What's new
Van's Air Force

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

BRS Emergency parachute

Hal-san

Well Known Member
Patron
Have any of you RV builders put BRS chutes in your RVs? I wonder if it will be possible to put one in the 12 when it becomes available.
 
This subject touches a nerve with many pilots and I've seen heated discussions arise because of it. I believe the -12 should at least have a BRS as optional equipement. I brought up the subject of ballistic parachutes on another forum already so instead of formulating a new paragraph I'll just cut and paste if you guys dont mind....


"I first heard of the use of BRS several years ago but it was one of
my pilgramages to Mecca (Oshkosh) in 2003 that my wife and I watched
a demonstration film in the BRS tent that I decided to consider using
one on my homebuilt. Though I `considered' it, my wife decided in her
mind that `if' I was going to do something as `crazy' as build and
fly my own airplane that it would not leave the ground without a BRS
installed. So, in order to enjoy the rest of my (ok, our) stay at
Osh, I promised to install one on my homebuilt even though at the
time I wasn't convinced I really wanted the extra weight penalty.

Like I said, that was years ago. Any mention of installing a BRS on a
homebuilt back then was usually met with critisism's such as, `if you
plan on building a `real' airplane and not an Ultralight then you
obviously intend to be a `real' pilot so your not going to need
one'or `if you plan on crashing why are you building a plane?', ect,
ect. However nowadays BRS units are becoming commonplace and in fact
standard equipement on some aircraft. I think there is good reason
for this.

One of the past critisisms of having a ballistic parachute onboard
was that many felt (from what I had read on various Forums) that by
having a `quick way out' should a pilot `percieve' he/she is in dire
circumstances, that pilot would be more likely to just pull
the `panic' handle (to the BRS) as opposed to use the skill
they `should' have to fly and recover the aircraft. I agree with
this. I've read of BRS deployments occuring at the hands of novice or
paniced pilots that probably were not in actual non-recoverable
situations (and had that deployment chalked up as a `save'). And I
agree that having a ballistic recovery system at hand is absolutely
no excuse for good piloting skills. A BRS is simply a safety tool and
tools can fail. You cannot depend on anyone or anything else to get
you out of trouble. Your PIC and it's up to you to have the skills to
keep yourself (and others) out of trouble.

However, I also know s**t happens and that at least some of those
over 200 documented (I bring up `documented' because I wouldn't be
surprised if there were non-reported deployments in which a panicked
pilot was too embarrased to report their mistake) `saves' were indeed
legit and it only takes one, and only one, letigimate catastrophic
occurance to make you wish you had ignored the machismo in you long
enough to have installed a recovery system. I believe many pilots
that wear parachutes do so for the same letigimate reasons.

I know keeping your skills up and being the best pilot you
can `should' keep you out of trouble. You never stop learning nor
should you get to the point where you think you `know it all'. I'm
sure 99.9% of pilots will never find themselves in a catastrophic
situation in which a ballistic recovery system would have saved their
lives and therefore what are the chances any of us will ever need
such a device.

Unfortunately, some have found out too late and lost their lives for
it. One of those was known to be one of the best pilots in history, a
legend in aviation and a pilot possesing more skill and aeronautical
knowledge than anyone of us will ever have. Scott Crossfield's Cessna
had a catastrophic failure while attempting to circumvent inclimate
weather. The tail section departed the fuselage from 8,000ft. and
left one of the most skilled aviators in the world with no option but
to ride his wreck to his death. "It was an incongruous end for such
an accomplished aviator, a death akin to a NASCAR driver being killed
in a minivan on the way to the supermarket. This was a pilot who had
flown supersonic rocket planes, broke Mach 2 and helped design the X-
15, a rocket plane that touched the edge of space. He made the cover
of Life magazine in 1958 and was profiled in Tom Wolfe's
bestseller "The Right Stuff."

Unlike his many years as a record breaking test pilot where he had a
safety system on board supersonic aircraft that saved his life during
catastrophic events in the past, in his subsonic civilian
recreational aircraft he had no parachute or ejection seat to count
on. Had his aircraft been equiped with a ballistic recovery system
would he be alive? I don't know, but I'm certain what happened
without it.

