What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

BRS Chute Installation for RV10

shoprat

Member
For those interested in installing a BRS chute in their RV10, I have some good news. Several builders, including myself, have signed purchase agreements which has gotten the design and engineering phase started. Should see the first kits by the first of the year or before. I'll send updates as the process progresses.

Bruce McGlamery
Winter Springs, FL
 
BRS Chute for RV10

No. Too soon. They just got the aircraft into their CAD engineering software. Will be a couple of months before we see any details.

Bruce
 
Chute

Very interesting. I'll keep an eye on this one. It will be neat to know how this can be done using existing structures in the RV10. I can imagine the weight penalty will be substantial.
 
I'm Interested

I'm interested too! My brother suggested I buy a used Cirrus instead of building the RV10 due to the 'chute. My empennage kit is ordered. Having the BRS chute would be a big plus!
 
Curious

I have always been curious as to the reasoning behind the chute. Not to start a primer war but here is a discussion question:

What would be a valid reason to pop the chute?

I'm curious to see what people would consider dire enough to use it...
 
I have always been curious as to the reasoning behind the chute. Not to start a primer war but here is a discussion question:

What would be a valid reason to pop the chute?

I'm curious to see what people would consider dire enough to use it...

Originally, it was included because the Cirrus can't recover from a spin--the ability to recover is a certification requirement, so the FAA allowed the BRS as an alternate means of compliance.

Beyond that, I think it's the tool of last resort any time a pilot gets in over his head. The Cirrus is a very high-performance aircraft, and we all know what happens when you mix that with a pilot who can't stay proficient; think "fork-tailed doctor killer."
 
I have always been curious as to the reasoning behind the chute. Not to start a primer war but here is a discussion question:

What would be a valid reason to pop the chute?

I'm curious to see what people would consider dire enough to use it...

Night, over mountains, lost engine with oil on the windscreen, and blue haze in the cabin......

Bruce
 
Not entirely accurate

Originally, it was included because the Cirrus can't recover from a spin--the ability to recover is a certification requirement, so the FAA allowed the BRS as an alternate means of compliance.

Beyond that, I think it's the tool of last resort any time a pilot gets in over his head. The Cirrus is a very high-performance aircraft, and we all know what happens when you mix that with a pilot who can't stay proficient; think "fork-tailed doctor killer."

I think you can easily find data to refute this statement. I believe the issue was more that the SR-20/22 did not meet the Part 23 recovery guidelines and the CAPS was installed as the AMOC. The DA40XLS with winglets did not meet the spin recovery requirements either, so the winglets were never delivered on these aircraft.

From Part 23 -

A single-engine, normal category airplane must be able to recover from a one-turn spin or a three-second spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after initiation of the first control action for recovery, or demonstrate compliance with the optional spin resistant requirements of this section.

Check out the article from COPA here.
 
Debate on the BRS efficacy aside, I'm interested in the engineering details of necessary structural changes that would be required for a successful installation. I have absolutely zero interest in installing one on my RV-10, but I'm curious nevertheless.
 
Interesting

I find the Cirrus reasons kind of humorous...

Turbulence? Pop the chute.
Lose SA? Pop the chute.
Ice? Pop the chute.
Lose control? Pop the chute.
System failures? Pop the chute.
Engine failure? Pop the chute...even if you are over a runway.

Really?

I can see structural failure, or engine failure in mountainous terrain, and certainly pilot incapacitation but the others?

That being said, I bet when the actual data comes out you will be looking at 60+ pounds...
 
I think you can easily find data to refute this statement. I believe the issue was more that the SR-20/22 did not meet the Part 23 recovery guidelines and the CAPS was installed as the AMOC. The DA40XLS with winglets did not meet the spin recovery requirements either, so the winglets were never delivered on these aircraft.

From Part 23 -

A single-engine, normal category airplane must be able to recover from a one-turn spin or a three-second spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after initiation of the first control action for recovery, or demonstrate compliance with the optional spin resistant requirements of this section.

Check out the article from COPA here.

You're correct, and I should have been more precise with my wording. "Cannot recover within the requirements" would have been better.
 
You're correct, and I should have been more precise with my wording. "Cannot recover within the requirements" would have been better.

