes you get the same problems with doing any mods, however minor. That's why EXP VH is popular with some builders and owners who maywish to alter something..

 19 is supposed to be 51% owner Built. and only the owner builder can be trained in one.. 25 reg  would be needed for a school, I think.. 

   SAAA are all over these rules and probably the blokes at TAREE. Nev

[jackc]

Nev, who are the SAAA, is their HQ at Taree?   I joined AOPA and made some enquiries with them on another matter and the silence is deafening nearly 2 months later…….so I am not going there, they just wanted my membership money by the looks.

Their WEB site has info from the Dinosaur age on it 🙂

 

[facthunter]

People at TAREE build planes and so do SAAA people. Google should bring up S triple "A" Put AU at the end. Nev

[BrendAn]

So if i read thos right a 25 reg is more valuable than a 19 because of the assurance you have purchased a factory built plane. Is that correct. 

[jackc]

25 rego is factory built and can be used as a flying school aircraft. That was my main reason for me to go that way, I can be trained in it.   Whereas my 19 rego aircraft was not built by me, so I cannot train in it?   However, I can do endorsements in it I believe.

[skippydiesel]

BRS ??? cant see the value but if it makes you feel good go for it.

 

Cirrus has made the installation in their aircraft a selling point but that's pretty much all it is (marketing). The aim was/is to compete with the perceived safety benefits in having a twin engine aircraft - most of us know, that the safety benefit in having two engines, is pretty illusory, much like the BRS systems..

 

I doubt there are stat's that would justify the initial/ongoing cost. People forget, once you fire the system you have no control of where you will "put down" could be that you go from the "frying pan into the fire".

[Thruster88]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

BRS ??? cant see the value but if it makes you feel good go for it.

 

Cirrus has made the installation in their aircraft a selling point but that's pretty much all it is (marketing). The aim was/is to compete with the perceived safety benefits in having a twin engine aircraft - most of us know, that the safety benefit in having two engines, is pretty illusory, much like the BRS systems..

 

I doubt there are stat's that would justify the initial/ongoing cost. People forget, once you fire the system you have no control of where you will "put down" could be that you go from the "frying pan into the fire".

I dont think these three Aussies would agree that the system is a marketing gimmick. Yes it was pilot error, pilot error can happen to anyone.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ao-2014-083/

 

[skippydiesel]

3 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

I dont think these three Aussies would agree that the system is a marketing gimmick. Yes it was pilot error, pilot error can happen to anyone.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ao-2014-083/

 

Yeah! pretty well says it all ( stall type manoeuvring with only 2000 ft clearance ????) and the way I read it goes towards my position (against BRS).

[aro]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

Yeah! pretty well says it all ( stall type manoeuvring with only 2000 ft clearance ????)

2000 AGL was when they pulled the chute, not the altitude they were maneuvering, but in any case death to you and your passengers is a pretty hefty penalty to advocate.

 

It amazes me that the attitude to airframe parachutes is so similar to the attitude to aircrew parachutes in World War 1 - not much has changed in 100 years.

[jackc]

7 minutes ago, aro said:

2000 AGL was when they pulled the chute, not the altitude they were maneuvering, but in any case death to you and your passengers is a pretty hefty penalty to advocate.

 

It amazes me that the attitude to airframe parachutes is so similar to the attitude to aircrew parachutes in World War 1 - not much has changed in 100 years.

This is my option……Mini Softie E-CP146

 

http://www.softieparachutes.com/parachute-models/

[aro]

Just don't wear it when you have a passenger... they don't like it.

[BrendAn]

26 minutes ago, aro said:

Just don't wear it when you have a passenger... they don't like it.

He could supply the passenger with one .

[jackc]

Just now, BrendAn said:

He could supply the passenger with one .

IF I am ever going to carry PAX I will have one for them 🙂  Whilst I am flying with Instructor, no parachutes at all! 

[skippydiesel]

I would point out:

 

• As a VFR pilot of single engine aircraft, I was trained to anticipate (the inevitable) engine failure by either avoiding terrain where a forced landing is unlikely to be successful (injury /death resulting) or minimising the risk by flying as high as allowable to enable a glide to open/flatter country. 
• Continually "spot" likely forced landing sites, as the flight progressed.
• Plan my rout so as to have an exit/forced landing strategy.
• When practising/demonstrating semi or full aerobatic manoeuvres/stalls/engine outs, etc do so at altitude sufficient to effect recovery AND within gliding distance of an airfield or known forced landing site

The pilot of the Cirrus in question seems not to have been practising any of the risk reduction skills he must have been trained in.

 

I remember this incident and was pretty disgusted by at the pilots unnecessary risk taking, that ended with the loss of his aircraft and only by chance, the survival of him & his passenger.

 

Many have commented on the possibility that pilots flying aircraft, equipped with BRS, may abandon good airmanship, in favour of the illusion of a safe decent that the devise offers. 

 

Human nature often negates the safety features that others implement/promote. I am reminded of the "straightening" of a road corner,  in an attempt to reduce the number of car crashes at that site. The result - even more crashes, as the all to human drivers tried for even higher speed cornering. ABS car breaking systems (now standard) have only encouraged even later breaking, tail gating and other risky behaviours. Technological advancements in safety do not automatically lead to reduced injury/fatality (despite the promoters sales efforts), sometimes they even have the opposite effect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jackc]

Not looking at a parachute as the ‘easy’ way out…….it’s  part of the overall safety strategy.  Besides I told my wife I would always fly solo with a parachute, to make her feel a bit happier.  I have to keep her happy 🙂.

What man has a wife that a husband can walk in the door 3 weeks ago and tell her just bought another plane,  no she did not throw the fridge at me, but simply said ‘I hope it’s a nice one’ 🙂.  

[skippydiesel]

2 hours ago, aro said:

2000 AGL was when they pulled the chute, not the altitude they were maneuvering, but in any case death to you and your passengers is a pretty hefty penalty to advocate.

 

It amazes me that the attitude to airframe parachutes is so similar to the attitude to aircrew parachutes in World War 1 - not much has changed in 100 years.

The WW1  military attitude to parachutes was I believe, centered around the perception that the pilot would be more "aggressive" in attack/defence if he had no safe exit system.

 

My scepticism of the BRS has little similarity, in that I have yet to see any statistics that suggest that this is a cost effective whole of fleet strategy.

 

Sure, as an individual, that gets yourself into a tight spot, (that you probably should not have been in) it might be nice to be able to deploy a chute but what evidence is there that across the Australian (or World) light aircraft fleet that they would b beneficial?

 

In the Cirrus example above - the aircraft came very close to hitting power lines - may be a fried pilot/passenger might have put a different "spin" on the merits of deploying BRS.

 

Those that gravitate towards this technology need to dwell, at length, about their reasons and the undeniable fact that once deployed, you just role the dice when it comes to your landing point and the hazards that may present.

 

In my view - far better to practise good airmanship and if/when that engine fails you control the aircraft to a survivable crash landing (one of the reasons why low stall speed is such an important safety point when selecting an aircraft).