Puchaz spin - now wearing 'chutes

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 06:29:51 +1000, Mike Borgelt
wrote:

I figure that the choice with a personal chute is small but with a
whole ship chute it is zero.

I once saw a movie of the BRS drop test on a C150 simulating its
arrival under a deployed BRS chute. I doubt that the Cessna was
useable again even though it was a symmetrical level attitude when it
hit with no drift. I'd hate to hit at a similar descent rate in a
glider. In Oz we've had a few people do hard landings in the last
couple of years. Some are considered lucky to be walking but the
gliders are repairable. Air bags may be essential.

I know an FK-9 ultralight that has already survived three (!)
parachute landings (and is still flying - here's the photo:
http://www.fk-lightplanes.com/FK-History/9Mk3_3_57.jpg), and I read
about one SR-20 or 22 that is also flying again after a chute landing.

The problem of a glider that my butt is two inches from the ground in
a worst-case impact at 20 ft/sec (but the BRS systems for gliders are
designed in order to get an impact at 45 degrees nose down attitude,
maximizing the energy absorption of the fuselage nose).

Not to mention the possible extremely high (220 kts) speed of a
glider with a missing tail or wing. The deployment speed of the BRS of
the Cirrus is limited to a pretty low speed (iirc 150 kts IAS).

In Germany BRS systems are mandatory for ultralight aircraft (some of
these little planes reach cruise speeds in excess of 140 kts (limited
by the maximum deployment speed of the BRS) at a weight of about 1.000
pounds. Each year there are a couple of successful BRS savings.


Bye
Andreas

In article ,
Andreas Maurer wrote:

Not to mention the possible extremely high (220 kts) speed of a
glider with a missing tail or wing. The deployment speed of the BRS of
the Cirrus is limited to a pretty low speed (iirc 150 kts IAS).

Several BRS saves were quite a bit faster than the "rated"
system velocity.

Like parachute repack recommendations and Vne, the velocity recommendations
are primarily to protect the manufacturer from liability, and
are generously safesided to be far within the
actual limits of the equipment.

I'm a bit miffed with the obtuse information about BRS chutes. Name one, just
one, save done by a BRS chute in an airplane, or glider, that was NOT an
ultralight or hang glider, and was done from an out-of-control situation.



In article 402c2ce4$1@darkstar, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:
In article ,
Andreas Maurer wrote:

Not to mention the possible extremely high (220 kts) speed of a
glider with a missing tail or wing. The deployment speed of the BRS of
the Cirrus is limited to a pretty low speed (iirc 150 kts IAS).

Several BRS saves were quite a bit faster than the "rated"
system velocity.

Like parachute repack recommendations and Vne, the velocity recommendations
are primarily to protect the manufacturer from liability, and
are generously safesided to be far within the
actual limits of the equipment.

d b wrote:
I'm a bit miffed with the obtuse information about BRS chutes. Name one, just
one, save done by a BRS chute in an airplane, or glider, that was NOT an
ultralight or hang glider, and was done from an out-of-control situation.

There's the Cirrus save, and the Cirrus is a four seater airplane, but
it was done from controlled flight.

At the same time, I don't know of any failed BRS attempts, from
controlled flight or otherwise. Anybody have stats on that? That'd be
good data to have too.

"d b" wrote in message
ink.net...
I'm a bit miffed with the obtuse information about BRS chutes. Name one,
just
one, save done by a BRS chute in an airplane, or glider, that was NOT an
ultralight or hang glider, and was done from an out-of-control situation.

Easy, the BRS "saves" list is right he
http://brsparachutes.com/PI_saves.mgi?page=2 and I believe it is up to 159.
You are correct in that the list is populated almost exclusively with hang
gliders and ultralights, but it does include one real glider (Alpin TST-1)
and one real airplane (Cirrus SR-22). The Alpin was a loss of control and
the SR22 was a structural failure.

Vaughn

Vaughn Simon wrote:

"d b" wrote in message

one, save done by a BRS chute in an airplane, or glider, that was NOT an
ultralight or hang glider, and was done from an out-of-control situation.

Easy, the BRS "saves" list is right he
http://brsparachutes.com/PI_saves.mgi?page=2 and I believe it is up to 159.
You are correct in that the list is populated almost exclusively with hang
gliders and ultralights, but it does include one real glider (Alpin TST-1)
and one real airplane (Cirrus SR-22). The Alpin was a loss of control and
the SR22 was a structural failure.

The Cirrus accident doesn't quite count as "out of control", according
to the NTSB report. One aileron was jammed (and ultimately lost), and
the pilot was able to maintain level flight long enough to deploy the
BRS. I suspect it may well have been landable in the state it was in,
but if I had a BRS (or a parachute) under those circumstances, I'd use it...

