RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing

Dan wrote:
Tom De Moor wrote:
In article ,
lid says...
Anyhow, how could someone see that and not be sold on ballistic
chutes? I was amazed at how gentle the landing seemed to be.



I would prefer the plane not to break up...

Tom De Moor

I can see a recovery parachute if the airplane were to be flown at or
near the edge of the envelope on a regular basis. Most people stay well
within limits. I also wonder if having one installed would tempt a pilot
to fly in a regime where he really shouldn't or isn't qualified.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Looks pretty much like exactly that, Dan.


--

Richard Lamb

"Dan" wrote in message
...
I also wonder if having one installed would tempt a pilot to fly in a regime
where he really shouldn't or isn't qualified.

The same old argument has been made about every GA safety improvement, including
tricycle gear, gyro instruments and even safety belts.

Vaughn

vaughn wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message
...
I also wonder if having one installed would tempt a pilot to fly in a regime
where he really shouldn't or isn't qualified.

The same old argument has been made about every GA safety improvement, including
tricycle gear, gyro instruments and even safety belts.

Vaughn



I guess the difference is one can pull a lever and recover from a
possibly fatal situation. The closest example you give is the seatbelt
which would keep one from falling out of an open cockpit.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article ,
"vaughn" wrote:

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Jim Logajan wrote:
Video of wing failure via AVweb:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a8cntPdRtk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnHuIET4P2s

It looks to me like the plane nearly flopped over on the canopy after
landing.
Had that happened, the outcome would have been tragically different.

Anyhow, how could someone see that and not be sold on ballistic chutes? I
was
amazed at how gentle the landing seemed to be.

Vaughn

I think the plane/pilot under discussion is part of an aerobatic team
that flies S-9's. If that is correct, then I would expect that the
planes have been modified to make them suitable for that level of
aerobatics. Unfortunately, even top level aerobatic birds can shed parts
if there is unidentified damage or fatigue in the structures. Wasn't
there a control system failure in Sean Tucker's Pitts?

No question that ballistic chutes are a good idea. They don't always
save the day, though. There was the SR-22 involved in a mid-air. The
ballistic chute was deployed, but the Cirrus was on fire and the pilot
and passenger jumped for it...from several hundred feet agl. The
weirdest ballistic chute misadventure that I know of was the breakup of
a Sparrowhawk ultralight glider that was being tested for potential
drone use. The Sparrowhawk comes with the BRS as standard equipment. A
test pilot was flying this particular Sparrowhawk and, because of a
faulty ASI, exceeded VNE by quite a bit. It was later determined that he
was over 175 knots when the thing came apart. It fluttered and the BRS
deployed on it's own due to the airframe breakup. The BRS deployment at
that high airspeed ejected the pilot, harnesses and all. Luckily, he was
also wearing a chute and was able to use it.

I don't have a BRS in my Stits LSA (yet), but I do have two good
emergency chutes. I always wear a chute when I fly my glider (it's the
primary seat cushion), and I often wear my chute when flying other
aircraft. I get funny looks when I step out of a 172 with a chute on.

On Aug 18, 10:58*am, Dan wrote:
Tom De Moor wrote:
In article ,
says...
Anyhow, how could someone see that and not be sold on ballistic chutes? *I was
amazed at how gentle the landing seemed to be.

I would prefer the plane not to break up...

Tom De Moor

* *I can see a recovery parachute if the airplane were to be flown at or
near the edge of the envelope on a regular basis. Most people stay well
within limits. I also wonder if having one installed would tempt a pilot
to fly in a regime where he really shouldn't or isn't qualified.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan, it seems to me an aircraft brought to the ground under a recovery
parachute suffers quite a lot of damage. I doubt a pilot would risk
breaking his airplane because he has a recovery parachute any more
than he or she would because the door is held in place with quick
release hinges and he is wearing a parachute.

Test pilots of course are a different story: their job is poke in
those dark corners.

a wrote:
On Aug 18, 10:58 am, Dan wrote:
Tom De Moor wrote:
In article ,
says...
Anyhow, how could someone see that and not be sold on ballistic chutes? I was
amazed at how gentle the landing seemed to be.
I would prefer the plane not to break up...
Tom De Moor
I can see a recovery parachute if the airplane were to be flown at or
near the edge of the envelope on a regular basis. Most people stay well
within limits. I also wonder if having one installed would tempt a pilot
to fly in a regime where he really shouldn't or isn't qualified.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan, it seems to me an aircraft brought to the ground under a recovery
parachute suffers quite a lot of damage. I doubt a pilot would risk
breaking his airplane because he has a recovery parachute any more
than he or she would because the door is held in place with quick
release hinges and he is wearing a parachute.


One of the selling points I have seen for recovery parachutes was
(is?) recovery of a repairable airplane. I do see your point, though,
which also existed in early military aviation. Some geniuses were
convinced combat pilots would bail rather than press home an attack.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Dan" wrote in message
...
Tom De Moor wrote:
In article ,
lid says...
Anyhow, how could someone see that and not be sold on ballistic chutes?
I was amazed at how gentle the landing seemed to be.



