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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
"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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
"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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
RANS S-9 Chaos loses a wing
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FAA falling further into chaos | TheTruth[_2_] | Piloting | 2 | March 12th 08 06:05 AM |
Batavia Air 737 loses wing segment in flight | BernieFlyer[_2_] | Piloting | 2 | November 25th 07 10:05 AM |
FAA Chaos | MyCoxaFallen | Piloting | 12 | June 6th 05 04:54 PM |
DC Chaos, 9/11 and other assorted FAA diasters | MyCoxaFallen | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | June 2nd 05 06:23 PM |