Big birds and the BRS debate.

[Garfly]

I've been looking into a couple of fairly recent bird-strike accidents involving light aircraft in France.

 

In 2022, in the south, a Zenair CH650 ran into a flock of geese and the single pilot's life was only spared thanks to his Junkers-Profly ballistic parachute. And, about a year earlier, north of Paris, there was an awful tragedy when a Robin DR400 with an instructor and three students - all sharing the one Navex flight - were killed after hitting a Cormorant. (BEA report below).

 

Actually, I've been noticing, myself, more than the usual number of slow, low, large birds in the sky lately and I'm beginning to think that the chance of hitting some of them might just add a point to the pro-side of hauling a BRS around the sky - if and where feasible.  The BEA report on the Robin accident suggests that rag covered and/or wooden winged craft are especially susceptible to bird collisions.  In that case, it looks like the relative wind was able to penetrate the tear made by the bird and distort the wing shape so much that the aircraft was impossible to control.  That had me wondering if it was even possible to have a BRS installed on a wooden DR400 and apparently the answer is non. That's according to Mistral Aviation in the UK who outline the arguments against in an FAQ on their website (below).  Even if it were possible, I suppose it'd reduce it to, effectively, a three seater.

 

The video below of the lucky survivor of the Zenair is in French but a rough translation is available via CC and Auto-translate on YouTube.  It's tough work to interpret the Googlish - and it doesn't help that the subtitles drop out for a crucial minute from 01:16.  Even the printed pilot testimony available on the Junkers-Profly site (below) takes some interpretation, due auto-translate, but in the end we get the picture. (Although I'm still not quite clear whether it was damage done to the tailplane by the birds or a LOC situation brought on by the pilot's heroic avoidance manoeuvres that was the worst of it.  Either way ... )   

 

 

 

3 May 2022 

Report and photos of a successful save of a ZEN AIR ZODIAC CH650EI in France

https://www.junkers-profly.de/web/ulm-rettung-zen-air-zodiac-ch650ei-frankreich-05-03-2022/

[Google should automatically offer an English translation of the page.]

 

 

 

YouTube Description:

"Following a mid-air collision with geese, Laurent had no choice but to pull the parachute!
His empennage being damaged, he lost control of his aircraft, his parachute saved his life.
Here is his testimony, his feedback is an educational nugget, it should be included in the training manuals... Thank you Laurent for this fascinating sharing!"

 

 

 

 

18 April 2021 

www.bea.aero 

INVESTIGATION REPORT

Accident to ROBIN - DR400 - 140B  registered F-GNNE 

Bird strike, loss of control and collision with the ground, in instruction

 

 

Operator	Aéroclub Paris.Aero
Type of flight	Instruction
Persons on board	Instructor and three student pilots
Consequences and damage	Instructor and student pilots fatally injured, aeroplane destroyed

 

 

BEA2021-0165.en.pdf

 

 

 

 

https://www.mistralaviation.co.uk/FAQs-for-Robin-aircraft/

 

EXCERPT:

 

Can Robin aircraft be fitted with an airframe parachute?

Of the several systems available, Robin Aircraft have considered the BRS (ballistic recovery system), similar to that fitted by Cirrus, to offer as an option.

The characteristics of the system are:

• Rocket extraction;
• Controlled deployment by means of a ring that descends on the lines;
• 17 m diameter canopy;
• Descent at 25 feet per second.

In common with every other manufacturer of certified aircraft (except Cirrus) Robin Aircraft do not intend to offer a parachute as standard because the Robin DR401 does not need a parachute to meet its certification requirements and there are many disadvantages to having such a system installed:

BRS shortcomings are:

• The BRS unit and mountings weigh around 30 kg. It has to be placed in the tail section (thus moving the C of G aft) and requires parts of the airframe to be strengthened to withstand the forces associated with deployment, adding another 7 Kg. Combine weight and balance considerations and at least one passenger seat has been sacrificed for the same endurance.
• There is no control once the system is activated because the engine stops before deployment; and the descent speed is 25 feet per second…
• The system is airspeed limited:
  • the aircraft must not exceed a set speed before deployment;
  • if the aircraft is in free fall for a short time the parachute may not be able to withstand the load when it opens;
  • if the structure breaks then there is virtually no chance of survival;
• If the system is deployed below 900 feet AGL it is unlikely that the aircraft will decelerate sufficiently for the subsequent impact to be survivable;
• The airframe will be written off;
• Costs increase:
  • Increased purchase cost;
  • Increased maintenance costs;
  • Increased insurance premiums.