Scott Crossfield's death is a rather `dramatic'example given who he
was but none the less, an aircraft had a catastrophic structural
failure and the pilot, without any other option, was killed.


What it comes down to is personal choice. I have no problem with
someone that disagree's with me on this, that's their own opinion and
I'm sure they have their own good reason for it. I figure out of the
$45,000 or so dollars I'm going to spend building my aircraft, $5,000
for a proven `last chance' safety device is worth it to me (and keeps
the wife off my back :)."




Mike
 
Yes you can put a BRS in an RV-12, BRS would be happy to give some help in that department and I suspect VAN's would give some pointers for the install as well. I have been a party to the design/install on a few new designs over the years it is time consuming but not difficult. Honestly, trying to make it "look good" is the single biggest problem. Weight penalty in this design is not a big issue. Having been an automotive technition for 2 decades i have seen my share of negative attitudes towards saftey devices, air bags, Antilock brakes, traction control, stability management, tire pressure monitoring systems, "On-Star", etc.... They would ask me to disable the systems because it hampered the saftey of the car. Then thier daughter or son would get into and accident and walk away with minor injuries and they would talk about how they chose that car because it was safe....

A BRS is no excuse for bad pilotage and it should never be used unless the aircraft is not controlable, EVER. But like and Airbag, it will save more than it kills. Make your wife happy. If you need help installing it, call me. Be glad to help. I will be putting one in mine, because my wife will be flying it by herself. Also why my wife has a car with all the "evil technology".

Thier are old pilots and bold pilots, but NO old bold pilots....
 
The BRS is standard in the CT. It's nice to know it's there, but the rule of thumb is that you pull the BRS only if you think your chances of making a survivable landing are poor. And once you pull it, the airplane belongs to the insurance company.

TODR
 
I have heard the debate pro and con for the BRS.

A pilot may push the envelope a bit more knowing he has a 'get outta death card' to play. I guess if I thought it was that big a deal I would be wearing a chute on all my flights......hmmmm maybe not so bad a idea??
 
Good luck with installing a BRS in your aircraft. By all means, please post pictures on your solution.

For most installations, including the Cirrus, there is a minimum deployment speed for the BRS systems. Check this site for some numbers.

Should you have a structural failure, such as Scott Crossfield did, the aircraft would accelerate so fast that deploying the BRS may not save your life. It is also very possible that the quick onset of high G forces after losing a wing may inhibit one's ability to reach up and activate a BRS. (However, it would be nice to have that option in such a situation.)

There have been three fatal Cirrus accidents in the Charlotte area over the past few years. All have been on approach, two in IFR conditions and one landing in very windy conditions. None of these accidents involved the deployment of the BRS systems.

What I'm trying to point out is that if a BRS system makes you and your family feel more comfortable flying, then by all means install one. However, please keep current and manage the risks of flying as though you didn't a "magic out".
 
oh, dear...

Moderators, perhaps we could move this thread to the "Never ending debates" section?

Regards,
Martin
 
Moderators, perhaps we could move this thread to the "Never ending debates" section?

Odd request - there appears to be no debate here. The original question was about whether anyone had considered putting a BRS on an RV-12 (I have considered the possibility too). None of the posters is explicitly arguing against installing one - and several have given relevant information to installation questions. So it seems premature to categorize this thread as containing any sort of serious debate.

Speaking of specific issues with respect to the 12: one "obvious" place is somewhere in the baggage area, but of course that is where the fuel tank is. I'd want to be sure that any rocket exhaust doesn't ignite any possibly leaked avgas (as say after a midair where some damage might take place - on the other hand, if a collision has caused the tank to spring a leak in that area there may not be any survivors anyway.)
 
For most installations, including the Cirrus, there is a minimum deployment speed for the BRS systems. Check this site for some numbers.

