Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
BRS on a RV-12
- Thread starter catman
- Start date
johnny stick
Well Known Member
Interesting statistics
Interesting to note, when the fatality rate of the Cirrus, with BRS, is compared to other similar planes without BRS, it is questionable if it really helps. However, all it takes is one time for each individual pilot to make a difference in their life. This was from an article last week on AVweb.
Interesting to note, when the fatality rate of the Cirrus, with BRS, is compared to other similar planes without BRS, it is questionable if it really helps. However, all it takes is one time for each individual pilot to make a difference in their life. This was from an article last week on AVweb.
pierre smith
Well Known Member
It has been done on a -6 or -7...don't remember but the cables to the firewall were outside the fuselage, under a fiberglassed enclosure.
Best,
Best,
So, what benefit are you looking for with a BRS? As I understand it, the Cirrus has it due to the difficult to impossible spin recovery charateristics of that airplane. If this isn't an issue, and it isn't with any RV, why would you want one? If you deploy it, you have given up on deciding where you will land, becasue you are no longer in control. I think it would be better to maintain control and land in a place of your own choosing at the slowest possible speed, rather than pull a chute and cross your fingers, but I may be missing the point.
Tim
Tim
Re the Cirrus - and I stand to be corrected, but I don't believe it is 'spin certified in Europe'. Perhaps you can provide me with the info (work related reason).
It was spun as part of the European approval program (from Cirrus):
The European authorities (initially JAA, later EASA) when first evaluating the Cirrus SR20 agreed with the principles of the FAA/ELOS approach but had some further questions. A series of spins was performed on their initiative. While not a complete formal program they reported no unusual characteristics.
Back on thread... Most people would deem a BRS on an RV-12 as not high on the priorities. It would use up a fair bit of useful load and the airframe has not been designed with attaching hard points in mind.
I remember some years back the discussion came up in an RVator about installing BRS to an RV-6 (I think). Van's reckoned it was too difficult to install and more useful to carry that weight in fuel.
It was spun as part of the European approval program (from Cirrus):
The European authorities (initially JAA, later EASA) when first evaluating the Cirrus SR20 agreed with the principles of the FAA/ELOS approach but had some further questions. A series of spins was performed on their initiative. While not a complete formal program they reported no unusual characteristics.
Back on thread... Most people would deem a BRS on an RV-12 as not high on the priorities. It would use up a fair bit of useful load and the airframe has not been designed with attaching hard points in mind.
I remember some years back the discussion came up in an RVator about installing BRS to an RV-6 (I think). Van's reckoned it was too difficult to install and more useful to carry that weight in fuel.
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
As to the "we don't need it"..................you never know. I don't yet know the reason why an RV6A ended in a crumpled mess, next to the wall of an elementary school, just down the street from my home. The airport was just a few more blocks. Pilot incapacitation?. On the other hand, if a chute was available as a last resort before unconsciousness, then it would have been valuable. Luckily, in this instance, no one on the ground was hurt.
Personally, I applaud the fact that the Cirrus contains a chute, in a good looking airplane. I usually dismiss the reasons why it isn't needed. They go into the same mental file, as to why GPS isn't needed either.
L.Adamson
Personally, I applaud the fact that the Cirrus contains a chute, in a good looking airplane. I usually dismiss the reasons why it isn't needed. They go into the same mental file, as to why GPS isn't needed either.
L.Adamson
Geico266
Well Known Member
Last edited:
MartySantic
Well Known Member
Uh oh. I think John is up go something.
Please clarify!
Geico266
Well Known Member
Thread drift warning....
Implementing the CAPS (Cirrus Airframe Protection System) was a design choice before the first airplane had even flown. One of the Klapmeier brothers had been involved in a mid-air and felt it was a worthwhile feature to add to their design. It has always been assumed to also have been a marketing tool (considering the big emphases given to it from the very beginning). Look Hilda, if we by this airplane, you could feel at ease with even the grand kids flying with us!
The reason spin recovery was not required to be demonstrated for the Cirrus was because the POH specified that any spin entry was supposed to be followed by deploying the CAPS (no proof of spin recovery capability was needed).
All things in airplane design (and flying them) is a trade off/ compromise. Adding a CAPS type system to any airplane is making a big trade in payload capability for a safety system that is usable in a very small percentage of accident scenarios. There has already been nearly endless argument (these forums and elsewhere) of whether it is a very valuable trade considering the limited circumstances that it is of value. There is some argument (which I tend to somewhat agree with) that says that a CAPS type system may even promote pilots to push situations beyond what their comfort level would be if they didn't have the get out of trouble handle right there above their head.
