This Parachute?

[jackc]

Anyone own one of these please.  The Thinback Aerolite Parachute?  Normally used by Glider Pilots.

 

https://www.parachutesaustralia.com/product/the-thinback-emergency-system/

 

An alternative to a BRS.  Currently going through the RAA maze with a Tech 014 for engineering BRS approval in the long term.

 

[Yenn]

A big difference between a personal chute and one for the whole aircraft.

The personal chute does nothing for a passenger, except maybe lessen his confidence in the pilot.

A BRS will supposedly save all the people on board and maybe the aircraft.

The personal chute can fail you for several reasons such as inability to get out of the plane, or entanglement with the plane.

Personally I have never used a chute except for skydiving and never needed one for an emergency. I know several BRS uses have been in areas where a safe forced landing was possible and not used.

[440032]

You don't need a parachute for skydiving.

Once.

[KRviator]

To answer the question: "No"

 

But to expand on that, unless I was doing hardcore aerobatics, or single engine NVMC/IMC solo I think I would prefer to stay with the plane, certainly if it is the RV-9. I am of the belief - and have absolutely zero data to support it - that you're less likely to suffer injury if you can fly the plane to a safe (controlled) crash landing, even if you destroy it to protect you.

That being said, being able to safely egress your plane will be a huge deciding factor. The sliding canopy RV's are un-bail-outable. The Tip-up canopy ones require you to retain the canopy jettison system. Even coming down in a forest in a light plane, if you do it under control, you're likely to survive better than coming down in a forest in a parachute, with lacerations & getting hung up in the trees.

[facthunter]

The worse thing is an in flight fire where getting down quickly is a priority. Test pilot work have a chute if you CAN exit the plane. Inflight structural failure should be unlikely IF the plane is designed properly flown properly and maintained but you do not know if some clown has overstressed it before you fly it. There's a lot of weight in a chute and it's dangerous to rescuers in some situations,. and in water may entangle the plane IF you think your plane may fall apart under you I'd fly another plane. I don't like flimsy aircraft. If  a mid air collision is hard enough you won't be in a condition to use a chute also. Nev

[Flightrite]

Ive never jumped from a plane higher than a couple of feet, that you can have all on ya own!

Driving planes like most adventures is about risk, a calculated risk mostly so what one person would see as too risky another would accept the risk.

I mitigate my risk/s when driving planes by having well maintained machines, (anal to a degree) suitable WX & avoid (where possible) inhospitable terrain, no longer operate at night or in IMC SE, they are my 'chute':-)

[Thruster88]

I cannot recall any accidents involving recreational or light GA aircraft where the pilot could have been saved by a personal parachute. Don't stall/spin, fly in cloud, over speed, or over stress the aircraft covers about 95% of all accidents. That only leaves mid air collision, most of which occur at to low an altitude for a personal chute. Thrusters are for low and slow, keep it simple.  

[jackc]

2 hours ago, Yenn said:

A big difference between a personal chute and one for the whole aircraft.

The personal chute does nothing for a passenger, except maybe lessen his confidence in the pilot.

A BRS will supposedly save all the people on board and maybe the aircraft.

The personal chute can fail you for several reasons such as inability to get out of the plane, or entanglement with the plane.

Personally I have never used a chute except for skydiving and never needed one for an emergency. I know several BRS uses have been in areas where a safe forced landing was possible and not used.

I want a BRS, I have been through weeks of drama trying to sort something out.  In desperation I turned to RAA  this morning and can’t say I felt inspired.  Fill out a Tech Form 014 and submit it for an engineering assessment I was told.  I asked for advice did not get any.  That was it.  RAA PR score rating?  ZERO.  Hence my idea to buy a wearable only for when I am solo, no desire to carry PAX.  Using a wearable has its drawbacks, but it’s better than nothing.  I can use a wearable in either of my aircraft until I sort out this BRS business…….

[kgwilson]

I agree with others here, I'd sooner stay with the aircraft and do my best at landing by flying as far into the crash as possible. A structural failure would be the exception if say the wing came off or folded. Won't happen on my aircraft unless I was dumb enough to fly in to a towering CB 50,000 feet high with hail as big as cricket balls.