Should you have a structural failure, such as Scott Crossfield did, the aircraft would accelerate so fast that deploying the BRS may not save your life. It is also very possible that the quick onset of high G forces after losing a wing may inhibit one's ability to reach up and activate a BRS. (However, it would be nice to have that option in such a situation.)
I think you mean maximum deployment speed? The Cirrus' max BRS deployment speed is rather low in relation to its structural cruise speed. On LSA, it's not such an issue, since the max deployment speed is normally well above the max cruise speed.

However, for "traditional" RVs, you'll normally be cruising well above the max BRS speed. This doesn't mean that the BRS won't work if you deploy it at above the max recommended speed, but it might not work. For example, BRS save #100 was a CT undergoing flight test. He overstressed the airplane and the wings came off about 9g (right where they were supposed to) and the pilot pulled the BRS at 160+ kt and lived to tell about it.

As lots of people have said, BRS might save you, but don't count on it. Use it only when you have exceeded the limits of your piloting or decision making skill, or when the airplane has gone wrong somehow.

TODR
 
Odd request - there appears to be no debate here. The original question was about whether anyone had considered putting a BRS on an RV-12 (I have considered the possibility too). None of the posters is explicitly arguing against installing one - and several have given relevant information to installation questions. So it seems premature to categorize this thread as containing any sort of serious debate.


Agreed. Those of you with better flying credentials than Scott Crossfield and against a safety device such as the Ballistic Parachute please chime in, I'd like to hear your expertise as to how YOU would have safely landed Mr. Crossfields desintergrating aircraft. I think even Mr. Crossfield would have appreciated having the option of launching that 'chute rather than the certainty of augering in.


Mike
 
Last edited:
Mike,

It's not necessarily about flying credentials, but about the acceptable level of risk. What's acceptable to one person is not to another. Risk of airframe failure, whilst not a zero probability, is pretty low down in the scheme of things, especially compared to the myriad of other potential ways of killing oneself (and others) with an aircraft.

If ESP, ABS, airbags etc were the panacea to road safety, we would see startling reductions in RTA fatalities by now. In reality, in most places the statistics are only slowly improving (and in some cases going backwards) suggesting it is more about driver attitude to risk than having the tools to deal with the consequences. I suspect that it would be a similar situation in aviation if there were enough statistics to meaningfully tell the story.

By all means choose whatever safety devices you wish to have, but there's no need to foist them on everyone, nor deride those who chose to compromise differently.

A
 
I disagree.

I've spent the last 25yrs as a Paramedic and Firefighter and have seen first hand the advantages bestowed apon those unfortunate enough to be involved in the carnage of a severe vehicular accident. Before airbags and crush zones body removal was the alternative to those now surviving the destruction of what they considered the relative safety of the metal cage around them. Nobody thinks a brush with death awaits them whether pulling out of their driveway or taxiing from their hanger.

Safety devices do not discriminate. They do not not care if your the best driver in the world or the best pilot. They are there because they have been PROVEN to save your life when not having them has proven to be fatal in the same set of circumstances. To think your better than that is foolish. Just ask the thousands of vehicular crash survivors or the over 200 documented aircraft survivors that have deployed their BRS. Do you think any of those folks would be willing to drive or fly again without those same devices installed and ready to save their unlucky souls once again?

Ofcourse a Ballistic Parachute is no substitute for good airmanship, nor is an automotive airbag and seat belts a substitute for good driving skills, but accidents happen. Whether a drunk driver t-bones you in an intersection or your wings come off in turbulance, at that point in time it's not up to you anymore but instead only about what measures have been taken before hand to prevent you and your loved ones from being killed in the event at hand.

Just as automotive safety belts have long ago found their way into saving lives in the cockpit, eventually airbags and ballistic parachutes will be just as common. Why? Because they have been proven to work despite how good a driver or pilot you think you are.
 
Risk Management

Mike, I agree with you on the huge reduction in traffic injuries and fatalities that I have witnessed in 25 years of running traffic accidents in the fire service. Friday nights on our local stretch of highway used to always mean blood and broken glass - now we roll up and the two parties involved are standing outside their wrecked vehicles (airbags deployed) fighting over who was at fault - a silly but safer scenario.

