BRS to the rescue

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi folks,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR2Orex1yM8

Jerry Baumchen

[oldwomanc6 38]

I think the idea of a parachute last resort for a plane is great (and I'm not a pilot), but I wonder how often it is prematurely, used, much like a crutch?

That said, holy crap, that landing looked spine-crunching!

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[purevl 1]

oldwomanc6

I think the idea of a parachute last resort for a plane is great (and I'm not a pilot), but I wonder how often it is prematurely, used, much like a crutch?

That said, holy crap, that landing looked spine-crunching!

According to Wikipedia, the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System has had 74 intended activations with 60 successful deployments & 14 deployments caused by the ground impact or post-impact fires. How many, if any, were premature is not listed.

But, it's Wikipedia, so you pays your money, you takes your chances.

[theonlyski 3]

oldwomanc6

I think the idea of a parachute last resort for a plane is great (and I'm not a pilot), but I wonder how often it is prematurely, used, much like a crutch?

That said, holy crap, that landing looked spine-crunching!

Well, I have mixed feelings about the BRS. In some cases like ditching into water or a full amazon type forest with no landing possibilities, sure... However you lose all control of the aircraft once you pull that shiny handle. I'd rather aim for something softer than a building and take my chances not hurting a bunch of other people who had nothing to do with my flight. I know the pilot has the say in what they do at that point, however I think that many times they just pop the BRS and hope for the best.

I do believe that the Cirrus is the new doctor killer, not because they're bad airplanes, but because people bite off more than they can chew in them (just like they did with the V-Tail Bonanzas) and have the "I'll just pull the 'chute if it doesn't work" bug in their mind.

Take this one for example. Pilot was ferrying a plane across the Pacific, ran out of fuel (flight planning, winds) and popped it. Sure, I see the benefit there, and the guy swam away in one piece... but would he have attempted the same flight with a non BRS equipped aircraft? (EDIT: apparently he had an issue transferring fuel from the ferry tank, so this one is probably a legit save)

Hell, just look at the statistics here: https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safety_programs/w/safety_pages/723.cirrus-caps-history.aspx#CAPS_Event_Summaries

Quote

CAPS event #1, Oct 2002, Lewisville, TX (CAPS Save #1)

1 uninjured;Factors: VFR departure after maintenance, aileron unhinged due maintenance error and airplane became difficult to control, after maneuvering, first parachute deployment by pilot in a certified production airplane; Activation: low altitude, 1,500 feet; Weather: VMC; Landing: bushes near golf course

Poor pre-flight?

Quote

CAPS event #2, April 2004, Lethbridge, AB, Canada (CAPS Save #2)

4 uninjured; Factors: VFR night cruise, loss of control, autopilot-induced stall, night VFR over mountains, SR20 performance Activation: high altitude, deployment upon loss of control; Weather: VMC night; Landing: landed in scree in mountaneous terrain, skidded backwards 1/4-mile, helicopter extraction via parachute risers

I'll bet this was pilot error.

Quote

CAPS event #3, April 2004, Fort Lauderdale, FL (CAPS Save #3)

1 uninjured; Factors: confusing instrument behavior, low IMC, departure climb, water in static system; Activation: low altitude, 1200 feet; Weather: IMC; Landing: trees

Confusing instrument behavior? At 1,200' in low IFR, you should be following the ILS/VNAV down.

Quote

CAPS event #4, Sept 2004, Peters, CA (CAPS Save #4)

2 uninjured; Factors: VFR climb, autopilot-induced stall, rolled inverted, attempted recovery; Activation: high altitude, above 10,000 feet, activated CAPS in VMC before entering IMC; Weather: VMC, then IMC under canopy, then VMC; Landing: walnut grove

Pilot error?