 

I used to carry a chute when hang gliding and used it a few times but never in anger. I took off with the bridle cord unhooked and threw the chute to test my repacking quality. It always opened and tore the cord out of my hand. I was usually able to fly around it and in most cases beat it down.

 

I'd never get out of my aircraft with a forward hinged bubble canopy anyway. I can fly with the canopy completely unlatched and the wind pressure keeps it firmly in place.

 

Even a BRS is no good if you have a structural or mid-air and you are prevented from pulling the handle. This happened to Garry Morgan when the wing of his motor glider failed and clapped hands with the other wing, crushing the canopy and completely trapping him & passenger so they could not get to anything. They were lucky as the throttle was jammed fully open and the glider fell like a sycamore leaf onto a steep slope & they walked away.

[facthunter]

Yes HE was a very lucky fellow and so was the Pax.. You wouldn't want to try that again .  IF some one decides to use a chute  and considers all the pro's and cons It's their call. I certainly would not want it compulsory. The producers don't usually cover the downsides as they want to sell them.. In real life there's hardly any simple cure alls. Nev

[Old Koreelah]

2 hours ago, jackc said:

I want a BRS, I have been through weeks of drama trying to sort something out.  In desperation I turned to RAA  this morning and can’t say I felt inspired...

That’s disappointing, Jackc. Our association/company should pull out all stops to help members trying to improve safety.

Looks like you have 19 on the side of your plane; that should make it easier to modify. I totally agree with the posts supporting a BRS. I wouldn’t like to bale out of our little planes at low altitude -where most of our emergencies happen.

 

There is more than one manufacturer of whole-plane parachutes. My BRS came with strict instructions on how to mount it. They insist the aeroplane arrives at the ground at a pronounced nose-down attitude, so the undercarriage absorbs most of the impact.

[facthunter]

 What you attach it to must be strong enough to take the load on it. I think that we could expect some planes to not meet the requirements.

 Nev

[jackc]

3 minutes ago, Old Koreelah said:

That’s disappointing, Jackc. Our association/company should pull out all stops to help members trying to improve safety.

Looks like you have 19 on the side of your plane; that should make it easier to modify. I totally agree with the posts supporting a BRS. I wouldn’t like to bale out of our little planes at low altitude -where most of our emergencies happen.

 

There is more than one manufacturer of whole-plane parachutes. My BRS came with strict instructions on how to mount it. They insist the aeroplane arrives at the ground at a pronounced nose-down attitude, so the undercarriage absorbs most of the impact.

My Thruster is a factory built 25 rego.  Checking parachute specs say don’t bail out under 500 feet, bit low for me anyway 🙂 

The RAA?  Well I must admit a bit more assistance would be handy,  I think someone pee’d in the man’s Weeties, I dealt with today.   Some dimwit will probably come up with a stupid plan to make them mandatory, would be an ego boost for someone.

Anyway, will submit the Tech 014 and wait for drama to unfold.  In the meantime order a wearable, same as what Glider pilots use. 

[facthunter]

The  U/C requirements for U/L's make interesting reading. They are not particularly severe. Nev

[Marty_d]

43 minutes ago, facthunter said:

 What you attach it to must be strong enough to take the load on it. I think that we could expect some planes to not meet the requirements.

 Nev

When I was looking into one for the 701, the connections are on the main undercarriage (which is a solid spring of aluminium) and the welded cabin frame assembly at the front.   If your aircraft has lost either of those two bits following structural failure or a mid-air, you're already dead.

[jackc]

Just now, Marty_d said:

When I was looking into one for the 701, the connections are on the main undercarriage (which is a solid spring of aluminium) and the welded cabin frame assembly at the front.   If your aircraft has lost either of those two bits following structural failure or a mid-air, you're already dead.

In the case of my Aeropup, their head office in Spain refuses to supply me with any information for fitting a BRS to that aircraft, that is a battle I have been waging for 12 months.  So I cannot even submit any information on a Tech Form 014 to RAA.