However....just because a safety device is possible or available, that doesn't ALWAYS mean that it MUST be adopted. The BRS isn't a panacea - many Cirrus fatal Cirusses crashes have pr oven that. Any system that adds weight to an aircraft will exact a subsequent performance "charge", and needs to be looked at as a risk versus gain trade. If you actually look at accident statistics, you'll find that most fatal GA experimental accidents occur in regimes where the BRS simply doesn't apply - take-off and landing, or in the pattern. Very few are due to inflight break-up.

You can target any particular risk with a custom-designed solution, and see a huge reduction in risk in that area, but then you need to look at th big picture and see what you have gained. Spending the time building a reliable fuel and engine system, and then making sure that your pilot is well trained, sharp, and has good judgment will eliminate far more risks than those which can be solved with a BRS. (More Line of Duty firefighter fatalities can be eliminated by good driver training and better fitness standards than by all the interior attack and RIT training ever done....look at the statistics.)

This is NOT, in any way, written to denigrate someone's personal choice of BRS, and I think that anyone that wants one should go ahead and push the technology. But I generally disagree that simply because a safety device exists, it must be incorporated in any every aircraft - after all, the safest aircraft is one that never leaves the hangar. But that is not what planes are for.....

Paul
 
I'd like to have one for mountainous terrain

Assuming responsible maintenance practices and power management, an engine-out is not controllable, predictable, or preventable. Yes I would fly differently if I had one. I would fly over the rockies at night to visit my daughter and her family. I'd do the same in a twin. Gives an option besides dying in the very unlikely event of an engine out.
It would not change the weather I fly in, the amount of fuel I carry, fly aerobatics in a non-aerobatic airplane, etc.
 
:D
Assuming responsible maintenance practices and power management, an engine-out is not controllable, predictable, or preventable. Yes I would fly differently if I had one. I would fly over the rockies at night to visit my daughter and her family. I'd do the same in a twin. Gives an option besides dying in the very unlikely event of an engine out.
It would not change the weather I fly in, the amount of fuel I carry, fly aerobatics in a non-aerobatic airplane, etc.

I like those mountains too! There's a lot of mountain country out there, that's incredibly scenic; but an engine problem IS a major risk, that's always on the mind. For instance, northern Idaho in the winter is worth the flight ( to me, anyway); but the chances of setting down, when you can't see the numerous airstrips under the snow, is rather nill. The terrain is also very rough!

While I think the risk is worth it, many airline pilots that I know, are no longer willing to take that additional risk. Perhaps they've just become a lot smarter than me :); and I'm sure they have; but I also think they've become accustomed to aircraft with a lot more redundancy. A built in chute is just another form of redundancy, such as a good second turbine that most commercial airplanes have. :D

L.Adamson
 
lies, damned lies and statistics

Mike,

I don't disagree with your anecdotal evidence regarding road traffic accidents, however NHTSA statistics show a 2% p.a. reduction in road fatalities on a distance travelled basis and a similarly small reduction on other bases.

My point is not to argue statistics except to say that if technological solutions to dealing with the consequences of accidents were as effective as they are claimed to be, you would expect to see significant reductions in road fatalities. The problem is that these technological solutions only deal with a limited range within the whole spectrum of accident scenarios.

Carrying a BRS exacts its price in weight, cost, and complexity (and the potential for things to go wrong too!). Some choose to accept this compromise, others not.

Some choose to fly in light aircraft, some don't. Some choose to ride motorcycles, many do not. Some choose to mess with nasty chemicals in their garage... Some choose to go skydiving etc. etc...

A
 
Twin engines and BRS analogy

Since twin engine planes and motorcycles have been mentioned, that brought to mind something I read in the book ""Free Flight" by James Fallows, in the chapter that discusses the origins of the Cirrus SR20:

"...but the only aspect of the plane's design to provoke open hostility was the inclusion of a parachute. The reaction was like that of motorcyclists told for the first time that they had to wear helmets. There was one rational level of objection - that the parachute and rocket added eighty pounds to the weight of the plane, or nearly 10 percent of its entire useful load. Alan Klapmeier liked to ask, in response, how much the second engine in a twin-engine plane weighed. The answer was many hundreds of pounds, but many people found this a perfectly reasonable investment in safety and reliability - even though running a second engine nearly doubled the plane's overall operating and maintenance costs. Why all the fuss about eighty pounds?"

