Anyone Fitted A BRS To A Thruster?

[jackc]

You roll the dice when you leave the ground in a heavier than air machine, powered by a mechanical device 🙂 

You roll the dice when you drive your mechanical contrivance to the corner shop and dont wear a seatbelt because you think they  are useless 🙂 

Edited September 27, 2021 by jackc
reword

[turboplanner]

7 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

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

In your case you were trained thoroughly to be a PIC Skippy. It's up to RAA Ltd to continually audit instructors to make sure that standard is consistent across all training around Australia.

 

The practice outline above has served Australia well over many decades with very few examples of where carrying a parachute would have made a difference in GA or RA.

 

In RA there is an additional safety margin in the very low stall speed, allowing some very rough forced landings without injury.

 

Parachutes work in Heavy GA aircraft because the inertia provides a stable platform to jump from and the larger doors provide a better exit to be able to get to and jump out of.

 

The low inertia which makes RA aircraft safer in a rough forced landing works against the pilot at altitude, bouncing all over the place as he shifts his weight, and the exit often involves a degree of contortion  which gives more time fo the aircraft to get out of control. In addition, if the aircraft is going forward or below you there is the additional risk with a pusher prop of doing you severe damage.

 

If you are wearing a parachute or BRS because you are likely to have a medical episode, you are already disqualified from flying in RA, and for that matter driving a car.

 

Situations where a BRS is fitted have been covered quite well; it came to prominence with the high speed, complex aircraft like the Cirrus where training was sometimes a lot less than was required for that speed or complexity. In that application BRS has saved more lives than it cost.

 

I haven't done an analysis of RA fatality cause groups, which could be done quite easily by RAA Ltd, but as a rough guide:

 

Entering Cloud/Loss of control.

Since you don't know which way is up, you don't know which way to jump, or which direction to react, so parachutes may not have saved any, except those few trapped between two banks of cloud, cloud and hill etc.

 

Engine Failure at Altitude+ either sit there and let the aircraft go into a spin, or pull hard back to go up, but go down

The cause of the fatality is the pilot froze in a perfectly good aircraft.

No chance he'll deploy a parachute, possible chance he will trigger a BRS.

 

EFATO+turnback

No chance for parachute or BRS

 

Failure to calculate weight and balance in flight planning

Aircraft out of control so only a small chance with either parachute or BRS

 

Aerobatics+structural failure  (either cause by the current pilot or structural damage by a previous pilot)

Usually complicated by rapid uncommanded, unexpected aircraft movement so virtually no chance with parachute or BRS.

 

PIC and Copilot each grabbing controls and fighting each other to the ground

No chance for paracute or BRS - they weren't interested in that.

 

The need to land in unlandable country (known by some hopefuls as tiger country)

Possible deployment of parachute and BRS, but also possible death by landing issues in the terrain (trees, rocks, water etc)

 

Medical fatality

The Coroner will usually identify this. This group of people should also be included in total statistics.

Parachute and BRS were no use to them.

 

Summary

Before Seat Belt legislation was included for cars, all fatality groups were included for analysis, and a very large percentage of drivers and passengers were found to have been thrown out of the car and killed by the sudden stop, or thrown against each other or the interior of the car, killing them. Fatalities dropped by about 50% in the year after the legislation was introduced, so results matched the analysis.

 

If we combine the above groups to decide whether a parachute or BRS would have made a difference, the results are not as compelling, which is probably why we don't regulate for either.  This is certainly nowhere near a definitive study, just a few groups where I can remember the circumstances of the crash and its cause.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by turboplanner

[pmccarthy]

I recently ordered a new RAA style aircraft with a sub 30kt stall. I considered the BRS option but did not take it. My only reason for doing so would have been for the passenger in event of pilot incapacitation. I am advised that sudden incapacitation without warning symptoms is highly unlikely. It is far more likely to catch me driving the family car on a highway or riding a motorbike, combined around 500 hours per year, than when flying for 30-50 hours per year. 

[jackc]

Well for me it now comes to this…….I will do what ever it takes to possibly increase my chances of surviving any fatal event in an aircraft I have control of.

I don’t care of statistics, I care about possibilities as if the time you may need a ‘chute’ and you don’t have one……you are screwed definitely.  If you have it and never need it, having it is no loss.

Instructors train pilots thats it……it up to the pilot to further their knowledge and abilities to make themselves as safe as they can be.   Lack of regular hours is probably a major problem that causes ‘rustiness’.  

I have an MCR licence, covers road trains down……how long since I drove one of those combinations?  Be 15 years or more, IF someone asked me to do a ‘run’ now?

I would refuse it, becauseI my skills are too rusty to do the job safely.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, jackc said:

Well for me it now comes to this…….I will do what ever it takes to possibly increase my chances of surviving any fatal event in an aircraft I have control of.

I don’t care of statistics, I care about possibilities as if the time you may need a ‘chute’ and you don’t have one……you are screwed definitely.  If you have it and never need it, having it is no loss.

Instructors train pilots thats it……it up to the pilot to further their knowledge and abilities to make themselves as safe as they can be.   Lack of regular hours is probably a major problem that causes ‘rustiness’.  

I have an MCR licence, covers road trains down……how long since I drove one of those combinations?  Be 15 years or more, IF someone asked me to do a ‘run’ now?

I would refuse it, becauseI my skills are too rusty to do the job safely.

 

 

Jack - I support your desire for additional safety however your logic may result in you never leaving the ground. At some stage we must all manage risk, even if its just to get out of bed in the morning. 

 

I confess to being a "control freak" so the thought of submitting to the uncertain results from a BRS style landing is not attractive - I would rather manage my risk, so as to have a good chance of making a forced landing, under my control.

 

I also have a semi license (not a road train). Just to prove your "rusty" point  - About 3 years ago now,  I did a 6 month stint as the day driver, (for a mate doing the night run) on a hot mix delivery truck, mainly in north Sydney. Truck configuration completely inappropriate for city goat tracks. Found the whole experiencing to be very stressful (rusty) Wont be volunteering for city semi driver work any time soon (ever!)