FWIW, and even further off topic, I believe a personal parachute is also mandatory for the pilot on parachute jumping flights, and they have been used.
USFlyer wrote:
Can you cite a SINGLE accident or incident in which the BRS rocket itself failed to deploy (fire)?
Not only the rocket propulsion itself, but the whole system is neccesary to save a life. Cirrus understood this and did very extensive deployment tests. Not all manufacturers or designers thought that would be necessary.
USFlyer wrote:
Or one that exploded prematurely or on the ground after an accident?
USFlyer wrote:
Read the report. it cites three accidents NONE of which saw the rocket explode or catch fire in the wreckage.
I think you should check your “facts” more thoroughly.
These are just the german reports of the last 15 years. I bet, there is much more in other countries.
mh wrote:
unable to penetrate the aircraft skin
Not placing the BRS system properly in an aircraft is not the same problem as the rocket failing to fire. A failure by the pilot or passenger to deploy the parachute is also not the same problem as the rocket failing to fire. A non deployed parachute in the pile of wreckage and then rocket then firing is also not the same as the rocket failing to fire when deployed at the correct time.
Your point being? If all failures are neglected it is a safe system?
mh wrote:
Your point being? If all failures are neglected it is a safe system?
You use the same logic on all engine, airframe, avionics, or control surface failures? I asked for an example of the rocket failing to fire when deployed. I still have not seen that stat yet.
The chute has only value as a working and reliable complete system, not as working parts. A non deploying chute because of installation errors is very serious.
Likewise, the working air speed indicator is useless if you switch total and static pressure. It only works as a complete, proper installes complete system.
You as self-proclaimed tech expert should know this, hence my question about the nature of your argument.
tmo wrote:
FWIW, and even further off topic, I believe a personal parachute is also mandatory for the pilot on parachute jumping flights, and they have been used.
I know of one recent use en-route by Jurgis Kairys . Thinking of wearing my parachute in the DA40, but would have to get out in the back, as the front canopy would by pressed down by airflow. That would be funny. Polish BRS :)
I hear a lot of people questioning the value of BRS but consider the following -
You have two options:
1) a 90% chance of winning $1000 or a 10% of losing $1000
or
2) a 100% chance of winning $900
Which do you choose?
To put that into aviation perspective, the first option is the pilot either making a safe engine out forced landing (winning $1000) or being killed in the attempt (losing $1000) whereas the second is the fact that if you pull the chute within the operating limits, you will survive. Even so, the 90% chance of success is only there if you practice regularly and are on top of your game. A fellow pilot and I would regularly practice landings from 2000 AGL above the threshold without engine and he failed to reach the threshold without engine power 2 out of the last 6 attempts, therefore his risk would be 66% winning, 33% losing. Anybody want to take those odds when the other option is on the table? If it’s the only game in town, you have no choice but given the option, I’ll always take number 2….
For me, people tend to criticise pilots with a BRS as being reckless, or pulling too soon when they might have landed the aircraft safely but given the two options above? What would you choose? I would always choose option 2. And perhaps because Cirrus Pilots have that option whereas the Mooney / Cessna / Piper etc brigade doesn’t, this is partly jealousy.
A fellow pilot and I would regularly practice landings from 2000 AGL above the threshold without engine and he failed to reach the threshold without engine power 2 out of the last 6 attempts, therefore his risk would be 66% winning, 33% losing.
Well, forced landings aren’t games of luck, there is technique and training allowing for much greater rates than mentioned, providing a suitable field beneath. Since you are in my vicinity, we could train those techniques if you like.
The point is not that anyone thinking pilots are reckless to use a parachute system, but the marketing claims that they were dead if they had not used the chute.
mh wrote:
the marketing claims that they were dead if they had not used the chute
I don’t see that anywhere. Calling it a “CAPS save” doesn’t imply that they couldn’t have saved themselves in any other way. If you are saved by firefighters from a building on fire, that doesn’t mean you couldn’t have survived a jump from the window. But they still saved you.
And it is really COPA, the owners’ and pilots’ association, who keep and publish these statistics, it is not Cirrus. I wouldn’t call it marketing. The main goal behind this campaign is to get active Cirrus pilots to use the chute, not to convince non-Cirrus pilots.
