BRS - affordable safety, or an expensive gimmick?

[Guest Howard Hughes]

I see a lot of factory built sport aircraft are offered either with a BRS, or as an option, I have many questions about them.

 

- Do you think they provide an acceptable additional level of safety, or are they just a gimmick?

 

- Surely there must be many situations when they are unusable, what sort of training do pilots receive?

 

- What sort of maintenance do they require?

 

- Could an inadvertent deployment be a greater risk than the additional safety provided?

 

- Once used, are they able to be repacked and armed, or are they single use only like an airbag?

 

- How do insurance companies view them?

 

- Anyone had any first hand experience with them?

 

- Anyone safely landed after deployment of a BRS?

 

- Do you think they are worth the additional $3000-6000?

 

My thoughts are that they are likely to cause more problems than they provide safety. A military pilot has considerable training when deciding to eject, where does a recreational pilot with a BRS stand?

 

Cheers,

 

HH. :thumb_up:

 

 

[Admin]

I had one in my CT and all I had to do in the event of a structural failure was to pull the handle, sit there, make a radio call and wait for the impact however I had the comfort of knowing that I would most likely simply walk away.

 

The comfort feeling to me personally was well worth it and I would always include one in a new aircraft purchase.

 

To activate mine it would take a lot of force - it couldn't just be accidentally deployed. Once deployed you wouldn't worry about whether it could be repacked or not as your aircraft most likely wouldn't really be repairable.

 

I can't remember for sure but I think it had to be repacked every 5 years - someone else may know for sure

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

To activate mine it would take a lot of force - it couldn't just be accidentally deployed.

That's interesting, I was just reading about one earlier, which stated 9 kg's of force required to deploy, that doesn't sound like much, hence the questions regarding inadvertant deployment. It was also located in a position where I imagine you might put your hand when entering the aircraft!

 

 

[Spin]

They're not a cure all by any means, but they could certainly save your skin when all else had failed. A collision followed by structural failure is probably my greatest fear when flying and that is one scenario when only a chute is likely to save you.

 

As I understand it they require repacking and replacement pyrotechnics every five years, so there is obviously a cost factor for that.

 

I saw the aftermath of one of the old fashioned spring loaded ones being deployed many years ago - Quicksilver clone lost its elevator I think, anyhow plane ended up as a pile of scrap but the pilot walked away with a cut on his head and a bruised heel. I believe most incidents result in a write off, so you wouldn't pull if there was a reasonable chance of getting into a field of some sort.

 

Anyhow, my vote would probably be worthwhile if you can afford the financial and weight penalty.:thumb_up:

 

 

[facthunter]

Use or not? Ballistic schute.

 

You have the cost.

 

then you have the weight that you are carrying all the time.

 

Then you have the hazard to others if you are involved in a mishap.

 

There would be situations where you would not use it because of low height

 

You have to maintain it and remember to arm it.

 

I would rather have a plane built a bit stronger. Spend my money that way.

 

Mid air collisions, fire, and structural failure worry me. The first two, it mightn't help you .

 

It's a requirement with some aircraft, because there is something wrong with the plane. Nev

 

 

[Tomo]

If I had one, I wouldn't argue the point!!

 

Not sure if you noticed, but the Dragonfly aircraft we use to tow hang gliders have them, next best thing I reckon. The only time you'd effectively deploy it would be if you are having/had a structural failure (aircraft can't fly), or you have an engine stoppage over serious tiger country - vertical versus horizontal impact.

 

I consider it a parachute that you are wearing, you have to have similar care around wearing one of them so as not to accidently pop it. Also you wouldn't jump out of an aircraft with a chute unless you really needed too! same with the BRS I reckon.

 

Inadvertent deployment: I'm not sure how that'd go, but I reckon if you do it (and you can't cut it off) You're now in parachute mode! so no use trying to fly - engine off etc... On the ground.... well hopefully no one is in the firing line!

 

I've heard of accidental deployment of one on a trike on take off, trike did a loop the Lou and hit the deck (can't remember the injuries but it wouldn't have been good), mounted under engine between wheels.

 

So I'd have one if It was fitted.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Its been a while since this cropped up but no doubt this thread will get as heated as the previous ones did.

 

The newer ones are deployable in a pretty wide range of situations but, once deployed you obviously have no control of your impact point - the plane will be wrecked and the occupants probably injured as its not a gentle touchdown. Hence they are only intended to be used as a last ditch solution for events such as catastrophic structural failure or pilot incapacitation .

 

However the evidence suggests that this isn't the scenario they are mostly deployed in. Maybe there is a temptation to use it because its there even in scenarios where continuing to fly the plane would be a better option. Its also arguable that they might encourage risky flying if the the pilot thinks he has a "get out of jail free card".

 

They require repacking every few (5-7 ?) years and AFAIK there is no specific training for their operation. They are unlikely to deploy inadvertently as the mechanism requires a significant pull pressure but an undeployed live one presents a hazard to rescuers at the scene of a crash.

