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 :

"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.

"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

On 26 Apr 2004 13:14:30 -0700, (Tom Seim) wrote:

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.

Thanks for the update. I'd agree that I was speculating in the first
case and now understand the Florida one a lot better.

I looked over the Cirrus site with interest. As I said, its a pretty
toy. I looked at the interior shots of the SR20 and was duly impressed
by glass cockpit but didn't notice any conventional instruments. The
report on the Cirrus website did not mention electrical failure (it
said he "began to experience conditions that he felt made the return
to the departure airport impossible" so I assume I didn't miss
anything). In the circumstances the use of a BRS is entirely
understandable!

Is there any indication of the state of the airframes after these
incidents?


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

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

"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.

(John Cochrane) wrote in message . com...
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

So I assume that Sam (and, by concurrence, you) had said spikes
installed on his car.

Tom Seim

Tom Seim wrote:
(John Cochrane) wrote...

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


So I assume that Sam (and, by concurrence, you) had said spikes
installed on his car.

If you think about it for a second, you'll realize it only works if
*everyone* has the spikes installed 8^)

Marc

Tom Seim wrote:
(John Cochrane) wrote...

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


So I assume that Sam (and, by concurrence, you) had said spikes
installed on his car.

If you think about it for a second, you'll realize it only works if
*everyone* has the spikes installed 8^)

Marc

(John Cochrane) wrote
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.

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.

And so it would. Accident rates have been on the rise for years.
However, fatality and serious injury rates have been falling. Seat
belts, airbags, crumple zones, and other safety devices that operate
outside the driver's control make driving safer for the occupants -
not the vehicle.

It takes a much worse accident than it used to in order to cause
fatalities or serious injuries, but a lot less to total out a vehicle
- which was more expensive to begin with because of all the safety
features.

I'm not saying this is a good tradeoff or a poor one, but it's
disingenuous to pretend it's not there. It's equally disingenuous to
pretend that we couldn't prevent 95% of highway fatalities quite
easily. All it would take is a 35 mph speed limit for divided
highways and a 17 mph speed limit for other roads - and draconian
enforcement. It wouldn't prevent the accidents, but it would
eliminate most of the fatalities. Of course we don't do this because
we want to get where we are going quickly.

Michael