Bankstown accident 17/03/2023

[Carbon Canary]

Interestingly, until this year autopilot in ELAs was banned in Germany. I view autopilot as a safety feature in some instances.

Other  than cost and weight in ELAs what are the other negatives for a BRS ?

[facthunter]

Open water and winds and safety for rescuers and transport of the ballistic bit. Some planes don't have suitable structure to mount them. Your plane is likely to still be substantially damaged. In a mid air the Impact forces may still be enough to kill or severely injure you. The extra weight reduces the performance you would have had without it. I'm not anti for the sake of it but you should allow other contrary views. Not you personally it's not a straight for and against thing. . 

   Auto pilots ?? Some aspects of them can have risk They have to be constantly monitored, more so in some modes than others.  Nev

[cherk]

15 minutes ago, Carbon Canary said:

Other  than cost and weight in ELAs what are the other negatives for a BRS ?

because of the ballistics involved , there are protocols regarding the access to aircraft by rescue teams if the said ballistics have NOT been activated !!!

[Carbon Canary]

Happy for contrary views - it adds to our collective knowledge.

 

in my view BRS simply adds another slice to the Swiss cheese pack - when you run out of other options, you still have the chute.

Similarly with autopilot - they can be both dangerous and add safety.

A student pilot was killed in C172SP in Vic some years ago apparently trying to fight the autopilot which she may have not realised was still engaged. Alternatively, if there is a VFR into IMC incident, autopilot could be a lifesaver.

 

Pilot incapacitation or engine failure over tiger country - probably pull the chute. The statistics are in - chutes save lives. Even the skeptic Paul Bertorelli seems convinced.

 

But each to their own, I fully understand and support the longing for cheap and simple aviation on this forum.

[facthunter]

I know people who have done a 180 on autopilot and got out of cloud and another who flew into a cliff face who would no doubt have had the auto pilot engaged at the time.( CFIT. ).   In flight fire where you want to get on the ground as quickly as possible, the chute would not help either. Our plane s land at 45 knot less the headwind.   Nev

[Carbon Canary]

Well, pulling the chute is an option, not mandatory.

[jackc]

My BRS aspect.  I dug around and on a retrofit, its a disaster for some aircraft. Shipping is a big problem being dangerous goods and that can become very costly. IF the manufacturer cant cover its approval, engineering wise its a problem

I went to RAA about my Aeropup and they can do engineering BUT it would cost me. That is fair enough but IF someone else wanted the same aircraft done, they would also be charged and I would have already paid for it.

Good money for RAA, but they are out to make money, being a Company 😞. 

IF you have an onboard fire, a BRS could see you incinerated, not good. 

So I bought a wearable parachute 🙂. Aircraft fire?  I am out the door!   You all say how will that work for me?

Well, making a checklist as to how I will do it, considering calculated wind pressure on pilot’s door at X speed?  Attitude of aircraft, scenarios for that, and anything else I can think of? An Event that could require me to exit. Selection of ground location for best outcome, under circumstances?  I also have my engine out plan, too.  But no use of parachute in that instance, unless prop loses a blade, severe engine vibration rips motor out etc.  The idea being to have a plan in mind for most possible incidents, whatever they could be. And a parachute could be part of the needed plan……

[facthunter]

They were mandated on the Cirrus for a reason.. What planes does the German requirement cover?   Nev

[derekliston]

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

Not sure the comparison is that valid. Not every aspect of a ballistic chute is positive. Not sure Ilike it being mandated. Airliners for instance have nothing resembling it. It also makes money for those who make and sell it so they'll be in favour of it.  Nev

Once you pull that chute you lose all control of where the aeropane goes, powerlines, lake, houses, you name it! I think I’d rather take my chances with a controlled glide (Assuming the aeroplane is still intact!)

[kgwilson]

Unless I had a structural failure I'd always take my chances with a forced landing.

[facthunter]

At the speed you can do that  in "our" planes it should be quite survivable.   Nev

[Old Koreelah]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

…The extra weight reduces the performance you would have had without it.

Nev’s right about that. My BRS adds about 10kg to my MTOW. As well as reducing my carrying capacity, it increases the stall speed by two or three knots; enough to do more damage in a bad landing.