I think even more to the point is that because they were from the very beginning designing the airplane to have a chute (it was part of their marketing strategy), they didn't need to do testing to prove whether the airplane met FAR23 spin recovery requirements. They were granted a waver because the POH stipulates pulling the chute if a spin occurs.

My personal (that is the key word in these discussions... everyone has different needs/viewpoints) feeling is that on an airplane of the class that an RV-10 (or cirrus) is, the chute is far more of a marketing feature than it is a practical design feature, considering the trade off in empty weight / reduced payload, etc.
 
I came to my RV-6A from a Cirrus that I flew for 6 years. The best reason I can think of is the no one has ever died in a Cirrus when the chute was pulled within its design parameters. Put differently, 100% who pulled the chute survived engine failures at night and over water, forced landings, spins, low altitude loss of control in IMC, icing, and the list goes on. The same cannot be said for every similar incident in a RV. The biggest problem Cirrus drivers have is not pulling the chute soon enough and often enough. The chute is about the only thing I miss about the Cirrus and wish I could add to my RV.
 
I was an early Cirrus owner - and the initial advice was mid-air, failure etc. pull the chute. In fact I think the first pull was after maintenance and the aileron was not fully attached.

What changed it for me was the death of an experienced Cirrus pilot, engine failure and seemingly straightforward dead stick landing - I think close to the runway. Sadly it did not work out. I like many pilots thought why would I pull the chute on a dead stick landing I had a practiced that a thousand times.

Another way of looking at the scenario everyone has walked from a chute deployment made within the parameters, but a small (probably unknown) percentage have not walked away from the list of events you noted as humorous advice to use the chute

So I see the chute as another option for the pilot - either trust the chute or your own skill. The current data supports the former but it doesn't stop the pilot making the choice.

Robert
 
As of 22 February 2017 there have been 71 saves with 146 survivors in aircraft equipped with the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS):

http://https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safety_programs/w/safety_pages/723.cirrus-caps-history.aspx

Rob Hickman
N402RH RV-10

The problem with statistics like this is that there is no way of knowing if the lives were really saved from death, or if they would have survived anyway. Go back two posts. Someone pulled the chute because one aileron was not connected following maintenance. The other one was functioning okay, and they likely could have returned safely without the chute. But one never knows. Certainly, pilot incapacitation is a real save, but some of the others? And I wonder, how many Cirrus's failed to clear a tree, or went off the end of the runway, because of the extra weight of the chute? Hard to say. But when I look at the accident record, one thing looks clear IMHO: the chute makes for bolder pilots.
 
....The best reason I can think of is the no one has ever died in a Cirrus when the chute was pulled within its design parameters....

This appears to be incorrect. Look up the midair collision in Boulder, CO, a few years ago, between a Cirrus and a towplane. The Cirrus descended under canopy, on fire, with no survivors. I saw the video.

Dave
 
This appears to be incorrect. Look up the midair collision in Boulder, CO, a few years ago, between a Cirrus and a towplane. The Cirrus descended under canopy, on fire, with no survivors. I saw the video.

Dave

While technically correct, I don't think it's fair to charge that failure-to-save to the chute.
 
Only one time have I thought that a chute would be nice on an RV-10, but this one actually had me thinking that maybe Cirrus has a one-up on us in this situation...

While flying to the Cayman Islands, I had lots of time to contemplate how the airplane would be upside down in the ocean, and wonder how I'd get the kids out of the back seat if we went down in the ocean and flipped as most probably would. It was at that point that I realized that if you could reliably bring the airplane down flat, you'd probably be better off in that particular situation. Other than that, I'd probably be trying to fly the airplane anyway, but over the ocean, strange things run through your head. :eek:

Given the cost, weight, and maintenance though, I'd probably still not install one, but, it was one time I kind of wished I'd been flying a cirrus.
 
and...

"...I think you are oversimplifying the Cirrus guidance, and doing a disservice to them..."

You may think so but in the end, that is their guidance.

I agree with Bob T. The data is skewed because there is no way to know the outcome without the chute.

I agree, and it is my opinion, that it is definitely a marketing plan (for the most part). I also agree with the statement about "...making bolder pilots...". If you are picking up so much ice that you need to pop the chute, why were you there in the first place? Structural failure? Why did the failure occur? Loss of control? Why did you lose control? Pop the chute for loss of SA? That's just silly.