(The install weight for an entire BRS system for an RV-12 is probably under 35 lbs and cost under US$4500: http://www.brsparachutes.com/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=84 )
 
I'm sure it's better than nothing, but coming down onto the rockies at night under that BRS seems like a pretty grim proposition to me. :(

Actually that scenario has already happened. Here is an article with some photos of a Cirrus that descended under a BRS over the Rockies in British Columbia - at night too(!):

http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?section_id=13&article_id=507&print_page=y

Close call!

This article makes an attempt to determine to what extent, if any, a BRS might improve your odds of surviving an otherwise fatal crash (about 20% improvement, by his reckoning and attempting to estimate failures to deploy):

http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?section_id=13&article_id=510&page_number=1

(Hopefully those two links work!)
 
I'm sure it's better than nothing, but coming down onto the rockies at night under that BRS seems like a pretty grim proposition to me. :(
Coming down onto the rockies at night without a BRS or engine seems even more grim to me. The Cirrus that went down landed on about a 20-30 deg slope. I'd rather hit it coming straight down at 500 fpm and 0 forward velocity than 60 kt forward velocity and 500+fpm.
11242004134222.jpg


It's been said many, many times: a BRS will not necessarily save you from a bad decision. It just gives you one more option if you have a problem.

TODR
 
This is exactly my point. It was suggested that single-engine mountain flying at night is too dangerous, but that the risk becomes tolerable with a BRS. In other words, a pilot is emboldened by the BRS to take risks he wouldn't/shouldn't take otherwise. I think this is exactly the argument that many have against such a device.

I have no strong opinion either way, but I'd love to see a complete rundown of every single time one has been deployed. I suspect that there have been at least a few cases where deployment was the wrong decision and led to a "non-save".
 
This is exactly my point. It was suggested that single-engine mountain flying at night is too dangerous, but that the risk becomes tolerable with a BRS. In other words, a pilot is emboldened by the BRS to take risks he wouldn't/shouldn't take otherwise. I think this is exactly the argument that many have against such a device.
I understand what you're saying, but let me clarify what I was trying to say: BRS is one way of improving the outcome of a flight when we have upstream failures, i.e., it can give us an alternate outcome if we have a failure. However, it is not a guaranteed good outcome, just an alternate outcome.

Do pilots act differently if they have a BRS onboard? I don't know; perhaps. But not installing one for that reason makes little sense to me. We might as well then leave out all gyros unless the pilot and airplane are rated for IFR since they might be tempted to press on VFR in deteriorating conditions because they have gyros. How could that possibly improve safety? Perhaps the argument about new technology allowing more risk was used when seat belts were installed in cars too.

The PIC should evaluate the risk associated with each flight. In CAP, we used to complete a worksheet that numerically assessed risk based on individual factors, e.g., PIC total time, time in type, currency, crew ratings, aircraft equipment, weather, etc. If the total score was above a certain amount or there were any "No-Go" items, you scrubbed the flight.

A BRS is not a substitute for weighing the risks of any individual flight. It does not improve the odds of a successful flight, i.e., one where the airplane and occupants are delivered safely without damage. It's more like a dual battery or alternator setup - if things go wrong, it can stop the chain of failures or provide a more predictable failure mode to improve the outcome.

I fully reject the idea that a builder shouldn't install a BRS solely because it might lead him to undertake some risky flights. Our could say the same about building an aerobatic airplane, flying single engine IFR, flying out of a non-towered field, etc. Heck, one could make the case that one should never fly at all. Let's focus on the pilot and their decision making.

Instead, the decision about installing a BRS should be about the failure frequency of the airplane and its systems, where you will be flying and other risk factors, as well as design considerations (e.g., weight, max deployment speed compared to the flight envelope, etc).