I don't mean to down play the number of lives promoted as being saved because of deploying the CAPS on Cirrus airplanes (though I am not convinced it was necessary or even the best choice in all of the documented accidents), but I can't help wonder how many accidents it contributed too by giving pilots a false sense of security.
Implementing the CAPS (Cirrus Airframe Protection System) was a design choice before the first airplane had even flown. One of the Klapmeier brothers had been involved in a mid-air and felt it was a worthwhile feature to add to their design. It has always been assumed to also have been a marketing tool (considering the big emphases given to it from the very beginning). Look Hilda, if we by this airplane, you could feel at ease with even the grand kids flying with us!
The reason spin recovery was not required to be demonstrated for the Cirrus was because the POH specified that any spin entry was supposed to be followed by deploying the CAPS (no proof of spin recovery capability was needed).
All things in airplane design (and flying them) is a trade off/ compromise. Adding a CAPS type system to any airplane is making a big trade in payload capability for a safety system that is usable in a very small percentage of accident scenarios. There has already been nearly endless argument (these forums and elsewhere) of whether it is a very valuable trade considering the limited circumstances that it is of value. There is some argument (which I tend to somewhat agree with) that says that a CAPS type system may even promote pilots to push situations beyond what their comfort level would be if they didn't have the get out of trouble handle right there above their head.
I don't mean to down play the number of lives promoted as being saved because of deploying the CAPS on Cirrus airplanes (though I am not convinced it was necessary or even the best choice in all of the documented accidents), but I can't help wonder how many accidents it contributed too by giving pilots a false sense of security.
A BRS can save live here's proof!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a8cntPdRtk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a8cntPdRtk&feature=player_embedded
DCat22
Well Known Member
NickAir
Well Known Member
An RV12 would have a lower cost unit due to its lower speed for chute deployment than other RV's.
I remember years ago when the developer was actually hand throwing the chute from a Cessna 150 and 172. It worked amazingly well.
I have always wondered how the chute landing would be in dense Forrest.
I remember years ago when the developer was actually hand throwing the chute from a Cessna 150 and 172. It worked amazingly well.
I have always wondered how the chute landing would be in dense Forrest.
Dgamble
Well Known Member
Inspections, mandatory replacement periods
Note the relatively large number of BRS-equipped airplanes that appear for sale at right around the 10 year mark. That's at least partially due to the cost of the mandated replacement of the BRS chute, a fairly pricey maintenance event.
That's one of those not-exactly-hidden-but-sometimes-people-don't-know costs, much like the $350 - $500 annual cost for database updates for that Garmin 430.
Note the relatively large number of BRS-equipped airplanes that appear for sale at right around the 10 year mark. That's at least partially due to the cost of the mandated replacement of the BRS chute, a fairly pricey maintenance event.
That's one of those not-exactly-hidden-but-sometimes-people-don't-know costs, much like the $350 - $500 annual cost for database updates for that Garmin 430.
BRS on RV-12
Go to the NTSB accident database and read all the Cirrus reports (I have.) There appear to be many accidents that would have been avoided (assuming you discount the damage/loss from the parachute landing and don't call that event an accident) had the chute been deployed. You will also find quite a number where the chute was deployed at the last minute - too late to properly function.
There have been 31 Cirrus CAPS deployments "saving" 51 lives. The records are here:
http://www.cirruspilots.org/Content/CAPSHistory.aspx
Two of my best friends are retired Boeing Flight Test types who threw a rod in their SR-20 over Bozeman Pass returning to SEA from OSH. The made a successful deadstick landing at Livingston, but told me later they were within 5 seconds of pulling the Big Red Handle. Their skills exceed mine by quite a bit, and Lady Luck played a role.
One of the hardest things for many (most) pilots to do during an emergency sequence is to mentally write-off the airplane. (During WW II, there were a number of airplanes appropriately named "**** the Expense I, II, III, etc.) Nobody likes to ding an airplane. In my analysis of Capt. Sully and his Hudson River landing, one of the most significant events was his early decision to write-off the airplane, and thereafter concentrate on accomplishing his chosen course of action as safely as possible.
Many pilots, and many Monday-morning Quarterbacks, would have returned to LGA, or attempted to land at TEB. And maybe they would have made it. But the odds were, and are, against it. He was flying a Space Shuttle without the energy management software and algorithms. Landing short or long were the more likely outcomes - they would have been disastrous. Especially in those locations.