Quote

CAPS event #5, Feb 2005, Norden, CA (not CAPS Save, parachute separated from airframe)

1 fatality; Factors: severe icing at 16,000' over Sierra mountains, high speed descent well above Vne of 204 knots; Activation: uncertain if intentional activation or due to airframe stress in high speed descent, located along track to crash site; Weather: IMC, icing; Landing: high speed impact in mountainous area

Severe icing is no joke.

Quote

CAPS event #6, June 2005, Haverstraw, NY (CAPS Save #5)

1 serious injury; Factors: pilot incapacitated from brain seizure, loss of conciousness, awoke and recovered from Vne dive, determined numbness and loss of function in legs; IFR on approach to KHPN, Activation: low altitude, last radar report at 1,600 feet and 190 knots groundspeed (well above Vpd of 133 knots); Weather: VMC; Landing: water, bay of Hudson River

Hell yeah, good on the pilot for activating the BRS!

Quote

CAPS event #7, Jan 2006, Childersburg, AL (CAPS Save #6)

3 uninjured; Factors: severe icing at 9,000 feet, loss of control; Activation: high altitude; Weather: IMC icing; Landing: trees

Pre-flight planning?

Quote

CAPS event #8, Feb 2006, Wagner, SD (CAPS Save #7)

2 uninjured; Factors: pilot disorientation in clouds, shortly after takeoff; Activation: low altitude; Weather: IMC; Landing: flat, frozen field

Pilot error, instrument rating?

Quote

CAPS event #9, Aug 2006, Indianapolis, IN (CAPS Save #8, parachute observed not fully deployed)

1 fatality, 3 serious injuries; Factors: IMC, loss of control, stall/spin descent; Activation: low altitude; 528 feet AGL in 100 knot spin (3-1/2 turns) just 4 seconds prior to impact, well below design parameters for survivable CAPS deployment, first activation of CAPS by non-pilot; Weather: IMC; Landing: water, pond among residential housing

Pilot error

Quote

CAPS event #10, Sept 2006, Bull Bay, Jamaica (CAPS Save #9)

4 uninjured; Factors: loss of control, VFR cruise, passenger activated when fuel streaming from tank filler openings; Activation: low altitude; Weather: VMC; Landing: trees

Mechanical issue? I'd have to look closer on the report to find the cause. Depending on where they're at, an open fuel tank shouldn't be a BRS type of landing.

All of these are my opinion and I know I'll get my ass handed to me on this forum for it.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[normiss 620]

It's a Chinese aircraft, replacement parts should be dirt cheap.

[theonlyski 3]

normiss

It's a Chinese aircraft, replacement parts should be dirt cheap.

I think in most cases, the airplane is totaled. Cost prohibitive to fix it and return it to service.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

theonlyski

...All of these are my opinion and I know I'll get my ass handed to me on this forum for it.

Not by me.

With the exception of the "incapacitated pilot" (stroke?) and maybe the detached aileron (proper preflight may or may not have caught it), all of those were "shouldn't have been there in the first place" situations.

The real question is how many are the "I probably shouldn't do this, but I have the BRS, so I'll give it a shot"? And how many are just plain "got in over their head" that would have been a fatality (or multiple) if they hadn't had the BRS?

#9 soulds like a "standard IMC death spiral". Same thing that killed JFK Jr.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Poor pre-flight?

Can't catch everything.

Quote

autopilot-induced stall

Quote

I'll bet this was pilot error.

Or could have been the auto pilot.

Quote

confusing instrument behavior

Caused by

Quote

water in static system

Quote

Confusing instrument behavior?

Right, the instruments were displaying contradictory and/or confusing information because of water in the static air system.

Quote

At 1,200' in low IFR, you should be following the ILS/VNAV down.

Unless you are in a

Quote

departure climb

Quote

autopilot-induced stall

Quote

Pilot error?

Or a malfunctioning auto pilot.

Derek V

[oldwomanc6 38]

Hooknswoop

***

Or a malfunctioning auto pilot.

