What's new
Van's Air Force

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

BRS - Why?

Why do you want a BRS?

  • Requirement/request from a spouse?

    Votes: 1 3.2%
  • Fear of structural failure?

    Votes: 7 22.6%
  • Fear of control system failure?

    Votes: 4 12.9%
  • Fear of IFR loss of control?

    Votes: 1 3.2%
  • Fear of engine failure over inhospitable terrain?

    Votes: 13 41.9%
  • Other?

    Votes: 5 16.1%

  • Total voters
    31
  • Poll closed .

N941WR

Legacy Member
Recently there have been a few threads regarding installing a Ballistic Recovery System (BRS) in various RV's.

I realize that each person as a risk tolerance but I'm curious what is driving this need.

My question is why would you want one? Wouldn't wearing a parachute be a better option?

My biggest fear is an inflight fire and a BRS will not help with that. Yet, I do not fly with a parachute and have only done so during my first 10 hours.
 
Not

Bill,

Why don't you start another poll: Why do you NOT want a BRS in your RV?

1. Too heavy.
2. Too costly.
3. Too hard to install.
4. Afraid of inadvertent activation.
5. Trust myself to find a good emergency landing spot rather than trust that a BRS will somehow find a better one.
6. Believe that anyone who puts their trust in a BRS has no business piloting an airplane on the first place.
7. Believe that if God wanted us to fly he would have given us wings. Since he didn't give us wings why on Earth would he want us to have a BRS?

(Multiple answers authorized/encouraged.)
 
Bill,
Why don't you start another poll: Why do you NOT want a BRS in your RV?

Totally agree! I'd another option to your list as well:

8. The RV installation has never been tested on a real airframe, unlike the Cirrus et al. installations.
 
Totally agree! I'd another option to your list as well:

8. The RV installation has never been tested on a real airframe, unlike the Cirrus et al. installations.

Ever checked with BRS to see if an RV system would actually be delivered before testing?
 
Ever checked with BRS to see if an RV system would actually be delivered before testing?

Yep. There was a -7A with it installed at Osh, in fact, but at that time BRS had not actually tested the deployment. In all fairness, perhaps they have done so since that time.
 
Other thoughts:
Tip-up canopy would be quite a problem with a personal parachute unless it could be jettisoned. RV-12s can't be jettisoned.

Don't like the idea of a solid fuel rocket sitting behind me. (Or an alternative I am hearing about involving a compressed air tank. Didja see Jaws?)

Would be much more interested if I was flying a 2-stroke...but I'm not.

If you take away TWO THINGS, flying is safer than driving. Those 2 things are running out of fuel, and flying into weather you are not equipped or skilled for. The parachute doesn't mitigate the fuel issue, the object is - don't run out. There are ways cheaper than a $10,000 chute if you really have a problem with running out of fuel... Weather? Avoid - I have ADSB. Many options there. Next? Autopilot, with a wings-level, do a 180 button. Got that (plus an instrument rating.) Again, the chute doesn't address that. Strong 5-point harness addresses the lack of air bags in the plane. But those belt-type ones could be added. Instrument panel padding seems like an improvement - we are like a 1950s car in that regard! So many hazards are more likely and are not addressed by a chute.

Best scenario for a full-plane chute in an RV? Maybe an incapacitating bird strike? But if you are worried about those, maybe wearing a helmet is a better mitigation? (If you are knocked out, you likely can't pull the chute handle.)
 
Structural Failure?

Right now, there are six responses with the leading concern at three, or 50%, being "Fear of Structural Failure."

Granted, six is not sufficient for a meaningful poll.

But, really, are there folks genuinely worried about the structural failure of an airplane that either 1) you built yourself or 2) you inspected before you bought it?

In addition, YOU are the one who will control the loading on the aircraft's structure, not someone else. Except for clear air turbulence and maybe a few other causes, things like aerobatics and thunderstorms can be mitigated by precise aircraft control and by good weather judgment.

Really, you guys are worried about structural failure of an RV?

I'm sorry, I find that hard to understand. :confused:

As for me, I plan to mitigate the risks of flying the world's most popular homebuilt aluminum airplane in ways other than using a BRS chute. (Almost every time I think of a BRS chute, I think of Wile E. Coyote under a chute with no control on where he will land. Ker-Plop! I'd probably land right in the middle of a 100 acre lake!)
 
I've seen too many mid-air collisions and known the victims not to feel that something like this, if well-designed and tested, would be beneficial.

As for the structural capability of an RV, well, I'm building an RV-3B, and it'll have the capability of cruising faster than its redline speed. Add some turbulence and the possibilities of breaking something are worrying. Frankly, I think the chances of a structural failure of one type or another are significantly higher than in my Cessna 180.

No, I won't be installing a BRS - but I sure understand why someone might.

Dave
 
The other plausible reason would be for pilot incapacitation. But even with BRS, I think it would still be a **** shoot for everyone getting down safely.

I agree with most of the other responses in that the cost, value, and risk mitigation for me doesn't make sense.

bob
 
Not For My RV!!!!!

.... I have owned two ultralight aircraft with these and decided to remove them on both aircraft. They are heavy, expensive and in my opinion they don't offer up the security that is claimed. I lost two friends where they deployed the chute and it still failed to save them. These company's tout that these saved lives and can point to a few examples and claims. The thing they will not even talk about is how many people were killed from accidental deployment or deployment when not needed or appropriate. The fact is, once you trigger it you are no longer in control of anything and may get lowered into a situation, thing or place that could present a new set of problems if the deployment is successful. If the deployment is unsuccessful you will most likely die for sure. None of this statistical information is made available for one to make an informed decision. The other issue of giving up the baggage space and carrying another 50 or so pounds around forever, I am not a fan of as well. I think in the case of the RV at least, If I were that paranoid I would take up a different hobby or pastime that didn't require a parachute. Allan ...;)
 
I have had 2 engine failures, one on takeoff at 1500 ft in IFR conditions. I walked away from both. My recommendation is learn to fly your airplane. No, seriously, learn to fly! REALLY, LEARN TO FLY!
 