The leading causes of fatalities involving certified aircraft in GA are loss of control in flight (LoC-I; such as engine failure on take-off and low-level stalls), where, as with collisions in the circuit, height may be too low for the parachute to help, and controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) where a parachute is useless. The main circumstance where a parachute has been deployed successfully in certified aircraft in UK airspace has been loss of control in IMC (conditions that, allegedly, the pilot was not qualified or competent to fly in) after the autopilot became disconnected. Loss of control in IMC is relatively rare; lying in 8th place in the list of causes of fatalities in general aviation.

It is notable that the Cirrus had one of the worst accident records in GA soon after it was launched and that only improved to around average following the introduction by Cirrus of a training program for purchasers of new and used aircraft. The fact that the safety record of the Cirrus is only around average despite its parachute may be one reason why no other manufacturer of certified civilian aircraft offers a parachute installation.

Flying a heavy aircraft with relatively small wheels and a high stall speed into a field is quite likely to result in inversion and a poor outcome. In contrast, the DR401 with its relatively light weight, appropriate wheel size, low stall speed and excellent low speed handling is well suited to safely execute a forced landing.

As with many features in aircraft there is a balance to be struck in considering this one. The CDI engine is the most reliable piston engine in GA so even people who fly extensively at night, for example, may not consider the downsides of a BRS in a Robin worth accepting.

 

Edited May 11, 2023 by Garfly

[Old Koreelah]

The vertical speed quoted is quite a bit faster than if you fly it into a paddock and might result in severe injuries if your seat is not designed for it.
I fitted a BRS; It cost $6k and weighs about 10kg, pushing up my normal stall speed. This has reduced safety.

On the other hand, it me feel better and it might save me if I can not control the aircraft.

[Garfly]

Yeah, if you still have control you still face that choice.

But if a bin-chicken kamikaze rips your wing open, things get a lot simpler.

 

As to those quoted speeds, I'm thinking they'd be km/hr, no?

 

As far as I know there have not been a lot of serious injuries from landing under canopy though there must have been some.

The bigger problem with Cirrus used to be the reluctance of pilots to pull the handle in the hope of saving the aircraft - and/or face (as Laurent alludes to in the vid).

Interestingly, the guy also reckons he was in more danger from the second arrival - when the re-inflated 'chute dislodged him from his first tree-top perch.

He urged the manufacturers to invent a quick release mechanism for such cases. 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2023 by Garfly

[Old Koreelah]

An aircraft descends pretty fast under a canopy; engineers stipulate a nose-down attitude so the undercarriage absorbs much of the impact. I’ve heard of serious injuries when a low-wing hit water.

[facthunter]

If you smash the Hull in on a seaplane the occupants are certainly going to feel it. The flight attendants down the Back of Sully's Hudson river landing were injured. With the chute 1500 FPM is capable of writing the plane off. Be nice to have a shock absorbing barrier under your seat. That might need a bit more space than most U/L's have. Nev

[Garfly]

Yes, it seems it's a bit of a lottery when it comes to arrival survival.  

This guy lands spinner first on a hard road but appears none too worse for wear.

(It might have been better for his spine this way, given that seatbelts are designed for straight ahead impacts.)

 

 

 

 

 

Actually the nose down arrival is by design in that DynAéro as explained in this promo vid:

 

 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2023 by Garfly

[Kyle Communications]

I have a Galaxy chute for Mabel. A chute for a 600kg aircraft weighs around 13kg all up. I imported mine directly from the factory but that was a bit of a mission. I now know a lot more than I did then and would go a slightly different route but still direct import. The boss wants one in the RANS S-21 as well. Specs from memory is the min deployment for the chute is 150ft and the decent rate was 6.5mtrs per sec at 600kg

The one for the RANS though needs to be 760kg and is substantially more expensive...twice as expensive as the 600kg one

 

[jackc]

After discussion with RAAUS, doing a retrofit BRS to my Aeropup was going to be a cost and engineering nightmare, they make it difficult to get approval.  Now I have a Jabiru as well, have not even gone there…..

So, I have a wearable Parachute which I would only use as a lone pilot.  IF plane has an engine fire or structural failure, I would simply take my chances and exit stage left, that is fraught  with danger in itself but worth the risk.

I have even given thought to engineering a firewall forward fire suppression system?

 

[Kyle Communications]

The savannah does have parachute fitment instructions and of course is a std fit in most of Europe.

RANS has been working on one I believe but it wont matter as mine is a amateur build so can literally install what you like. Factory builts etc especially older ones are a different matter....according to our antiquated and stifled rule system for aircraft

[jackc]

RAAus told me I had to pay them for engineering  approval  to do the Aeropup. It all just got too hard for my 19 reg aircraft as I did not build it, hence my approval problem.  

[johnm]

in post No 1 (point 2)  it says ............  'the engine stops before deployment' ......... - is that part of the standard installation / system requirement ? - the 'chute pull handle' stops the engine ? 

