BRS

Recent Cessna Skycatcher chute failed to deploy.

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1215-full.html#198852

What are the real values, and in what "normal situations" is BRS
worthwhile? Are there significant insurance cost reducs that make this
system cost effective?

In article ,
Gezellig wrote:

Recent Cessna Skycatcher chute failed to deploy.

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1215-full.html#198852

What are the real values, and in what "normal situations" is BRS
worthwhile? Are there significant insurance cost reducs that make this
system cost effective?

Keep in mind that it was a cross-controlled spin and that the BRS is not
a spin chute. Spin chutes are mounted to the tail to get them into free
air. The BRS is mounted in the baggage compartment, behind the center of
gravity and center of lift.

On Sep 25, 3:54*am, Gezellig wrote:

What are the real values, and in what "normal situations" is BRS
worthwhile? Are there significant insurance cost reducs that make this
system cost effective?

IIRC there's a deployment envelope for the chute below a certain
airspeed & descent rate(?) The plane got into a flat spin and couldn't
recover & they're looking into why the chute didn't fire. The AVweb
article said the 162 was undergoing testing beyond what is required
for the light sport aircraft certification.

As far as insurance savings with a BRS on board, ask anybody who owns
a Cirrus how much they pay for hull insurance and they'll tell you
it's not cheap, although that probably has more to do with the young
age of the fleet and the number of losses since the SR got its type
certification. I'm guessing the cost has come down in the last few
years, though.

Gezellig wrote:
Recent Cessna Skycatcher chute failed to deploy.

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1215-full.html#198852

What are the real values, and in what "normal situations" is BRS
worthwhile? Are there significant insurance cost reducs that make this
system cost effective?

There shouldn't be any reductions in Hull insurance because if the BRS
is deployed the airframe is usually going to be a loss.

I don't think anyone installs BRS to save on insurance. More like saving
their life


"Gezellig" wrote in message
...
Recent Cessna Skycatcher chute failed to deploy.

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1215-full.html#198852

What are the real values, and in what "normal situations" is BRS
worthwhile? Are there significant insurance cost reducs that make this
system cost effective?

pgbnh wrote:
I don't think anyone installs BRS to save on insurance. More like saving
their life


Yet the money spent on a BRS would probably save more lives if it were
spent on training.

"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote in message
news
pgbnh wrote:
I don't think anyone installs BRS to save on insurance. More like saving
their life


Yet the money spent on a BRS would probably save more lives if it were
spent on training.

That is a certainty.

"Peter Dohm" wrote:
"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote in message
news
pgbnh wrote:
I don't think anyone installs BRS to save on insurance. More like
saving their life


Yet the money spent on a BRS would probably save more lives if it
were spent on training.

That is a certainty.

The portions of the posts providing supporting material for the above
assertions failed to reach my Usenet provider.

No doubt once pilots are trained to the rigorous standards applied to
ground vehicle drivers the accident rates of pilots will drop to the levels
seen by those drivers.

Jim Logajan wrote:
"Peter Dohm" wrote:
"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote in message
news
pgbnh wrote:
I don't think anyone installs BRS to save on insurance. More like
saving their life

Yet the money spent on a BRS would probably save more lives if it
were spent on training.
That is a certainty.

The portions of the posts providing supporting material for the above
assertions failed to reach my Usenet provider.

No doubt once pilots are trained to the rigorous standards applied to
ground vehicle drivers the accident rates of pilots will drop to the levels
seen by those drivers.

First, what the hell do ground vehicle drivers have to do with?

But there is lots of data out there that additional flight training
reduces accidents. I will pose as proof for that statement the fact that
an IR pilot will get a lower insurance rate than the same pilot with the
same total number of hours who doesn't have an IR.

On Sep 26, 9:57*am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

No doubt once pilots are trained to the rigorous standards applied to
ground vehicle drivers the accident rates of pilots will drop to the levels
seen by those drivers.

First, what the hell do ground vehicle drivers have to do with?

I believe my sarcasm detector just went off.