Marc

Marc Ramsey wrote:

Vaughn Simon wrote:

"d b" wrote in message

one, save done by a BRS chute in an airplane, or glider, that was NOT an
ultralight or hang glider, and was done from an out-of-control
situation.


Easy, the BRS "saves" list is right he
http://brsparachutes.com/PI_saves.mgi?page=2 and I believe it is up to
159.
You are correct in that the list is populated almost exclusively with
hang
gliders and ultralights, but it does include one real glider (Alpin
TST-1)
and one real airplane (Cirrus SR-22). The Alpin was a loss of control
and
the SR22 was a structural failure.


The Cirrus accident doesn't quite count as "out of control", according
to the NTSB report. One aileron was jammed (and ultimately lost), and
the pilot was able to maintain level flight long enough to deploy the
BRS. I suspect it may well have been landable in the state it was in,
but if I had a BRS (or a parachute) under those circumstances, I'd use
it...

Marc
IIRC another Cirrus pilot tried to deploy the BRS, but the handle pull
was too great to activate. Landed safely, resulted in an AD for the
pull force on the handle.

Shawn

d b wrote:
I'm a bit miffed with the obtuse information about BRS chutes. Name one, just
one, save done by a BRS chute in an airplane, or glider, that was NOT an
ultralight or hang glider, and was done from an out-of-control situation.

THe number installed in registered aircraft is still very small and has
only begun in the last few years, so we should not expect many uses yet.

It will take a long time for experience with _certified_ installations
to be acquired, because these are only just now being offered. While the
BRS system has been tested many times, most of the installations in
sailplanes are in "experimental" category gliders, and the installation
hasn't been tested.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Interesting comment on BRS in the DG website -
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/rettungssystem-e.html

Not qualified to respond but does appear to make some sense.


"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
d b wrote:
I'm a bit miffed with the obtuse information about BRS chutes. Name one,
just
one, save done by a BRS chute in an airplane, or glider, that was NOT an
ultralight or hang glider, and was done from an out-of-control
situation.

THe number installed in registered aircraft is still very small and has
only begun in the last few years, so we should not expect many uses yet.

It will take a long time for experience with _certified_ installations
to be acquired, because these are only just now being offered. While the
BRS system has been tested many times, most of the installations in
sailplanes are in "experimental" category gliders, and the installation
hasn't been tested.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

In article . net,
d b wrote:
I'm a bit miffed with the obtuse information about BRS chutes. Name one, just
one, save done by a BRS chute in an airplane, or glider, that was NOT an
ultralight or hang glider, and was done from an out-of-control situation.

In article 402c2ce4$1@darkstar, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:
In article ,
Andreas Maurer wrote:

Not to mention the possible extremely high (220 kts) speed of a
glider with a missing tail or wing. The deployment speed of the BRS of
the Cirrus is limited to a pretty low speed (iirc 150 kts IAS).

Several BRS saves were quite a bit faster than the "rated"
system velocity.

Like parachute repack recommendations and Vne, the velocity recommendations
are primarily to protect the manufacturer from liability, and
are generously safesided to be far within the
actual limits of the equipment.

LOL...if my glider is missing a tail or wing and the
ASI is pegged, I'm gonna pull the BRS chute anyway.
If it does shred, at least it'll make a nice easy to see
marker on the splat point...

As far as saves already happened, these things just ain't been around that
long, and structural failures of gliders and planes are
REALLY very rare compared to ultralights...

So structural failure doesn't seem to be a big reason to
put on a BRS. Inadvertent IFR, mid-air, control surface (spoilers, elevator)
not hooked up, over unlandable terrain (15 knots impact is better
than 40), unrecoverable spin, student holding stick back or
forward in panic/suicide, etc. seem quite possible.

Would I rather have a BRS with a more crashworthy cockpit vs
a personal chute and flimsy cockpit? Personally, yes.
Would I want both? Personally, no. Would I prefer one
6 year repack vs. repacking a personal chute
18 times? Absolutely...

hmmm...I wonder how much the repacks cost (tightwad hat on)

..........

In fact I just got off the phone with BRS, and asked them about
repack of the 900 sealed canister, and they said it was
$600 (every 6 years). You mail them the canister,
then they mail you a repack...

Looks like about even for repack price, but convenience seems
a lot better than 12-18 repacks of a personal chute...

Perhaps a lot of this is moot, because they're
probably almost impossible to retrofit, and with
most new gliders being motorgliders, the space isn't
there, but for a new "pure" glider (sparrowhawk, AC-4,
etc), it loks good on paper at least...