 

BRS shortcomings are:

• The BRS unit and mountings weigh around 30 kg. It has to be placed in the tail section (thus moving the C of G aft) and requires parts of the airframe to be strengthened to withstand the forces associated with deployment, adding another 7 Kg. Combine weight and balance considerations and at least one passenger seat has been sacrificed for the same endurance.
• There is no control once the system is activated because the engine stops before deployment; and the descent speed is 25 feet per second…
• The system is airspeed limited:
  • the aircraft must not exceed a set speed before deployment;

[Garfly]

58 minutes ago, johnm said:

in post No 1 (point 2)  it says ............  'the engine stops before deployment' ......... - is that part of the standard installation / system requirement ? - the 'chute pull handle' stops the engine ? 

No, I don't think that was meant to suggest any kind of linkage between the chute handle and engine controls; only that it's generally a part of the BRS procedure to stop the engine (if it's still going) before deploying - to prevent the prop chopping the risers.

 

Keep in mind that that list of counter arguments is aimed at prospective Robin DR400 buyers - to persuade them that it's no biggie that you can't have one.  Also, that's a 4 seat aircraft, thus the 30Kg figure. Plus those CoG implications only refer to installation in that aircraft.

 

Interestingly, on that point about having no control under canopy since the engine is stopped, I've read that if the motor still works (e.g,  after structural failure) it's feasible to try a re-start on the way down and drag the canopy in the direction of a more convenient landing site.  Seems a long shot, especially if you were suspended seriously nose first ... and, anyway, how to point the prop in the right direction?  Still, it might be worth a try if, say, you were drifting helplessly down just seawards of the coast.  Hmmm ... any volunteers willing to give it a go and report?  ;- )

 

 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2023 by Garfly

[skippydiesel]

The Down Side Of Safety Devisces/Systems:

 

The history of "safety" systems/equipment, fitted to cars,  demonstrates that there is a strong tendency, by the drivers (for the mots part humans), to take risks/exceed their skill level, that they would not have chanced, in a non safety enhanced vehicle. 

[Old Koreelah]

17 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

The Down Side Of Safety Devisces/Systems:

 

The history of "safety" systems/equipment, fitted to cars,  demonstrates that there is a strong tendency, by the drivers (for the mots part humans), to take risks/exceed their skill level, that they would not have chanced, in a non safety enhanced vehicle. 

Volvo drivers.

[Carbon Canary]

Back to the original risk of bird strike........I did some of my early training at Warnervale, over the Tuggerah Lakes.  This area has an abundance of pelicans, and the CFI at the time, routinely warned all students about the risk of hitting a pelican, and not trying to out-dive a pelican in the air.  I certainly would not like to hit one - they are big birds !!  I have hit a wedge-tailed eagle with the strut on a C172 though.

 

I am aware of an LSA (ELA) in Germany where a student had an engine failure in the circuit and elected to pull the chute (!!).  The aircraft was repaired and back flying within 6 weeks.  Of course this is most likely an exception, with the usual outcome that the aircraft is a write-off, but at least the pilot walks away and lives to fly another day.

 

I have two cars, one with air bags, ABS, etc, etc, and the other over 25 years old with no airbags, no ABS - I don't believe my driving style is any more riskier in the 'safer' car because of its safety features.

[Garfly]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

The Down Side Of Safety Devisces/Systems:

 

The history of "safety" systems/equipment, fitted to cars,  demonstrates that there is a strong tendency, by the drivers (for the mots part humans), to take risks/exceed their skill level, that they would not have chanced, in a non safety enhanced vehicle. 

Yeah, that's an argument that probably has some merit but I reckon "strong tendency" is too strong.  Still, we do tend to clutch at any and every straw to confirm our biases. 

On the other hand, there are also perfectly rational reasons for taking available safety gear into account when making a general risk assessment for any operation.

That being said, I doubt that having dual magnetos (and 4-point harnesses, to boot!) makes anyone feel indestructible in the air (who didn't already feel so).

Probably not even a parachute.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2023 by Garfly

[spacesailor]

Most 4X4 driver's are advised to,  ' pull the ABS fuse ' Before offroading .

As one who couldn't find said fuse " it's bloody awful being thrown side to side each time that ABS detects one wheel revolving more than the other Three. " . ( in sand ruts ).

spacesailor

 

[spenaroo]

8 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Most 4X4 driver's are advised to,  ' pull the ABS fuse ' Before off-roading .

As one who couldn't find said fuse " it's bloody awful being thrown side to side each time that ABS detects one wheel revolving more than the other Three. " . ( in sand ruts ).

spacesailor

 

What car is that?
love the off-road ABS button in my Amarok, all the power slides.
especially going down hills where it brakes one wheel at a time

[Garfly]

 

When it comes to big bird strikes in the Aussie skies, this story is right up there.