TODR
 
Not too dangerous

This is exactly my point. It was suggested that single-engine mountain flying at night is too dangerous, but that the risk becomes tolerable with a BRS. In other words, a pilot is emboldened by the BRS to take risks he wouldn't/shouldn't take otherwise. I think this is exactly the argument that many have against such a device.

I have no strong opinion either way, but I'd love to see a complete rundown of every single time one has been deployed. I suspect that there have been at least a few cases where deployment was the wrong decision and led to a "non-save".

Steve

Single engine mountain flying is not "too" dangerous. It is more dangerous.
I will fly over the rockies during the day, but my choice is not to at night. That doesn't mean it is "too" dangerous to do it at night, only that I draw the line at that particular point. Others may draw the line completely differently.
If I did fly over the rockies at night, and if I did loose the motor and die, the mishap would not be concluded as pilot error. It would be mechanical failure. That is an important distinction that is much different from a VFR into unintentional IFR, running out of fuel, etc.
What I am saying, true only for me and my personal limits, is that having a chute would tip the balance in terms of survivability so that I would be willing to cross the rockies at night. I break it down like this:
-I have around 1200 hours and haven't had a motor quit yet. some of those were rentals which were not exactly maintained to the highest standards. My conclusion is that motor stoppages don't happen often.
-I maintain my airplane properly so there is a low probability my engine will quit in flight - ever
-At 17,500 feet, the power output of the engine is very low, reducing even further the likelihood of failure
-A likely scenario is that the last hour of the 6 hour trip would be flown at night. 1/6 of the time, 1/6 of the risk for that trip
-Of that one hour, brief periods of time would be over terrain not survivable with the chute, lets say 10 minutes.

So, with the chute, the motor would need to fail during those 10 minutes of the 360 minute trip. Or, another way of looking at it, precisely during those 10 minutes of the total 72,000 minutes I have flown so far. It is possible, but does not seem probable.

The risk is extremely low without the chute. More important, doing it with the chute is not taking a risk that I "wouldn't/shouldn't". With the chute, it is not the same risk. The chute modifies the risk.

Again, it is very analogous in some ways to twin engine flight. There are plenty of single engine (in twin aircraft) situations that are not survivable, but having that second engine modifies the risk so that some activities considered unacceptable for single engine, are considered acceptable for multi engine.
 
Why not just strap on a parachute for the night xings over the mountains. I am thinking a parachute would be even more of a safety device than the BRS in the event of a onboard fire.
Leave the parachute at home for the 'more' safe flights and save the couple pounds of useful load.

I am not sure how my wife would react to me being 'chuted up' .....and her not..
 
Referring to the original question...

Could a BRS be put on a -12 due to regs if Van didn't do it first?

Thanks, Joe
 
I'm wondering when the FAA will make them mandatory with automatic deployment criteria and simultaneous ELT start.
Oh, and Airbags in the cockpit too.:confused:
 
Does anyone know of a source for data on ALL deployments? I'm sure that manufacturers only report the times when things work out. I'm picturing situations where the chute gets deployed due to engine out. So, instead of dead-sticking onto a golf course, I float down into the path a freight train or into a volcano or some other undesireable situation. :eek:
 
R & D for heavy metal ...

The TV news reported a few months ago that the major airplane manufactures were looking into having the BRS (or something similar and many times larger and stronger, I'm certain) aboard future passenger airlines. It doesn't make sense to me.

I'm sure the captain of that Boeing 767 that took me and my family on our last flight would have probably cast his fate to the wind and just passed on the preflight, fuel check and weather briefing because he knew, in the back of his mind ... his Boeing was equipped with chutes. That only makes sense to me.

Why would Lockheed and Boeing even consider the BRS in their future ... they already have a seat cushion that is also a flotation device (and you can inflate it with you own breath if it fails to inflate after pulling the chord), they already have lights on the floor that come on to direct you to the nearest exit, they have seat belts, oxygen masks, knowledgeable, trained experienced passengers willing and able to open emergency exits if necessary and airsick bags near every seat. I think they have every possible contingency covered. Why spend money on R&D for the BRS?... ticket prices are high enough already. ;) :rolleyes: ;)

(I don't really think any of us will ever fly on a large passenger plane equipped with this technology ... but our grandchildren will!)
 