[facthunter]

Not only the landing it's the length of runway needed and climb rate/ angle and height achievable to be able to glide over hostile ground /water. Every aspect of your performance (except glide angle and speed) every time you fly..  Nev

Edited March 21, 2023 by facthunter

[old man emu]

20 hours ago, flying dog said:

I think - to be fair - the stirring the pot emoji did kind of give it away that was a bit of a "piss take".

 

C'mon you guys! You know me well enough to know what the Jab jab was. A bit of urine removal.

[Garfly]

25 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

Unless I had a structural failure I'd always take my chances with a forced landing.

Without one, the choice is easy.  With one, it can get complicated. 

[facthunter]

I think the "Jokes on the Jab" is a bit done to death. The airframe is about the  easiest to live with  AND If you do the right checks and maintenance with them  there's plenty of motors worse out there..  Nev

Edited March 21, 2023 by facthunter

[old man emu]

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

I think the "Jokes on the Jab" is a bit done to death

True. Repetition kills the wit.

 

 

Let's make jokes about Rans.

[facthunter]

My dear Mum used to say, "IF you can't say something NICE, don't say anything".. Nev

[Carbon Canary]

8 hours ago, facthunter said:

They were mandated on the Cirrus for a reason.. What planes does the German requirement cover?   Nev

In Germany, BRS was made mandatory as a compensation for the relaxed certification requirements for “microlights” which were originally limited to 472.5kg. This category has more recently been raised to 600kg MTOW.

[Carbon Canary]

On 21/03/2023 at 10:44 AM, cherk said:

because of the ballistics involved , there are protocols regarding the access to aircraft by rescue teams if the said ballistics have NOT been activated !!!

 

16 hours ago, Carbon Canary said:

In Germany, BRS was made mandatory as a compensation for the relaxed certification requirements for “microlights” which were originally limited to 472.5kg. This category has more recently been raised to 600kg MTOW.

 

Oh, and also mandatory in Italy, since 2010.

[Old Koreelah]

Years ago a country copper got a rude shock when dragging a pranged ultralight off the road. The cable to the rocket release received sufficient tug to fire, launching a plurry great orange nylon canopy. 
 

 

[kasper]

On 21/03/2023 at 8:15 AM, Carbon Canary said:

There is an ATC audio floating around on the internet of the incident. It appears it all went pear-shaped very quickly for the pilot. In a similar situation if he was above 300’ pulling the chute may well have reduced his injuries. Let’s hope the poor bloke pulls through.

 

I was asked by an aircraft manufacturer if I would routinely allow my son or daughter to drive a car without seatbelts and airbags. He viewed a chute (BRS) in the same light - it’s simply standard safety equipment……and mandatory in Germany, the home of this particular manufacturer. He couldn’t understand the reluctance of uptake for BRS in Australia.

Well...

In most European countries (including the UK) the microlight MTOW is lower than in Australia AND a BRS fittment is allowed to increase the MTOW by more than the weigh t of the system.

 

In the UK for example MTOW goes from 450kg to 472kg and a german softpack BRS installed in one airframe I know well is under 15kg ...

Fitting a BRS here gives 7kg extra passenger/fuel legal lift ... and that is nearly 5% extra for that airframe.

 

In Australia fitment give no MTOW uplift, is very expensive and in many owners minds engine never fail and if it does Australia is wide open spaces to outland.

 

I would question the validity of engines never stop and open spaces but you cannot argue that they are very expensive to fit for a possibility.

 

Especially when there are add on to purchase of airframe expenses that are needed for operations eg radios, transponders, GPS, flightbag software and tablets etc.

 

[Old Koreelah]

Besides the initial outlay and cost (and hassle) of freighting the BRS and its rocket to you, there is maintenance:

chute repacked every six years, rocket motor replaced every 12.

[Carbon Canary]

Its a personal cost/benefit decision in what the extra slice of Swiss cheese is worth.

 

I currently drive a 27 year old car that has no airbags or ABS brakes. Do I feel safe in it ? Not particularly, but I still drive it at 110kph on the motorway. If I were to buy a new car though, I would expect it to have the latest safety features.

 

For a new LSA type aircraft that I was looking at, a BRS system was about the same price as an optional three-colour paint scheme (vs 2 colour). What should I choose ?

 

I understand the 7kg in extra weight is significant in some LSA aircraft.

[coljones]

On 21/03/2023 at 12:53 PM, jackc said:

"

Good money for RAA, but they are out to make money, being a Company 😞. 

"

Ah, the good old "company" canard again.  I'm surprised you haven't resigned from the human race - being a company of a type.