Point is, while there may be a few valid reasons to have it, they are comparatively few and far between. Pilot experience, judgement, and planning should keep the other situations from happening...unless you figure you can push the envelope because you have the chute.

Once again it comes down to each person's opinion. If you feel that you should have the chute, then do it. Kind of like A/C...or fuel injection...or for heaven's sake, PRIMER!:D
 
This might make a few more spouses happy too. I've heard a lot of non flying spouses worry about what if the pilot becomes incapacitated in flight. Nice to have another option for them. Looking forward to hearing the news on the engineering and design aspects.
 
Originally, it was included because the Cirrus can't recover from a spin--the ability to recover is a certification requirement, so the FAA allowed the BRS as an alternate means of compliance.

Beyond that, I think it's the tool of last resort any time a pilot gets in over his head. The Cirrus is a very high-performance aircraft, and we all know what happens when you mix that with a pilot who can't stay proficient; think "fork-tailed doctor killer."

Yep, the Cirrus may someday earn that quote from Bonanza and very well said.

Stand by.......
 
Tim,
Not so sure about parachute vs ditching from a glide. The parachute 'system' uses the landing gear to cushion the landing. On water the gear goes straight into the water, and you hit hard. In the recent HI chute-into-water event, the pilot was okay. But in the 2005 NY area event, into water, the pilot suffered compressed and cracked vertibrae, and was able to evacuate before it sunk only with some difficulty.
 
This appears to be incorrect. Look up the midair collision in Boulder, CO, a few years ago, between a Cirrus and a towplane. The Cirrus descended under canopy, on fire, with no survivors. I saw the video.

Dave

Dave,
In that case the plane caught fire on impact and the rocket deployed uncommanded, either from the impact or the heat of the fire. The video is sad but fascinating. Interestingly, the chute remained intact all the way to the ground and lowered the plane im the proper attitude to a relatively soft landing. Investigators later calculated that the plane reached the ground quicker under the chute than it would have if the pilot had survived and attempted an emergency descent to landing. After that accident, COPA's parachute training included a mention that in case of an onboard fire, the chute may be the quickest way to the ground safely. (That is easier said than done. It would be agonizing to watch a fire grow while under a chute, but with 60-80 knots less airflow you would think the fire would grow more slowly.)
 
Tim,
Not so sure about parachute vs ditching from a glide. The parachute 'system' uses the landing gear to cushion the landing. On water the gear goes straight into the water, and you hit hard. In the recent HI chute-into-water event, the pilot was okay. But in the 2005 NY area event, into water, the pilot suffered compressed and cracked vertibrae, and was able to evacuate before it sunk only with some difficulty.

Richard McGlaughlin, a GI doc who runs a clinic in Haiti, hangared his Cirrus two doors down from my Cirrus in Birmingham. His chute pull over the Caribbean following an maintenance induced engine failure with his daughter on board was reported by national media. He doubts they would have survived a ditching unscathed for that very reason.
 
I was an early Cirrus owner - and the initial advice was mid-air, failure etc. pull the chute. In fact I think the first pull was after maintenance and the aileron was not fully attached.

What changed it for me was the death of an experienced Cirrus pilot, engine failure and seemingly straightforward dead stick landing - I think close to the runway. Sadly it did not work out. I like many pilots thought why would I pull the chute on a dead stick landing I had a practiced that a thousand times.

Another way of looking at the scenario everyone has walked from a chute deployment made within the parameters, but a small (probably unknown) percentage have not walked away from the list of events you noted as humorous advice to use the chute

So I see the chute as another option for the pilot - either trust the chute or your own skill. The current data supports the former but it doesn't stop the pilot making the choice.

Robert

Robert,
Manfred Stolle is the pilot you are thinking of. He was a generous and kind man who was very well known in the Cirrus community and participated in recurrent training including training in the parachute (there are demonstrators in which you can practice the pull). He crashed just short of the runway threshold after trying to stretch a glide. He survived the crash but died shortly thereafter from internal injuries.

We were all baffled by why he did not pull the chute. Perhaps it is because we train for deadstick landings so much. Training builds confidence and I am sure he had confidence in his skills. His accident brought home tous another reason to pull the chute despite our skills. He left behind a wife and young daughter.

My mindset about the chute was that the minute the engine failed or the plane was not acting right, I was making decisions about the insurance company's airplane, not mine. I have a wife and seven children. While I might have had confidence in my skills, I didn't think I could risk their future when I had a proven solution within arms reach.
 
