CubCrafters Adds BRS

USFlyer wrote:

What is this?

In Germany there are Microlights with a quasi-certification, and experimentals built under the regime of LTF-UL (certification specifications for microlights up to 472,5 kg). Those aircraft are supervised by the Deutscher AeroClub or the Deutscher UltraLeichtflug Verband. Then there are experimentals that are (more or less) based on CS-23 and receive a normal airworthiness certificate as aircraft within a “beschränkte Sonderklasse”. Those aircraft are supervised by the Luftfahrt Bundesamt. All microlights (experimental or not) need to carry a chute (although testing of the chute is not mandatory) and for the other aircraft it’s optional.

USFlyer wrote:

(Note. If a chute does not deploy then you are in the same position as those who have no chute at all)

Not necessary. A semi-deployed chute has the very potent capability of rendering the aircraft unflyable.

@DMEarc I see what you are doing there, but other than the “lives saved” figure, your interpretation of cutting the fatal accident rates in half, just by adding a chute, doesn’t work, because of several reasons.

First, to underline your claim, you would have to correct the numbers for people, who would not have died, if they wouldn’t have pulled the chute. I know, many pilots don’t like the notion of an “unneccesary” chute pull, and it certainly is better to pull the chute too many times than too few. Yet, it would not allow a transfer on fatal accident rates of other aircraft.

Then, there are plenty situations, where the chute is of no help. The most obvious are those accidents happening too low to deploy the chute, or even to react. Those are typically loss of control during take-offs or landings, low altitude operations, be it aerobatics / show flights, pipeline controlling, many helicopter operations, crop dusting, fire fighting – all part of general aviation. Furthermore, there are situations where even a deployed chute might not save you, like an engine failure over the north sea in early January or other hostile areas. It is not said, that you are easily found in the Alps, even if you’d survive the crash. Or, that it would be possible to rescue you out of some alpine mountain slope due to weather or terrain or both. There are instances where this was the problem with crashed glider pilots in the Alps. Another point would be inflight fire, or if a midair makes it impossible for you to deploy the chute. CFIT is another class of accidents, where the chute doesn’t help.

Of course, non of these events could ever be an argument against carrying a chute, but there are enough arguments to scrutinise any claims of “mathematical proven” miracle working device. There is nothing to resist but the pure claim of a mathematical proof of what is nothing but a hunch, loosely based on the short time experience with one airframe in (more or less) one specific field of general aviation.

I would love the figure of a 50% reduction in fatalities, but when someone says he had a mathematical proof for this number, it should be mathematical substantiated and factual. I would have loved to see a calculation taking into account the different modes of operation and a comparison on definite lives saved and a consideration of situations where the chute never would help, and those where the chute would have helped, but the pilot did not deploy the chute.

For my job as safety manager of our ATO, I do read quite a lot accident reports. And it strikes me, that many accidents in German microlights, those who are required by law to carry a chute, occur, where the chute did not prevent an accident, even if claimed the accident would fall into the major categories where you would think a chute helps – mainly stall / spin accidents (too many occur below an altitude where you’d have a reasonable chance to deploy) and even some mid airs. In total, the german microlights have almost three times more accidents per aircraft than certified aircraft and Part-23-experimentals, despite the necessity to have a brs installed. (Not a beautiful number of comparison, but there isn’t any flight time data collected).

So basically I like the chute, but I doubt it is the eierlegende Wollmilchsau that it is claimed to be, when speaking of “mathematical proven” reduction of accident rates by 50%.

After all the recent hassles I now delete all posts which turn just about 50% of threads here into a Cirrus thread

DMEarc wrote:

- it’s not binary – items such as BRS and ESP contribute to reduced fatalities. A binary improvement won’t come till the pilot is removed from the equation and dual engines and FIKI is standard. Statistics 101 would suggest a high confidence level that when the Cirrus community started to actively USE the chute, fatalities dropped. I would encourage people to be open minded to the possibility that this is the future and it will soon be next to impossible to manufacture a new aircraft without a chute.

BRS is clearly a good idea and I would love to have one on the aircraft I fly. Nevertheless, there are some exaggerated claims. Also the term “CAPS saves” is misleading. Surely one must be allowed to discuss that? I really don’t understand why the Cirrus community seems to be so sensitive.

and it will soon be next to impossible to manufacture a new aircraft without a chute

That is probably already true in the certified world (e.g. the Cessna 400 failed) but due to marketing, not because of statistics

Airborne_Again wrote:

I really don’t think anyone is resisting the concept. What some people are saying is that it isn’t the panacea that it is frequently made out to be.

- it’s not binary – items such as BRS and ESP contribute to reduced fatalities. A binary improvement won’t come till the pilot is removed from the equation and dual engines and FIKI is standard. Statistics 101 would suggest a high confidence level that when the Cirrus community started to actively USE the chute, fatalities dropped. I would encourage people to be open minded to the possibility that this is the future and it will soon be next to impossible to manufacture a new aircraft without a chute.

DMEarc wrote:

Why do people still resist the concept?

I really don’t think anyone is resisting the concept. What some people are saying is that it isn’t the panacea that it is frequently made out to be.

BRS is fine, not a panacea, but if I was in the market for a new GA aircraft, BRS would be a bonus. However if the Cirrus crew might invest a bit in Statistics 101 it would economise on some of these threads. A couple of low accident years, for events in the tail of the distribution are not statistically significant, although welcome nevertheless.