Derek V

Sorry, couldn't resist

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[theonlyski 3]

Hooknswoop

Or a malfunctioning auto pilot.

I'm sorry, which part covers a PIC relinquishing command of the aircraft to the autopilot? Here I was thinking that the PIC "is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft." I know of no part that specifies that when the PIC flips Otto on, they have no more say in the matter.

Hooknswoop

Unless you are in a departure climb

Fair enough, I misread that one. If only there were instruments that weren't linked to the pitot/static system... Maybe some kind of lever that lets one use an 'alternate static source' as well for the instruments that are.

http://www.ntsb.gov/about/employment/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20040426X00510&ntsbno=MIA04LA070&akey=1

Quote

As previously reported, the pilot stated he did not use the alternate static air source. A review of the Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH) pertaining to pitot static malfunction revealed that if erroneous instrument readings of the static source instruments (airspeed, altimeter, and vertical speed) are known or suspected, the alternate static source valve should be opened to supply static pressure from the cabin to these instruments.

Also, interestingly enough, the plane wasn't even legal for IFR flight:

Quote

The airplane was last inspected in accordance with an annual inspection on August 1, 2003, and no static system check was performed at that time. The last static system check was performed on August 10, 2001. Federal Aviation Regulation 91.411 states that no person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled airspace under the IFR unless each static pressure system, each altimeter instrument, and each automatic pressure altitude reporting system has been tested and inspected within the preceding 24 months.

So, that plane had no business even flying into IMC anyways.

I'm not sitting here being a keyboard warrior saying I am a better pilot, I'll be the first to admit that I fuck up at times. Launching into low IMC in a plane that's not legal for IFR would be something that I wouldn't do. Launching into IFR with actual IMC without knowing how and where to activate the alternate static source would be another thing I wouldn't do.

I'm simply saying that people appear to be taking more risks because of that little red handle.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[oldwomanc6 38]

theonlyski

I'm simply saying that people appear to be taking more risks because of that little red handle.

Yes, this is what I was trying, but not very articulately to say.

That it would be viewed and used as a crutch, and used more often than absolutely necessary, instead of proper procedures, especially for those who have substandard training, or personalities which "pull silver" at the first hint of problems.

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[Bessie 0]

oldwomanc6

***

I'm simply saying that people appear to be taking more risks because of that little red handle.

Yes, this is what I was trying, but not very articulately to say.

That it would be viewed and used as a crutch, and used more often than absolutely necessary, instead of proper procedures, especially for those who have substandard training, or personalities which "pull silver" at the first hint of problems.

Not much different than the argument about how AAD's might make jumper's less diligent about monitoring their altitude. Or depending upon audible altitude alerts instead of using a visual altimeter. Why bother will all that altimeter-looking which makes your video jerky? We've got gizmos that will let us know when it's time to pull, and even pull for us!

[pchapman 261]

A safety device will save both the stupid and the smart.

Generally I wouldn't give up on saving decent people who got unlucky, just to have Darwin cut down the dumbasses. It's a tradeoff.

I scoffed at the Cirrus airplane parachute too, and at some of its users, but the company has made it work for that size and class of airplane. It all reminds me of the story of how supposedly they didn't want to issue parachutes to military aviators in WWI because it would just encourage them to chicken out and bail out. Can't have a safety device because some might misuse it! (It was more complex than that of course.)

[riggerrob 558]

....... It all reminds me of the story of how supposedly they didn't want to issue parachutes to military aviators in WWI because it would just encourage them to chicken out and bail out. Can't have a safety device because some might misuse it! (It was more complex than that of course.)

................................

An ex post facto justification spouted by a pompous British General!
Hah!
Truth be told, no Air Force developed reliable PEPs for airplane pilots until several years after the war.
Only balloonists routinely wore PEPs during WW1, and they survived maybe half the time. Statistics are not readily available because aircrew casualties were less than one percent of ground casualties. Several battles saw 100,000 ground casualties per day!