I think my point is that if one doesn’t feel confortable flying over the water in winter, so should they be unconfortable flying at night / low IMC / Over mountains (not talking of a glider which can obviously go MUCH further look for a suitable place to land).
I feel the BRS really mitigates the “bad” outcomes in most of the scenarios I described.
This one is quite interesting, although the chute wasn’t reason for inflight desintegration, it has been found, that the deployment was just accidental successful:
link
From an engineering perspective, this is interesting, as the chute wasn’t able to deploy through the FRP fuselage. Also, the BFU is pointing at sloppy work in certification, engineering and production of DAeC and the manufacturer.
link
Here, the chute got ripped by a sharp edge at the egress opening:
link
Here the BFU found out, that below 120 km/h the chute requires more than twice the time to open, than demanded by certification criteria:
link
In the next accident (same a/c, same System) the BFU found out, that the DULV just told the manufactuter they know about not fulfilling certification specifications, but the should not mind, the DULV would change the specifications (what is way outside of their scope):
link
Here, the pilot was not able to pull the chute handle due to mechanical damage:
link
From a piloting perpective interesting is a case, where the owner decided not to pull the chute, because he was afraid to damage the aircraft. He then collided with the terrain during off field landing. And destroyed the plane…
link
Bottom line: You need to be careful, if you want to have a safe system. It’s not overly complicated, but demands carefulness even with the small parts.
[ URLs made into clickable links; the BFU URL format doesn’t always work otherwise ]
Yes, I probably need a BRS for long flying by night over land or water with no visual clues and for low IMC over land or any IMC over moutains, the water/winter thing relates to the 6h after surviving a crash, I don’t think a Twin or BRS does solve it, but will try it on boats first :)
In gliding, mid air collisions or structural failures are the elephant in the room, some wear parachutes for that and a BRS will be just fine, for field landouts I don’t think you need a BRS unless if push it too much (those who push it tend to have an engine that they can fire still big failure risk but a BRS will help those doing world championship in the Andes: they can’t have engines and the terrain below is interesting ;) )
Please, let’s not start another discussion if BRS is worth it or not…the Market has already answered this in the last 15 years!
Videos of what I believe were first time deployments in type:
https://www.galaxysky.cz/data/video/grs-rescue-germany-sirius-2016-08.mp4
https://www.galaxysky.cz/data/video/grs-rescue-czech-2016-06.mp4
The last one I believe was this (a ducted fan UL): http://www.skyleader.aero/en/product/ul-39-albi/
BTW, sorry to use the word “brs” sometimes as synonym of “ballistic chute” (like Jacuzzi for bathtubs), and sometimes referring to the US company BRS as opposed to the Czech company Galaxy (btw I met the CEOs of both, targeting different markets).
Ibra wrote:
In gliding, mid air collisions or structural failures are the elephant in the room, some wear parachutes for that
Wearing parachutes when gliding is compulsory in Sweden… (If not by authorities so at least by the clubs.) I’ve never felt that to be an elephant in the room but an openly discussed risk.
mancival wrote:
https://www.galaxysky.cz/data/video/grs-rescue-germany-sirius-2016-08.mp4
What was he reason for that deployment? I could see nothing obvious.
Accident report. NTSB. December 2018. Fatal. Parachute cables round the prop.
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20181214X02810&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=FA
To comment on the previous post, Galaxy offers an activation handle that automatically switches off the engine when you pull, reducing prop entanglement risk. I have installed this in my plane.
mh wrote:
[ URLs made into clickable links; the BFU URL format doesn’t always work otherwise ]
Thanks, I did not know that.
Snoopy wrote:
Adding a chute to an experimental depends on the national authority? Could they forbid it?
Yes, it’s within the scope of the national authority and no, since you could always show compliance to one of the certification standards and they should grant you permission to install the chute. For instance you could comply to the VLA SC for BRS: (Link)
mancival wrote:
BTW, sorry to use the word “brs” sometimes as synonym of “ballistic chute” (like Jacuzzi for bathtubs), and sometimes referring to the US company BRS as opposed to the Czech company Galaxy (btw I met the CEOs of both, targeting different markets).
EASA does the same, as BRS would be “Ballistic Recovery System”.
mancival wrote:
To comment on the previous post, Galaxy offers an activation handle that automatically switches off the engine when you pull, reducing prop entanglement risk. I have installed this in my plane.