(Almost every time I think of a BRS chute, I think of Wile E. Coyote under a chute with no control on where he will land. Ker-Plop! I'd probably land right in the middle of a 100 acre lake!)
While it is true you won't have control over where you will land, at least you will survive the impact. Sure it might bend or break parts of the aeroplane, but you would walk away from it.

As for the structural capability of an RV, well, I'm building an RV-3B, and it'll have the capability of cruising faster than its redline speed. Add some turbulence and the possibilities of breaking something are worrying. Frankly, I think the chances of a structural failure of one type or another are significantly higher than in my Cessna 180.
Well they are if you insist on cruising above Vne in rough air. If you stick to the published numbers, I would put my money in an RV-3B I'd built over most any production aircraft.

If there was a practical, tested BRS suitable for a -9, I would give serious consideration to installing one.
 
I don't think that a BRS landing in some of the terrain I fly over (Rocky mountains) would necesarily guaranty a good outcome. It may but may not. Alternatively, a forced landing in some of these areas may not go well either, but when you factor in the weight, cost, rockets onboard etc., I see diminishing returns with the BRS. Maybe the aircraft under a deployed BRS canopy would give you a stable platform to get out with your "personal" emergency chute. The weight is a significant portion of the baggage capacity.

Bevan
 
Why;
Passenger reassurance.
May be useful in Mid Air Collision
If I start to pass out for some reason or become to ill to continue to fly (passenger could deploy the chute)
It may limit structural damage to my plane on impact besides saving me.

Why not;
44.48 lbs behind baggage compartment in my already tail heavy RV7
10,849 dollars plus installation and maintenance
The temptation to pull the chute at low altitudes rather than flying the plane to the ground (Most fatalities in RVs occur when it is stalled to close to the ground for various reasons. I could not conclude the exact altitude the BRS would save me or my plane.)
Always wondering if the chute would open and not get tangled up.
Ugly installation


I have a ballistic chute in a KOLB MKII that I did not build. It has given me some peace of mind as far as structural failures but I would never pull the handle for anything else other than an absolutley no hope situation.

I breifly considered the BRS for the 7 I'm building but decided against it.
 
I've seen too many mid-air collisions...

Dave

Where are you flying that this is a reoccurring situation!?

23 years flying and I've never actually seen a mid air. I've read probably 1 and sometimes 2 reports in a given year. Normally on short final involving high wing low wing blind spots. The chute would not have helped any of these situations do to altitude.

I say let every person spend their cash how they see fit. I've just heard to many cirrus drivers on my field comment about the ballistic chute if they get themselves into trouble. Chutes don't make up for lack of training or CURRENCY (I don't believe this was the Quoted posters belief either).

It's been a long time since I was an instructor. The FAA had switched to spin awareness instead of spin training. My students would spin and recover or they would find another instructor. Every single one of them said, "that wasn't so bad". No more fear of the unknown. (Now I'm just rambling) <sorry>
 
OK, here's some fuel for the fire. I picked structural failure (yep, Don - it's my greatest concern - believe it). After ~1650 hrs in RVs over 13+ yrs, my most significant fear is loss of control due to broken airplane. Be it formation mishap, Brown pelican coming through any part of my plane at 150 kts, a passenger doing something stupid (like breaking a wing off), or that unknown-unknown that prevents me from using my capable piloting skills to get the plane to the ground.

Further, I believe this choice serves to validate the fact that I am very confident in my piloting abilities and in the capabilities & reliability of the RV series of airplanes.

Would I install one?? If it had a greater than 95% chance of working, weighed 10-lbs or less (I can slim down that much to offset), and had no negative impact to speed (drag, etc.) and cost <$2,000. I think we may well see one like this in the next 10-20 yrs - *IF* little airplanes aren't banned or regulated out of existence by then.

One thing that has to be acknowledged is that the BRS is much of what kept Cirrus afloat over this last economic de/recession. It absolutely sells planes to moms and/or spouses.
 
Last edited:
You need one more option: all of the above

I think many people will want a BRS system for some part of each of the poll options.

I have gotten used to the BRS system in the Cirrus SR-20 and 22. I was skeptical about it at first but I consider the track record of the system in the Cirrus to be very good.

I fly for a living and the equipment I fly has multiple layers of backups for every system. I feel that the BRS gives a nice last resort backup option for a basic single engine aircraft.

I wouldn't say it's for everybody but I'm happy they are offering the BRS.

I actually ordered my install kit from BRS yesterday!

If anyone is interested BRS currently has discounted introductory pricing for the system.
 
Has BRS actually tsted one on an RV7? If so, what is the min altitude, max speed for deployment?

Bevan
 
I'm not a structural engineer so I have to ask, by cutting a hole in the tail section of an RV-7 or -9 to install a BRS, aren't you weakening the tail cone?

Could that modification be worse than the cure?
 
The BRS debate is a lot like the helmet debate on motorcycles. Logic doesn't tend to convince people one way or the other.

You have few options in the RV. Getting out with a traditional chute would be hard in anything except the -3 and -4 (tip-over canopy designed to rip away), and few BRS options exist.

If I were building and there was a good option, I would consider it, but given that I am drawn to the -3 and -4 where conventional chutes work fine, I doubt I would use a BRS.

In the CT, I was happy having the BRS, as it was another option available to me as PIC. It weighed about 40 lb and we never were short of useful load in that airplane.

TODR
 
Back
Top