In some of the comments on this thread, I hear stuff about "retaining control" vs., I guess, giving up control to the chute. The most painful Cirrus accident reports are the ones where a competent and skilled pilot should have given up that control. They're painful because the pilot had available to him an installed device that could have - no would have - saved his life. He paid for it - in $$$ and space and payload - and in the end, failed to collect on his payments.
Here's a particularly painful one:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20100319X35533&ntsbno=WPR10FA163&akey=1
AeroTrek offers the BRS on their airplane for $5495. It's a remarkably small package. Picture here:
http://www.fly-aerotrek.com/pricing.htm
Neither it nor the RV-12 nor any LSA is fat with space or payload, but the question for each individual is whether it's "worth it." Or as Clint Eastwood said in Dirty Harry - "Do you feel lucky?"
A BRS is not available for the RV-12. Probably a good thing for my mental health since I don't have to make a hard decision. I think I would likely forgo it even if available, but not due to not wanting to relinquish control. My insurance agent can buy me a replacement toy. That's what I'm paying him for. I would forgo it because, as an LSA, I'm not flying at night, avoid anything resembling IFR by a country mile, and especially, depend on that low stall speed from mashing me too hard into fixed immovable objects.
But,.... I probably will get a set of those inflatable air bag seatbelts just the same.....
Bob Bogash
Go to the NTSB accident database and read all the Cirrus reports (I have.) There appear to be many accidents that would have been avoided (assuming you discount the damage/loss from the parachute landing and don't call that event an accident) had the chute been deployed. You will also find quite a number where the chute was deployed at the last minute - too late to properly function.
There have been 31 Cirrus CAPS deployments "saving" 51 lives. The records are here:
http://www.cirruspilots.org/Content/CAPSHistory.aspx
Two of my best friends are retired Boeing Flight Test types who threw a rod in their SR-20 over Bozeman Pass returning to SEA from OSH. The made a successful deadstick landing at Livingston, but told me later they were within 5 seconds of pulling the Big Red Handle. Their skills exceed mine by quite a bit, and Lady Luck played a role.
One of the hardest things for many (most) pilots to do during an emergency sequence is to mentally write-off the airplane. (During WW II, there were a number of airplanes appropriately named "**** the Expense I, II, III, etc.) Nobody likes to ding an airplane. In my analysis of Capt. Sully and his Hudson River landing, one of the most significant events was his early decision to write-off the airplane, and thereafter concentrate on accomplishing his chosen course of action as safely as possible.
Many pilots, and many Monday-morning Quarterbacks, would have returned to LGA, or attempted to land at TEB. And maybe they would have made it. But the odds were, and are, against it. He was flying a Space Shuttle without the energy management software and algorithms. Landing short or long were the more likely outcomes - they would have been disastrous. Especially in those locations.
In some of the comments on this thread, I hear stuff about "retaining control" vs., I guess, giving up control to the chute. The most painful Cirrus accident reports are the ones where a competent and skilled pilot should have given up that control. They're painful because the pilot had available to him an installed device that could have - no would have - saved his life. He paid for it - in $$$ and space and payload - and in the end, failed to collect on his payments.
Here's a particularly painful one:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20100319X35533&ntsbno=WPR10FA163&akey=1
AeroTrek offers the BRS on their airplane for $5495. It's a remarkably small package. Picture here:
http://www.fly-aerotrek.com/pricing.htm
Neither it nor the RV-12 nor any LSA is fat with space or payload, but the question for each individual is whether it's "worth it." Or as Clint Eastwood said in Dirty Harry - "Do you feel lucky?"
A BRS is not available for the RV-12. Probably a good thing for my mental health since I don't have to make a hard decision. I think I would likely forgo it even if available, but not due to not wanting to relinquish control. My insurance agent can buy me a replacement toy. That's what I'm paying him for. I would forgo it because, as an LSA, I'm not flying at night, avoid anything resembling IFR by a country mile, and especially, depend on that low stall speed from mashing me too hard into fixed immovable objects.
But,.... I probably will get a set of those inflatable air bag seatbelts just the same.....
Bob Bogash
Geico266
Well Known Member
I was looking for a surplus ACESII ejection seat but that would really deplete the usable load.
John is working on it.
MartySantic
Well Known Member
ArlingtonRV
Well Known Member
Gonna have to get some Oregon Aero cushions for that ACESII, the originals are a pain in the...