I recall arguments against the adoption of seat belts, and later airbags, but they save lives. We still have motorcyclists who refuse helmets, despite all evidence to the contrary. I have a friend, a decorated Special Forces vet and second-tour Cobra pilot, who after retirement saved himself twice with whole-aircraft chutes. It would be silly to argue that his early adoption of chute systems says he was not brave, or a skilled airman.

Give it a chance.
 
I recall arguments against the adoption of seat belts, and later airbags, but they save lives. We still have motorcyclists who refuse helmets, despite all evidence to the contrary. I have a friend, a decorated Special Forces vet and second-tour Cobra pilot, who after retirement saved himself twice with whole-aircraft chutes. It would be silly to argue that his early adoption of chute systems says he was not brave, or a skilled airman.

Give it a chance.

Yup. Seems pretty easy to opine on the internet about how good pilots don't need a chute. But the accident reports are full of good pilots - many better than any of us will ever be. Things happen, and even the best of us make mistakes. What in the world is wrong with having one more tool in your toolbox, if you deem the tradeoffs worthwhile? If you think it makes pilots take unnecessary risks, that's still a decision making problem - not something you can blame on a piece of equipment.


Chris
 
Last edited:
curious

"...who after retirement saved himself twice with whole-aircraft chutes..."

Just curious, what situations prompted the deployment of the chutes?
 
"...who after retirement saved himself twice with whole-aircraft chutes..."

Just curious, what situations prompted the deployment of the chutes?

One control disconnect (broken component), one structural failure of a wing under high load.
 
I'll chime in again from the perspective of an owner of a different amateur-built aircraft type...

Glasair is offering a whole-airframe parachute for the Sportsman. I don't have many details however it is an available option. This might be part of Glasair's plan to certify the Sportsman (perhaps same reasoning as Cirrus).

The Sportsman would seem well-suited to a parachute since its 4130 steel tube "cage" provides excellent opportunities for transmitting the airframe loads to the 'chute risers.

I've flown a Cirrus simulator and pulled the 'chute. It was an interesting experience, to say the least. It takes a lot more to pull that handle than one would think - the handle is also connected to engine controls to ensure the engine is shut down as the 'chute is deployed.

From a personal perspective I can see the value of a whole-airframe parachute, especially as a person who enjoys flying at night, and who has a strong aversion to being upside down in water. Would I retrofit one? I'm not sure.
 
The Sportsman would seem well-suited to a parachute since its 4130 steel tube "cage" provides excellent opportunities for transmitting the airframe loads to the 'chute risers.
What just occurred to me reading this is that the structure of the passenger compartment is really all you care about... If any other structure is bent or broken because you pull the chute, who cares? You made the decision to write the airplane off before you pulled the handle. So beefing up a Sportsman or an RV-10 may only need localized reinforcement around the immediate cabin.

I admit, i'm not convinced about the necessity of a parachute. It still seems to me that most of the situations where the chute was used still boil down to "you shouldn't have been in that situation anyway" before the chute was pulled, and the times people have died without using it all get pointed at by people asking "why didn't they use the chute?" Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
 
the whole upside down after ditching thing

I've read the threads about James Bond's mini-SCUBA rescue devices, etc.

Wondering what it would take in terms of effort/cost/weight to put enough flotation in an RV to keep it afloat awhile, even upside down, to allow egress assuming occupants were uninjured and doors operating normally.

How many ping pong balls in the wings? How many inflated condoms? How much expanding foam? Seal the holes in the tailcone/wing bays enough to allow control movement and very slow ingress of water? Inflatable raft in the back to yank if you ditch but leave in place behind the baggage bulkhead?

It would be nice to know the actual liquid displacement of a flooded/submerged RV. All calcs would have to start from there.
 
I've read the threads about James Bond's mini-SCUBA rescue devices, etc.

Wondering what it would take in terms of effort/cost/weight to put enough flotation in an RV to keep it afloat awhile, even upside down, to allow egress assuming occupants were uninjured and doors operating normally.

How many ping pong balls in the wings? How many inflated condoms? How much expanding foam? Seal the holes in the tailcone/wing bays enough to allow control movement and very slow ingress of water? Inflatable raft in the back to yank if you ditch but leave in place behind the baggage bulkhead?

