BRS Question

Is there any mechanical reason the BRS system could not be designed to allow
the chute to deploy, stabilize/slow the plane and, optionally, allow the
pilot to disconnect the chute to land normally?

I'm thinking about floating down in a $400K Cirrus with chute deployed in a
spin in IMC, then breaking out at 1500 feet looking at a suitable landing
place and cursing the imminent destruction of the plane.

Michael

In article e9bjc.41664$IW1.1992513@attbi_s52,
Michael 182 wrote:
I'm thinking about floating down in a $400K Cirrus with chute deployed in a
spin in IMC, then breaking out at 1500 feet looking at a suitable landing
place and cursing the imminent destruction of the plane.

I thought the parachute attachment cables ripping out of seams in the
composite airframe is what totalled it.

Deploying the chute isn't that bad from an insurance perspective. The
avionics, engine and probably many other parts will have significant
salvage value.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

No, that's fixable. The first successful BRS deployment
landed in some small trees which softened the landing.
The airframe was (so I read) repaired. That part
is just cosmetic. It's the 1500 fpm touchdown that drives
the gear through the wings, breaks the engine mounts
and so on.

John

"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
news:S9cjc.36611$GR.4993942@attbi_s01...
In article e9bjc.41664$IW1.1992513@attbi_s52,
Michael 182 wrote:
I'm thinking about floating down in a $400K Cirrus with chute deployed in
a
spin in IMC, then breaking out at 1500 feet looking at a suitable landing
place and cursing the imminent destruction of the plane.

I thought the parachute attachment cables ripping out of seams in the
composite airframe is what totalled it.

Deploying the chute isn't that bad from an insurance perspective. The
avionics, engine and probably many other parts will have significant
salvage value.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

(Ben Jackson) writes:

I thought the parachute attachment cables ripping out of seams in the
composite airframe is what totalled it.

Nah, that's just some bondo. The straps lie in channels in the airframe,
and there is a thin layer of composite glued over the top of it.

Deploying the chute isn't that bad from an insurance perspective. The
avionics, engine and probably many other parts will have significant
salvage value.

There's an additional wrinkle to this that I hadn't considered, but
was pointed out by a Cirrus-savvy insurance broker: the straps make
off-airport recovery of the aircraft much easier because you can hook
them to a crane or heavy-lift helicopter and lift the airplane out,
instead of having to chop it into pieces and drag it. Recovery costs
are not insignificant...

Dave Katz wrote:
There's an additional wrinkle to this that I hadn't considered, but
was pointed out by a Cirrus-savvy insurance broker: the straps make
off-airport recovery of the aircraft much easier because you can hook
them to a crane or heavy-lift helicopter and lift the airplane out,
instead of having to chop it into pieces and drag it. Recovery costs
are not insignificant...


This can't be unique to the Cirrus. My aircraft's maintenance manual
includes a procedure for sling-lifting, and I would think that the same
technique could be applied to many other aircraft. I recall that the
Cherokee that landed piggyback on top of a 152 in Florida was lifted off
by crane and flew away home ;-)

Apparently they have to drill holes or somesuch. The sling's built in.

(Ross Oliver) writes:

Dave Katz wrote:
There's an additional wrinkle to this that I hadn't considered, but
was pointed out by a Cirrus-savvy insurance broker: the straps make
off-airport recovery of the aircraft much easier because you can hook
them to a crane or heavy-lift helicopter and lift the airplane out,
instead of having to chop it into pieces and drag it. Recovery costs
are not insignificant...


This can't be unique to the Cirrus. My aircraft's maintenance manual
includes a procedure for sling-lifting, and I would think that the same
technique could be applied to many other aircraft. I recall that the
Cherokee that landed piggyback on top of a 152 in Florida was lifted off
by crane and flew away home ;-)

"Michael 182" writes:

Is there any mechanical reason the BRS system could not be designed to allow
the chute to deploy, stabilize/slow the plane and, optionally, allow the
pilot to disconnect the chute to land normally?

Weight, complexity, reliability, and practicality. The venerable SR20
s/n 1 used for flight testing of the parachute was rigged to be cut
away (they couldn't afford to trash a dozen airframes) and I was told
by the test pilot that the cutaway system was problematic, though
presumably if it were meant to be a production device they'd refine
the design a bit more.

The test pilot also told me that the cutaway was very disconcerting,
as the nose dropped abruptly past the vertical, which isn't surprising
given that the plane is starting at 0 airspeed.

The number of scenarios in which this would be useful seems very
small. I imagine that it takes quite a bit more than 1500 feet to
recover from the "steep nose-down attitude" (as the NTSB would put
it.)

I'm thinking about floating down in a $400K Cirrus with chute deployed in a
spin in IMC, then breaking out at 1500 feet looking at a suitable landing
place and cursing the imminent destruction of the plane.

It's all a matter of perspective. I'd be much happier floating down to
the imminent destruction of the plane than I'd be to briefly glimpse the
suitable landing space just before ending up in a smoking crater.

Plus, when in an emergency, always remember that the plane belongs to the
insurance company. Or as a pilot friend of mine puts it, "f**k the airplane,
save the seats!" ;-)

Dave Katz wrote in message ...
"Michael 182" writes:

The number of scenarios in which this would be useful seems very
small. I imagine that it takes quite a bit more than 1500 feet to
recover from the "steep nose-down attitude" (as the NTSB would put
it.)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to try this in a Cirrus, but.... one
can recover from a hammerhead in a whole lot less than 1500 feet. If
you were to go to full throttle as soon as the nose fell through and
pull all the G's available as the speed picked up, it really shouldn't
take all that much room. (It *would* take some practice to get it
just right, however, and I'd be happy to stand on the ground watching
while one of you figgers it out!).

Dave Russell
8KCAB

(Dave Russell) writes:

Dave Katz wrote in message ...
"Michael 182" writes:

The number of scenarios in which this would be useful seems very
small. I imagine that it takes quite a bit more than 1500 feet to
recover from the "steep nose-down attitude" (as the NTSB would put
it.)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to try this in a Cirrus, but.... one
can recover from a hammerhead in a whole lot less than 1500 feet. If

Well, in a Decathlon anyhow. I'd bet you can't recover from a
hammerhead in a 747 in 1500 feet. A Cirrus is probably somewhere in
between.

Michael 182 wrote:

I'm thinking about floating down in a $400K Cirrus with chute deployed in a
spin in IMC, then breaking out at 1500 feet looking at a suitable landing
place and cursing the imminent destruction of the plane.

Well, you're not traveling forward anymore, and you have less than a minute to cut
the chute loose and dive the plane enough to get enough forward speed to get flying
again. With no airflow over the control surfaces. Doesn't sound real feasible to me.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.