A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

BRS chutes. Why doesn't everyone use them?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #14  
Old January 20th 11, 07:54 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bob Kuykendall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,345
Default BRS chutes. Why doesn't everyone use them?

On Jan 19, 8:35*pm, Sparkorama
wrote:

...I think they should be mandatory in every new glider built...
Thoughts?


I think that the idea is well-intentioned but ill-conceived. Others
have already pointed out that BRS totals the aircraft in most
deployments, usually results in injuries to the occupants, and is
otherwise very far from being a panacea.

If there were an affordable and reliable system that was guaranteed to
work in all sailplanes across a wide variety of conditions, I'd
probably not object so strenuously. However, that is not the case. The
systems that are available are bulky and expensive, and can be
difficult or impossible to fit into something small aircraft where
interior volume is so scarce.

Sailplanes present special challenges for ballistic recovery systems.
Their requirement for low drag can make it difficult to install the
suspension bridles without performance-robbing bulges and blisters,
and their wide range of operating weights makes it hard to tailor the
parachute size to the aircraft mass.

My strongest issue with the idea is the underlying assertion that
there is or should be some bureau or agency responsible for making BRS
"mandatory in every new glider built." Required for gliders that
receive type certificates after some certain date, I can sort of see
that. That's the sort of thing that the NTSB might recommend to the
FAA in a decade or two, and which the FAA might take under advisement
for a similar span. But required for gliders being manufactured under
current type certificates? No, sorry, I think that retroactive
requirements like that set a very, very bad precedent. And required
for Experimental, Amateur-built, and Experimental, Racing gliders? No
way. That would very much stifle the kind of innovation and
competition that those (non-)certification categories are designed to
foster.

That said, in the glider I am developing now, I have indeed reserved a
modest volume for a ballistic parachute system should some customers
express an interest in it. However, that volume is not available in
sustainer or self-launch versions, so you would have to choose between
the motor and the parachute.

In the overall scheme of things, the place to look for the deployment
of new systems like this are customers and insurance companies. Both
of them vote with dollars, and in the free market that's pretty much
the only vote that matters.

Thanks, Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
F-104 Chutes out Glen in Orlando Aviation Photos 0 October 9th 09 07:01 PM
Square chutes - ExtreemSports.wmv (0/1) Tech Support Soaring 4 December 15th 08 07:40 PM
Square Chutes... sisu1a Soaring 4 December 9th 08 06:04 PM
Puchaz spin - now wearing 'chutes Bill Daniels Soaring 60 February 14th 04 08:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.