I sincerely think we'll eventually see unpiloted passenger aircraft. When that happens I'll be the guy wearing a chute sitting by the emergency exit.
 
I sincerely think we'll eventually see unpiloted passenger aircraft. When that happens I'll be the guy wearing a chute sitting by the emergency exit.
I was getting off a Dash-8-400 at SEA recently in the Horizon "bullpen". On my way into the terminal, I passed a guy who had what looked like a softie parachute slung over his shoulder like a backpack. It took me a sec to realize what it was and by that time, he was gone. D.B. Cooper lives?

TODR
 
Behold the debate

Odd request - there appears to be no debate here.

Jim, do you still feel that way? When it comes to my RV brethren, my crystal ball is pretty reliable :)

The original poster asked "how do I...?" and it quickly turned into a debate on "Ought you...?" This happens often on VAF, and is part of the fun.

I suggested the moderators move it to the "Never Ending Debates" section so that we keep the exchange rolling, but make it easy to tell what's where.

And here are my two cents:

Just make sure that you prime everything in three coats of two-part epoxy primer to keep the wreckage from corroding
...when your Subaru engine quits
...and your nosegear collapses in the ensuing off-airport landing
...that you chose to attempt rather than deploy your chute
...because it was IMC and you're not current in instrument parachute approaches since IMC in singles is invariably fatal
...and your wreckage will be there a looong time because you installed the ELT antenna inside the glove compartment for less drag
...and your corpse will be there forever too because your tipover canopy couldn't be opened inverted.

Did I get them all? :)
 
I wrote:
Odd request - there appears to be no debate here.

Jim, do you still feel that way? When it comes to my RV brethren, my crystal ball is pretty reliable :)

The original poster asked "how do I...?" and it quickly turned into a debate on "Ought you...?" This happens often on VAF, and is part of the fun.

Hey - my post was accurate at the time it was made! :D

Seriously though, if Van's sold preview plans for the RV-12 (doesn't, and may never - doesn't appear to sell preview plans for the RV-10 either) it might be possible to actually take an initial stab at answering the "how to" part. One could try to figure out chute placement, bridle runs, hard mount points for the lines, and such.
 
Seriously though, if Van's sold preview plans for the RV-12 (doesn't, and may never - doesn't appear to sell preview plans for the RV-10 either) it might be possible to actually take an initial stab at answering the "how to" part. One could try to figure out chute placement, bridle runs, hard mount points for the lines, and such.

True. It's actually non-trivial to calculate the loads that a chute imposes on the airplane when it opens. My coworkers and I had to do it for a few UAVs, and there's more to it than we at first thought.

I'm sure companies that specialize in recovery chutes know how to do it. If I were installing such a chute, I'd leave the design of the installation to the experts.

Cheers,
Martin
 
Everyone is missing the point about BRS chutes including Van's

All the posts concerning installing BRS chutes in Van's aircraft are very informative and thought out but seem to address only mainly the pilot's point of view. Yes, the pilots who fly the Van's line of aircraft know they are the best designed and safest line of homebuilt aircraft available. However, there is a reason that Cirrus and Flight Design are the top selling aircraft in their categories. Girlfriends and Wives influence almost every decision about an aircraft purchase. Their feelings are important and should be thought of when buying an aircraft and asking them to fly with us. We as pilots know that our skills are adequate in most cases to handle an emergency but the psychological value of a BRS chute to a passenger is very significant. For this reason alone, Van's should do the design work necessary for the builders to be able to place a BRS chute in every model of their aircraft.
As an added note, I experienced an engine failure on takeoff in my 172 when approximately 700 feet above the ground several years ago. I was by myself, had partial fuel and STOL kit on wings. With a passenger I wouldn't have even considered turning around and would have landed straight ahead. However, I was able to turn and land back on the runway. The interesting question is what would I have done if a chute was available. The honest answer is, I do not know.
The main reason I personally want a chute available for the rv-12 is for night flying. I don't worry about engine failures during the daytime as I reason that you can set an rv-12 down just about anywhere if you keep flying
it all the way to landing. Night is a whole different animal. The main reason, as stated above is for the benefit of my passengers.
 
