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

A thought on BRS



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 26th 04, 11:54 AM
Martin Gregorie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A thought on BRS

New Scientist just picked up on two cases where Cirrus SR-20 drivers
pulled the BRS trick and 5 people came down safely and walked away
without injuries. Four in one aircraft and one in another. BRS works:
good. That was about the limit of that story.

However, I took a look at the Cirrus website,
http://www.cirrusdesign.com/, and a slightly different story emerges:
in the first case the pilot lost control during a night-time flight
over the Canadian Rockies in turbulent conditions and popped the BRS.
In the second case the pilot took off solo from a Florida airfield
with a 400 foot cloud base, lost it on IFR at about 1000 ft and also
pulled the BRS release. These guys could have both been highly
experienced pilots or low-timers - the Cirrus press release doesn't
say. But, looking at the report makes me wonder if the BRS is an
unmixed blessing: In both cases it sounds as if having the BRS could
have tempted pilots to fly in conditions when they maybe shouldn't
have. As I said above, its good that the BRS got them out of trouble,
I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.

Comments?


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

  #2  
Old April 26th 04, 02:41 PM
David Kinsell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Martin Gregorie" wrote in message ...
New Scientist just picked up on two cases where Cirrus SR-20 drivers
pulled the BRS trick and 5 people came down safely and walked away
without injuries. Four in one aircraft and one in another. BRS works:
good. That was about the limit of that story.

However, I took a look at the Cirrus website,
http://www.cirrusdesign.com/, and a slightly different story emerges:
in the first case the pilot lost control during a night-time flight
over the Canadian Rockies in turbulent conditions and popped the BRS.
In the second case the pilot took off solo from a Florida airfield
with a 400 foot cloud base, lost it on IFR at about 1000 ft and also
pulled the BRS release. These guys could have both been highly
experienced pilots or low-timers - the Cirrus press release doesn't
say. But, looking at the report makes me wonder if the BRS is an
unmixed blessing: In both cases it sounds as if having the BRS could
have tempted pilots to fly in conditions when they maybe shouldn't
have. As I said above, its good that the BRS got them out of trouble,
I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.

Comments?


Sounds plausible. Anti-skid brakes on cars have become common-place,
but no one has proven a reduction in accident rates. Maybe one of those
compensating behaviors that we read about? If I had a structural failure
or midair in a glider, I wouldn't have a lot of faith that the shroud lines would
stay untangled, due to the almost certain spinning that would result. Maybe
others would.


  #3  
Old April 26th 04, 07:05 PM
John Cochrane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.

Comments?


Sam Pelzman, a fellow economist here at the University of Chicago,
once argued on similar grounds against seat belts in cars. He pointed
out, quite correctly, that long sharp steel spikes on the dashboard
would be far more effective at lowering the accident rate.

John Cochrane
  #4  
Old April 26th 04, 07:20 PM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Martin Gregorie wrote
As I said above, its good that the BRS got them out of trouble,
I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.


This issue is the topic of much debate on the other groups in the
rec.aviation hierarchy. Check it out.

Realize that BRS is not new. Some huge chunk of ultralights and
ultralight-type two-seaters are BRS-equipped. These systems have
existed long before the Cirrus, and were not controversial. It took
the Cirrus to make them controversial, for exactly the reason you
pointed out.

Michael
  #5  
Old April 26th 04, 08:09 PM
Martin Gregorie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 26 Apr 2004 11:20:49 -0700, (Michael) wrote:

Martin Gregorie wrote
As I said above, its good that the BRS got them out of trouble,
I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.


This issue is the topic of much debate on the other groups in the
rec.aviation hierarchy. Check it out.

Realize that BRS is not new. Some huge chunk of ultralights and
ultralight-type two-seaters are BRS-equipped. These systems have
existed long before the Cirrus, and were not controversial. It took
the Cirrus to make them controversial, for exactly the reason you
pointed out.


I knew that BRS has been around for a fair time. I suppose I got
fooled by the press release claiming that the three Cirrus uses were
the first, but I suppose they meant in a regular, certified aircraft -
with 300 hp in the front the Cirrus is no ultra light for sure.
However, it IS a pretty toy and I can imagine people with more money
than experience buying one and coming unstuck for exactly the same
reasons that would apply if they bought a Ferrari as a first sports
car.

In answer to an earlier poster: I personally don't think the
comparison of BRS and car seat belts is realistic: in a car there's no
close equivalent to flying into conditions you can't handle while
expecting the BRS / seat belt to give you an out. I grant you there is
evidence of seat belts making drivers more dangerous to pedestrians
and cyclists, but that is independent of the road conditions. closer
to the (apocryphal?) stories about Volvo drivers who, after years of
propaganda about driving the safest car on the road, think that they
are invulnerable no matter how badly they drive.
--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

  #6  
Old April 26th 04, 09:14 PM
Tom Seim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"David Kinsell" wrote in message news:kk8jc.41229$aQ6.2305255@attbi_s51...
"Martin Gregorie" wrote in message ...
New Scientist just picked up on two cases where Cirrus SR-20 drivers
pulled the BRS trick and 5 people came down safely and walked away
without injuries. Four in one aircraft and one in another. BRS works:
good. That was about the limit of that story.