I would prefer the plane not to break up...

Tom De Moor

I can see a recovery parachute if the airplane were to be flown at or
near the edge of the envelope on a regular basis. Most people stay well
within limits. I also wonder if having one installed would tempt a pilot
to fly in a regime where he really shouldn't or isn't qualified.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I lso suspect the same, and might add that he was very fortunate that the
failure did not occur near the bottom of the "box"--assuming that I have the
terminology correct.

Peter

On Aug 18, 10:57*pm, Dan wrote:
a wrote:
On Aug 18, 10:58 am, Dan wrote:
Tom De Moor wrote:
In article ,
says...
Anyhow, how could someone see that and not be sold on ballistic chutes? *I was
amazed at how gentle the landing seemed to be.
I would prefer the plane not to break up...
Tom De Moor
* *I can see a recovery parachute if the airplane were to be flown at or
near the edge of the envelope on a regular basis. Most people stay well
within limits. I also wonder if having one installed would tempt a pilot
to fly in a regime where he really shouldn't or isn't qualified.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan, it seems to me an aircraft brought to the ground under a recovery
parachute suffers quite a lot of damage. I doubt a pilot would risk
breaking his airplane because he has a recovery parachute any more
than he or she would because the door is held in place with quick
release hinges and he is wearing a parachute.

* *One of the selling points I have seen for recovery parachutes was
(is?) recovery of a repairable airplane. I do see your point, though,
which also existed in early military aviation. Some geniuses were
convinced combat pilots would bail rather than press home an attack.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Not to make too fine a point of it, but if the recovery parachute
deployed because the pilot pulled a wing off, the notion of
'repairable' vs write-off comes into play. In the video, didn't the
airplane come down nose fist? In the case of the Cirrus, they come
down pretty fast, and I don't know, in the US at least (excepting
Nebraska, where the flatness seems to go on for ever) how likely it is
the airplane would come down to a flat surface.

Recovery parachutes can be thought of as life insurance policies,
where the company is betting you're going to live and you're betting
you're going to die: you objective is to let the insurance company, or
the parachute, never have to be used.

a wrote:
On Aug 18, 10:57 pm, Dan wrote:
a wrote:
On Aug 18, 10:58 am, Dan wrote:
Tom De Moor wrote:
In article ,
says...
Anyhow, how could someone see that and not be sold on ballistic chutes? I was
amazed at how gentle the landing seemed to be.
I would prefer the plane not to break up...
Tom De Moor
I can see a recovery parachute if the airplane were to be flown at or
near the edge of the envelope on a regular basis. Most people stay well
within limits. I also wonder if having one installed would tempt a pilot
to fly in a regime where he really shouldn't or isn't qualified.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Dan, it seems to me an aircraft brought to the ground under a recovery
parachute suffers quite a lot of damage. I doubt a pilot would risk
breaking his airplane because he has a recovery parachute any more
than he or she would because the door is held in place with quick
release hinges and he is wearing a parachute.
One of the selling points I have seen for recovery parachutes was
(is?) recovery of a repairable airplane. I do see your point, though,
which also existed in early military aviation. Some geniuses were
convinced combat pilots would bail rather than press home an attack.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Not to make too fine a point of it, but if the recovery parachute
deployed because the pilot pulled a wing off, the notion of
'repairable' vs write-off comes into play.

Agreed.

In the video, didn't the
airplane come down nose fist?

I have the feeling that the recovery parachute couldn't have saved
that particular airplane. Have you seen the BRS demonstration video of a
Cessna, if memory serves, deploy and gently land the airplane. I wonder
if anyone can make a blanket claim as to the relative value of the system.

In the case of the Cirrus, they come
down pretty fast, and I don't know, in the US at least (excepting
Nebraska, where the flatness seems to go on for ever) how likely it is
the airplane would come down to a flat surface.

Recovery parachutes can be thought of as life insurance policies,
where the company is betting you're going to live and you're betting
you're going to die: you objective is to let the insurance company, or
the parachute, never have to be used.

Personally, I feel if one has the money, space and weight allowance
for a recovery parachute it's not a bad investment. Having seen first
aid and survival kits in sad shape I wonder if the owners of recovery
systems would keep up on the inspection requirements.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I'm working for a German ultralight manufacturer (whereas European
ultralights compare more to US LSA than to US ultralights), and all
our aircraft are required by law to have a BRS installed. We've had
several of our customers come down safely under a 'chute.

Of course it is preferable to never have to use a recovery system.
Events like wings folding, control systems breaking or similar are
very rare. In most cases where the BRS has to be used, it's when the
engine quits _and_ there's no place to safely make an emergency
landing, like over water, forest or swamp.

Even if you have a BRS installed, it is advisable to try an emergency
landing in a suitable field, since very likely the structure of the
airplane will suffer less damage. As someone pointed out, the airplane
comes down nose first, usually with a speed of about 5-6 m/s (15-20 ft/
s). That can break a lot of expensive stuff (prop, engine, fuselage).
In an emergency landing, done properly, you may only have to replace
the landing gear and cover up a few bruises on the fuselage.

Oliver