 

Ultimately its a personal decision for the PIC but IMO there would be less accidents if the weight saved by not fitting one was used to carry more fuel (running out is still a common factor in accidents) & the money save was used for not skimping on maintenance and / or some additional flight training

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[DarkSarcasm]

I think there is the temptation to also use it in situations where it is no longer an option (i.e. low level).

 

Personally, I wouldn't have one. As others have said, too much temptation to think of it as a 'get out of jail free card' and too tempted to use it in situations where you'd be better off actually flying the aircraft. I'm honestly not too sure when they'd actually be of use, even in an engine failure situation I'd prefer to have control and fly the aircraft down to the ground rather than pull the handle and hope for the best...

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

I would lean toward not having one and would hope that my experience could get me out of...no I'll rephrase that, stop me getting into most situations. Which probably leads in to a further question:

 

How do I determine which aircraft offer a BRS, because you may need it? And which offer it because the market demands it?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

real debatable question.

 

Similar to the one that has been around the skydiving scene for a few years now over the use of AAD's on reserve parachutes. An expensive ($2000.00) life limited (12years) requiring several battery changes and services throughout it's life = more bucks safety product. And yes i have one fitted to my rig for several reasons.

 

For flying it really depends on how you fly and where you fly and what you fly.

 

If you fly aerobatics then maybe yes. If you fly low ag stuff then maybe no. If you fly competition in a high performance lightweight aircraft then maybe yes. getting on in years and carry the wife. then maybe yes.

 

Gimmick maybe but probably at the insistance of the liability lawers.

 

My experience is limited to the early Parachutes Australia "bullet' and hang glider hand deploy systems from long time back. plus a couple of rides on round reserve canopies.

 

I like to be in control even if that control is limited. Sitting in a broken aircraft coming down over suss countyside and not being able to steer it away from those nasty big power lines would freak me out a bit. If you had bailed out you could steer away from hazards. The cirrus type systems take a lot of altitude to deploy so anything under the minimum and you may as well have spent the dollars on more lessons.

 

But saying that if you fly with your wife and kids. it could just be good insurance.

 

I have a modified fast deploying back pack type, with it i can either leave or as the lazair is open cockpit i could 'point and shoot' and either stay or get extracted probably 400ft for leaving and 200ft for extraction. At the end of it all you can think of what you would do for any scenario you can come up with but it is all just a draw of the cards deal. You pay your money and you take your chances.

 

ozzie

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

How do I determine which aircraft offer a BRS, because you may need it? And which offer it because the market demands it?

An option rather than fitted as standard perhaps ?

 

 

[Admin]

I remember when I bought the CT there were two BRS options - one that was just ok in terms of weight and speed and the other one was heavier but it went past VNE and just past 600kg so I went for the heavier one which weighed in at 21kg.

 

The reason why I went for that one is I registered the CT at 544kg not 600kg LSA even though the aircraft was certified at 600kg. This meant that my legal weight was 544kg + 21kg = 565kg as the weight of a BRS is not included in the registered MTOW as long as the registered MTOW + BRS doesn't exceed the certified weight - does that make sense.

 

So in this case the weight of the BRS had no impact on my MTOW

 

This is the handle (with safety pin in) between the two seats:

 

[ATTACH]10589.vB[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

[farri]

I see a lot of factory built sport aircraft are offered either with a BRS, or as an option, I have many questions about them. - Do you think they provide an acceptable additional level of safety, or are they just a gimmick?

 

-

 

- Do you think they are worth the additional $3000-6000?

 

My thoughts are that they are likely to cause more problems than they provide safety. A military pilot has considerable training when deciding to eject, where does a recreational pilot with a BRS stand?

 

Cheers,

 

HH. :thumb_up:

Hi Howard,

 

Just my thoughts also.

 

I considered a BRS for my WT2 Chinook 25 years ago when I first started flying UL/Rec. aircraft and decided that it wasn`t worth it,or necessary, and that it could be dangerous if it deployed accidently and I wouldn`t have one.

 

I know that not everyone agrees with me,however, I firmly believe that for safety reasons, a single engine AC should be flown within gliding distance of a safe landing area,this principal has saved me on more than several occasions due to engine failure,so why do I need a BRS.

 

The only time that a BRS would be needed is in the event of major structual failure and for it to be of assistance it would have to be deployed at the correct moment and position or it could tangle in the AC or not open fully,or at all.

 

How many RAA pilots, or otherwise, Could or would, react quickly enough to deploy it successfully,in the event of the AC flipping over and spiraling, suddenly, due to airframe failure?.

 

As I said,Just my thoughts.

 

Cheers,

 

Frank.

 

 

[kevinfrost]

If I thought an aircraft needed a BRS for my safety because of structual failure in flight I would not fly it. In flight collision would probably prevent the BSR from deploying properly with little benifit to crew. Engine out? I'll go in with controlled stall just above the trees or tiger country, the end result would probably be the same.