However, I took a look at the Cirrus website,
http://www.cirrusdesign.com/, and a slightly different story emerges:
in the first case the pilot lost control during a night-time flight
over the Canadian Rockies in turbulent conditions and popped the BRS.
In the second case the pilot took off solo from a Florida airfield
with a 400 foot cloud base, lost it on IFR at about 1000 ft and also
pulled the BRS release. These guys could have both been highly
experienced pilots or low-timers - the Cirrus press release doesn't
say. But, looking at the report makes me wonder if the BRS is an
unmixed blessing: In both cases it sounds as if having the BRS could
have tempted pilots to fly in conditions when they maybe shouldn't
have. As I said above, its good that the BRS got them out of trouble,
I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.

Comments?


Sounds plausible. Anti-skid brakes on cars have become common-place,
but no one has proven a reduction in accident rates. Maybe one of those
compensating behaviors that we read about? If I had a structural failure
or midair in a glider, I wouldn't have a lot of faith that the shroud lines would
stay untangled, due to the almost certain spinning that would result. Maybe
others would.


Attitudes toward safety come from your training, years of experience
and knowledge of misfortunes that have befallen fellow pilots. I also
have ABS on both of my vehicles and am not tempted to drive faster (or
in worse conditions) than if I didn't have them. I do feel like I have
better odds of surviving a mishap with them. I definitely did avoid
one accident with them.

I also have a motorglider. But I would no more fly into unlandable
terrain, thinking I could bail myself out with the motor, as I would
have with my ASW-19.

The first accident was caused by flight into severe turbulence
(probably a rotor). Without knowing what weather briefing the pilot
got before the flight speculating that he was pushing the envelope
because he had a BRS is exactly that: pure speculation. The other
accident was, I believe, was an electrical failure in IMC conditions
shortly after takeoff. The pilot was instrument rated, so the
conditions were not abnormal.

AOPA says the accident rate of the SR20 is comparable to Cessna 172
and 182s.

Tom Seim
Richland, WA
  #7  
Old April 26th 04, 10:01 PM
mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Cochrane" wrote in message
om...
I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.

Comments?


Sam Pelzman, a fellow economist here at the University of Chicago,
once argued on similar grounds against seat belts in cars. He pointed
out, quite correctly, that long sharp steel spikes on the dashboard
would be far more effective at lowering the accident rate.

John Cochrane


Or just remove the airbag and replace it with a 12 gauge shotgun shell fired
by the same sensors.


  #9  
Old April 27th 04, 02:29 AM
Vaughn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Martin Gregorie" wrote in message
...
...But, looking at the report makes me wonder if the BRS is an
unmixed blessing: In both cases it sounds as if having the BRS could
have tempted pilots to fly in conditions when they maybe shouldn't
have. As I said above, its good that the BRS got them out of trouble,
I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.

Comments?


Well...Since you asked...

Why don't we strike a huge blow for safety by simply taking all of the
safety features off of our gliders, starting with parachutes? And especially
those transponders! they just encourage us to fly where we might encounter
other airplanes. And don't forget those GPS units, they just encourage us to go
where we might get lost. Oh yes! lets get rid of those safety harnesses, they
just encourage us to fly in turbulence. As a final safety measure, we should
all saw part way through our main spars to force us all to fly more smoothly.
With all of these "safety improvements", all designed to make more honest pilots
out of us and force all of us to fly safer, we can surely look forward to a
quantum improvement in next year's soaring safety statistics.

(with a grin)
Vaughn


  #10  
Old April 27th 04, 02:34 AM
Vaughn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Michael" wrote in message
om...
It took
the Cirrus to make them controversial, for exactly the reason you
pointed out.


But the Cirrus gives you something (BRS) and then takes it away (safe
flying qualities). The only POH approved spin recovery for the Cirrus involves
pulling the BRS. Would we put up with that in a glider?

Vaughn



Michael



 




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
A Question For Real Airline Pilots Blue Simulators 34 September 6th 04 01:55 AM
I thought some of these are classics goneill Soaring 0 April 8th 04 10:51 AM
Rumsfeld is an even bigger asshole than I thought noname Military Aviation 0 March 20th 04 04:48 AM
And you thought aviation reporting was bad! C J Campbell Piloting 14 February 17th 04 03:41 AM
About the book entitled: Test Pilot, 1001 things you thought you knew about aviation Koopas Ly Piloting 1 December 2nd 03 03:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.