 

 

Mike Greenwood survives a bird strike & lands safely

MERITAVIATION.COM.AU

---

Mike relives his amazing bird strike story for us and shares how he managed and survived, and how his dog Bobby kept him calm.

 

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2016/aair/ao-2016-001

 

 

And in this episode of the RV7 trip video series "Australian Adventure" they tell of hearing Mike's Mayday call on Melbourne Centre

while airborne near the SA/VIC border (around 450NM from the action between Mudgee and Bathurst).

 

 

 

 

[skippydiesel]

On 12/05/2023 at 9:41 AM, Carbon Canary said:

B

I have two cars, one with air bags, ABS, etc, etc, and the other over 25 years old with no airbags, no ABS - I don't believe my driving style is any more riskier in the 'safer' car because of its safety features.

The  effect, on driver negative behaviour,  of improved safety systems in cars and road design, has been well documented over many years. I am not advocating against the use of such technology, only pointing out there is a down side to its implantation. 

 

Another interesting (?) human quality/failing: Most drivers asses their skill level to be above average.

 

This is clearly a form of mass self delusion - no testing required - just check out the driving standards displayed, by you're fellow motorist's,  every day - if somehow you didn't know/can see it - it's appalling!

[Garfly]

35 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Most drivers asses their skill level to be above average. //

...  just check out the driving standards displayed, by you're fellow motorist's ... it's appalling!

Anyone who agrees with you, Skip, is clearly in that 'most drivers' category.   ;- )

 

 

Lake Wobegon effect

WWW.OXFORDREFERENCE.COM

---

A tendency for most people to believe that they are above average in intelligence, sense of humour, diving ability, and similar traits. Although the effect arises from a self-serving bias, the widespread belief that it...

 

"Lake Wobegon effect

[Alluding to Lake Wobegon, ‘a place where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average’ in a radio show entitled A Prairie Home Companion, created and hosted by the US writer Garrison Keillor (born 1942) and described in his novel Lake Wobegon Days (1985)]

QUICK REFERENCE

A tendency for most people to believe that they are above average in intelligence, sense of humour, diving ability, and similar traits. Although the effect arises from a self-serving bias, the widespread belief that it is mathematically impossible for a majority to be above average is itself a fallacy. If four people score 8/10 on a test and one scores 3/10, then the average or mean score in that five-person group is 7/10, and a majority are above average. The term was introduced by the US physician John Jacob Cannell (born 1948) in privately published reports in 1987 and 1988, commenting on the fact that all 50 US states reported elementary school results above the national average. "

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2023 by Garfly

[facthunter]

Every time I drive anyplace I ask myself would I pass a driving test today?  Thinking like that makes you pay more attention and drive better. Same when you fly. Did I do something silly today? If the answer is YES get onto it. We will put in the least effort we think we can get away with, left to our own devices without correction and self discipline.   Nev

[skippydiesel]

6 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Every time I drive anyplace I ask myself would I pass a driving test today?  Thinking like that makes you pay more attention and drive better. Same when you fly. Did I do something silly today? If the answer is YES get onto it. We will put in the least effort we think we can get away with, left to our own devices without correction and self discipline.   Nev

I agree with, what I perceive, to be your sentiment Nev. 

 

I am not sure that I would utter the Australian driving test(s) in the same  breath/ sentience as an an aircraft flying test.

 

No offence Nev but "passing a driving test today" would seem to be of little merit or measure of skill/behaviour (no reflection on your personal skill/knowledge level)

 

If the skill/knowledge/curtesy displayed by those recently passing the driving test (P platers in NSW ) is a measure of driving test standard - it fails!

 

Flight training, qualification and periodic review (BFR) is in an all together diffrent league

[Blueadventures]

39 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Every time I drive anyplace I ask myself would I pass a driving test today?  Thinking like that makes you pay more attention and drive better. Same when you fly. Did I do something silly today? If the answer is YES get onto it. We will put in the least effort we think we can get away with, left to our own devices without correction and self discipline.   Nev

Good to hone up skills; my local 0.7 hour flight on Tuesday included side slips and a tight short strip landing approach and saw many birds low and flying in the 'v' formation.  

Edited May 19, 2023 by Blueadventures

[RFguy]

The Cirrus has some fancy crash absorption honeycomb in the seats.
One uneventful afternoon in Tony's Cirrus I got into the POH and discovered "Though shall not kneel on the seats" since the high (knee) pressure can damage the absorption matrix.

I like your driving test mantra, Nev.

Jack, I think an engine fire in a fibreglass aircraft like the Jabiru would be bad. The glass temperature is very low. So I guess its  a matter of how much damage can ~ 40mL of fuel do in the pipes  and 4 litres of oil  in the system  and decide from there. I'm not really familiar with the way engine oil fires burn.