It would be nice to know the actual liquid displacement of a flooded/submerged RV. All calcs would have to start from there.


Maybe just assemble the whole airframe with Proseal, and install some additional solid bulkhead ribs to allow for watertight compartments?;)
 
I admit, i'm not convinced about the necessity of a parachute. It still seems to me that most of the situations where the chute was used still boil down to "you shouldn't have been in that situation anyway" before the chute was pulled, and the times people have died without using it all get pointed at by people asking "why didn't they use the chute?" Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

When it comes time to pull the chute, I don't think it matters whether or not you "should have been" in that situation. You can worry about that on the ground, alive. I can just about guarantee that all of us (even - or especially - those who profess superior piloting and decision making skills) have been in situations where, had things gone bad, people could say "he/she shouldn't have been in that situation". Fly long enough, and outside the pattern, and things happen, even to the best of us. Usually we luck out, but not always.

We can either recognize that we are fallible beings, and prepare for our own screw ups, or keep telling ourselves that we are the one pilot in the world who never makes a bad call.

Of course, we could always go the opposite route. An economist once suggested the best way to make cars safer would be to remove all protective devices and then put a big metal spike sticking out of the steering wheel. Imagine how safe we would all drive then! Maybe we can rig a self-destruct device that activates as soon as it detects low fuel, VFR into IMC, etc! :D

Chris
 
My uncle and his passenger are two of the saves included in the Cirrus statistics referenced above. In his case, he was in IMC, in the mountains, and encountered a wind sheer. Parachute activated and lowered the airplane into the treetops. They were both injured but only after trying to extricate themselves from the treetops where the airplane came to rest. I am certain they are still alive because of the parachute.

Incidentally, his aircraft was bought out by the insurance company. But it was salvaged and lived to fly another day. Just another point of view... your aircraft may be saved in addition to your life.
 
Updates on the BRS for the RV-10?

For those interested in installing a BRS chute in their RV10, I have some good news. Several builders, including myself, have signed purchase agreements which has gotten the design and engineering phase started. Should see the first kits by the first of the year or before. I'll send updates as the process progresses.

Bruce McGlamery
Winter Springs, FL

Any updates on the engineering progress? Will this require an aftermarket fuselage top to hide the cables?

Tim
 
BRS Update

Tim, Here is the current update. Send me your email address and I'll send you a copy of the install manual. That will answer all your questions.
[email protected]


The delay occur because we had a few problems with the prototype aircraft (but we already solve it), and the schedule of the BRS engineer (due to his work schedule, he couldn?t get here sooner).
But I?m happy to inform that the date for the Ground Extraction Test is defined and it will happen during the first week of April (3 to 5).

We received the GET kit and we are on the final preparation for do the test, and deliver the Parachute for the RV10.
I?m sending to you the Preliminary PIM ? Parachute Installation Manual. The final version will be far more complete, with a lot more photos and step-by-step detailed to ensure easy installation.

I will keep you informed during the execution of the GET (you can follow the live info that we will start to film on our Instagram profile: @brsparaquedas)
 
Cost$$$

The cost of maintaining the Cirrus BRS system is substantial. It's not something you install once and have at the ready for the lifetime of the airframe.

Eddy
 
Cost $$$

The latest (June) issue of kit planes has a article on installation in a 9a the price is not mentioned. The cost of repack on the chute every 6 years and the cost of rocket every 12 years is $1000 each. Not bad compared to the every 5 year AD on my Bonanza Harrtzell prop. Not sure this link will be available to everyone.

http://www.kitplanes.com/issues/35_...tom-BRS-Installation-in-an-RV-9A_22106-1.html

Just do not tell my wife I have already gone over budget on this project.
 
I just have a feeling

... this is not going to be drop-in compatible with the custom overhead console I put in :rolleyes:
 
Latest update

Haven?t heard much on this recently. Curious about results or status of anyone pursuing this. Thanks
 
Update: BRS is now shipping the RV10 install hardware. I received it last week with a PDF of the manual. The chute and rocket should be shipping in the next couple of weeks.


Bruce McGlamery
 
Not interested any more.

I was excited too until I saw some pictures of the installation. The chute fires horizontally from the fuselage just aft of the rear bulkhead. The straps are wrapped around the exterior of the aircraft with covers. I thought it was unattractive and looked like a lot of drag.
 
Back
Top