...
The main reason I personally want a chute available for the rv-12 is for night flying. I don't worry about engine failures during the daytime as I reason that you can set an rv-12 down just about anywhere if you keep flying
it all the way to landing. Night is a whole different animal. The main reason, as stated above is for the benefit of my passengers.

Since the RV-12's target market is Sport Pilots who cannot fly at night, it is really unlikely Van's will ever add a BRS.
 
I was talking with an A&P/IA the other day who worked for Cirrus a few years ago. He was telling me about an accidental deployment that occurred to a hangered aircraft.

An A&P was working on the plane and accidentally deployed the chute - it went right through the roof of the hanger :eek: The plane was destroyed and they were just lucky that no one was injured.

So a BRS chute may give some people peace of mind but I would rather not have potentially deadly ballastic device sitting behind me. Not to mention that if it's installed in an RV, it's more likely that it will be serviced by someone that knows nothing about the system at some point.
 
BRS for RV9A

I have put a BRS in my RV9A and had no problem for installing it. But due to the parachute belt cover interference against the canopy rail, I can't use my canopy locker. Did anybody experienced a similar situation and can share the solution? Thanks!
 
I prefer the other one, found on the same page list. The one where the wing seperates & the BRS does what it's intended for..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgfG2DfPB6I&feature=related
The parachute does an awesome job until the plane is on the ground. Then, while the pilot is trying to get out, the chute drags the airplane all over the place... And something happens that starts a fire?

Is there no way to "cut away" the BRS once you're on the ground?
 
If you have installed a BRS in your 9A, I would love to see photos and learn more. Thanks


I have put a BRS in my RV9A and had no problem for installing it. But due to the parachute belt cover interference against the canopy rail, I can't use my canopy locker. Did anybody experienced a similar situation and can share the solution? Thanks!
 
Rob,

I had a BRS on n Aventura HP. The typical scenario for use was a midair or loss of control which probably would not involve a fire. The situation you describe might be possible, but the chute definitely solves more problems than it might create.

If you do want a cut away system it would probably have to be a mechanical latch at the bridle attachment point because the Kevlar tether is one tough rope! The riser lines are all in the chute pack, so I don't see any practical way to add a cut away there unless BRS designs it in.

Rich
 
Possible Alternative Aircraft Recovery System

I believe that Second Chantz may be in the process of developing and qualifying an aircraft recovery system in the RV-12 weight and airspeed class.

They have a lot of experience in this area and use an alternative to the pyrotechnic drogue deployment system used in the BRS installation.

Good guys with a lot of saves in the hang glider, parasail, and ultralight world.

http://www.secondchantz.com/


Looks like the Sling design uses a system from Magnum in the Czech Republic and supplied and supported by Bostik Industries, LLC, Melbourne, FL. Uses a pyrotechnic rocket motor to deploy the canopy. Probably pretty good. I am not a fan of pyros in small non-military aircraft unless absolutely necessary.

http://www.magnumparachutes.com/products.htm

Might be worth a look if you are considering a airframe recovery system.

larosta
 
Last edited:
Sling???

Suggest that if you really have to have a BRS in your RV-12 that you have a serious look at a SLING-2. It is an LSA and a quite capable aircraft - available in both kit and as a SLSA. It is designed for the BRS and comes standard with one I think. It is a quite capable airplane. Check it out.:cool:
 
I would think the fuel tank location would be problematic in the RV-12 because you either have the rocket exhaust in close vicinity to the fuel tank (if mounted in the baggage area) or lanyards which could rupture the tank when tensioned (if the BRS is mounted behind the baggage bulkhead and anchored to the spars).

With regard to the arguments about G-forces my feeling is it's better to have an option you may not be able to exercise than to have no option.
 
Back
Top