 

Better still buy Australian and there's less chance the air frame will need a back up.

 

 

[DarkSarcasm]

Here's one example of (1) a BRS system being used at a stupid time (90-120ft AGL apparantly) and (2) it not working properly...

 

[/url]

 

Aviation Safety Investigation Report - Final - AO-2007-018

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Brett]

I just looked into it recently , besides the absolute nightmare of trying to get it into the country, the cost of around $10 000 all up inc freight or just a fraction under for the 1350 softpack I don't think it is worth it for me. Where I fly I have farm land basically as far as the eye can see and I seriously doubt the plane I'm making will break up in flight. I must thank C+H freight as they went the extra mile finding out about importing one of these for me and were pretty good about it all. BRS don't give a stuff about a single sale in Oz so will do nothing to help you solve the freight issue.

 

 

[eastmeg2]

I've had a GRS450 on my trike for about 5 years now.

 

There was some wise advice in the manual, "treat like a loaded gun". Then a good analogy could be, would you go hiking in Alaska without a firearm?

 

I'm personally not satisfied with RAAus fatal crash reports, both in 3-axis and trikes (This sentence is self-moderated and very truncated, have seen a friend take off on a flight he didn't complete - even though a BRS was fitted).

 

The areas I regularly fly over don't always have really big open paddocks within glide.

 

So the GRS has been considered a good insurance policy, though one that needs to be treated with respect. When it expires I'll finally be able to answer the question most asked, "have you tested it yet?"

 

Cheers,

 

Glen

 

 

[farri]

If I thought an aircraft needed a BRS for my safety because of structual failure in flight I would not fly it.

Hi Kevinfrost,

 

Exactly my point,an AC shouldn`t have structual failure in flight, if maintained correctly.

 

Cheers,

 

Frank.

 

 

[Mazda]

It comes down to risk management. What is the risk being addressed? Are most accidents caused by structural failure, or things like controlled flight into terrain or loss of control at low level? Would you be better off investing the money on this, or in additional training (such as EMT or some instrument time), aircraft maintenance or upgrading equipment?

 

I suppose it could be a good thing if everyone had loads of spare money - why not add another safety device if you can afford it? However it might not do much to save you and it is probably better off spending money on other things first. The extra weight means less fuel, which could actually reduce safety.

 

In many cases it probably isn't viable. Thinking about aeros I can't see even where it would go in something like a Pitts, and I don't know too many aeros pilots who would spend all that money in order to gain weight & lose performance.

 

 

[sseeker]

And this is why I don't want one...

 

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJxbJkMBX_Y"[/YOUTUBE]

 

 

[winsor68]

And just to be fair.. the for video.

 

 

 

[Foto_Flyer]

I was going to say pretty much the same as BlackRod. We live with airbags in our cars and while most of the time we give them little thought, it is nice to know we have that extra bit of safety. But the licence testing process hasn't changed nor has the laws on wearing seatbelts. It's an "added" safety measure! The same applies with recovery chutes. They do not replace good flying instruction, the practice of emergency proceedures or piloting skill. They are really a very, very, very last resort measure, when all else fails!!!

 

I wouldn't, not buy an aircraft if it had one fitted. But I wouldn't go out of my way to find one with a parachute either. Basically, I don't think they are a gimmick but I do feel that they are an additional safety net that comes at a price.

 

At the end of the day the "P" in PIC doesn't stand for parachute!

 

 

[Tomo]

Comparing them to an airbag in a vehicle is good, not many people realize they drive a car around with an explosive device in front/side/above them. Airbags are painful when they go off - I've never had one go off on me, but I've seen it, and it isn't very pleasant, but what they do is a lot better than what could have happened.

 

When a vehicle has had an accident, and the bags didn't go off - you can't let anyone in the car, until they have been 'dis-armed' or checked out, that's how volatile they are.

 

It's just one of those things that is coming on I reckon, 20 yrs time most aircraft will probably have it, and just like airbags they will be perfected and fool proof, and efficient.

 

All else fails just wear a parachute And jump out!

 

 

[Tracktop]

And this is why I don't want one...[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJxbJkMBX_Y"[/YOUTUBE]

This video is always pulled up as a reason that you don't want one.

 

AND IS TOTALLY INVALID

 

It is a very very early generation chute - it DID NOT have the safety features incorporated into todays BRS type devices.

 

By the deployment I don't even think it is ballistic as the chute is dragged out by the small ( whatever it called ) chute

 

Yes there is always a possibility of malfunction with any mechanical device. but like the airbag argument better to have when you really need it than wishing you had one, because if things are that pear shaped you chance of survival is pretty slim

 

I have even read suggestions that there was some pilot error involved.

 

 

[jetjr]

Off topic - BUT

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT3DeVEXXYo&NR=1"

 

He must have had some sort of electrical issue - lucky he was wearing a chute??