I sure would expect that IF I paid to get it all engineered and submit to RAA, they would then have engineering data to ‘sell’ to others needing to do the same?  Trust no one 😞

[facthunter]

In a lot of planes it's hard to find suitable point to mount the seatbelts I think they are rated at 10 G. Nev

[RFguy]

I concur with Thruster 88. 

SHort of a mid air collision the only thing that is going to kill me is (I think) would be a stall spin in late circuit due to not paying enough attention to airspeed. 

Maybe same thing could happen if I pulled a bit too much pitch  on climbout. (again inattention to critical parameter) .

 

BRS ? maybe for running the gauntlet over unfriendly terrain , or carrying full family.....

 

I do think stall-spin recovery should be part of RAAaus training. Maybe even from inverted spin.  While I can recover a 172  in a simulator ,  I am (still)  a little haunted  that I have not done any real flying unusual attitude recovery training. That trainng is #1 on my list as soon as COVID restrictions are eased.  

Had some uncommanded violent rolls in bad turbulance,  but whether turbulance can push you into a spin I can't see how--- Only if you make a mess of it in the recovery....  Hands off unless the plane doesnt right itself would seem at my level to be the best response...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RFguy]

(from memory) Brumby put a chute on back of the firewall in one of their aircraft . (non engine side) .

[kasper]

Been involved in design, fit and test on a BRS on a certified airframe in the uk and it’s no simple thing.  The manufacturers instructions were quite easy and were the simplest part … getting it passed the BCARS testing was the time and expenses.  
 

thrusters are an orphan type that was approved to BCARS back in the day so  RAAus tech doing a MARAP on it for 1 airframe is going to cost you dearly.  
 

from a couple of decades flying thrusters and the like plus being jump trained I would say

1 the thruster is very strong and too slow to worry me with with an airframe parachute.  It’s not going to break in the air and if the engine stops your flight planning should mean you have landable options. 
2 I’ve flown with a slim chute - not the one you are looking at but another - and once you are strapped into the chute, strapped into the seat I’d be near certain that IF the wing fails on a thruster you are not getting all the straps off and out away from the airframe before it’s too late. 
 

I think you are trying to fit an expensive solution to a non- risk … or another way is to say you are probably 99% not going to get the outcome you want from a slim pack from a thruster and if you go fit an airframe chute it’s high cost for minimal risk coverage with permanent load capacity penalty.
 

I’d give it a miss and spend all that lovely free cash you then have in going out and getting a few dozen $100 burgers in the thruster.  

[jackc]

I worked on a slim chance of survival with a chute against no hope without one.  I suppose a medical event could be another reason, depending on what it is.  I have 2 aircraft both of which are a grief stricken enterprise to fit a BRS, so far anyway.

I guess the wearable will be the ultimate choice, even though it’s 4k to buy.  Which does not worry me.

Be interested in the MARAP quote from RAA which is supplied before a buying decision is made.  

[Old Koreelah]

13 hours ago, facthunter said:

In a lot of planes it's hard to find suitable point to mount the seatbelts I think they are rated at 10 G. Nev

My BRS harness is mounted to the wing spar bolts and the rear attachement points of the wing, to ensure the aircraft decends at the correct nose-down attitude. The straps are buried under a thin plywood skin.

Wasn’t easy.

 

Whether to pull the big red handle? Choose between arriving at terra firma with no control and travelling vertically at least 5 metres/sec (10 knots), or coming in at a shallow angle under some sort of control at 40 knots.

[Marty_d]

It's horses for courses, isn't it.  If you've lost your engine but have control and there are places to land, then you wouldn't pull it.  If on the other hand you had a control problem, or more likely medical problem (heart attack/stroke etc) then there's a case for pulling it.

[kgwilson]

A heart attack or stroke would more than likely make you incapacitated so you would not be able to pull the handle. Now there's a challenge for someone to come up with a monitoring device to establish when this happens & fire it automatically. Mind you without CPR of medical assistance you could be dead before touch down.

[jackc]

There are some things you just can’t fix, living always has a finality of dying, it’s just a case of WHEN.   Anything you can do to delay that finality is worth considering 🙂