Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Would you consider adding a BRS parachute to your plane ?

I saw this user poll over on the Mooney Space Forum :

Assuming a 85 pound loss of useful load, how seriously would you consider adding a BRS parachute to your Mooney?

A) I would very likely install a BRS system if the installed price was under $25,000.
B) I would very likely install a BRS system if the installed price was under $20,000.
C) I would very strongly consider installing a BRS system if the price was right.
D) I might think about it for the right price.
E) I have little to no interest in installing a BRS system into my Mooney.
D) If it were available and my wife found out, I’d have to purchase it.

What about EuroGA readers ?

FAA A&P/IA
LFPN

Then the fight started.

LFPT, LFPN

My plane has 865 pounds of UL, so no. Giving up too much. I bought it so that I could fly with wife and son with full fuel. That would cut endurance by well over an hour. On a plane with more UL I might consider it at the right price.

Tököl LHTL

My main objection is loss of UL followed by cost.

Tököl LHTL

I believe Germany has / had the rule for UL/microloghts that the weight of the resdue system is ignored for the purpose of classification. One of e rare examples where the regulator realised that regulation can prevent safety, and fixed it.

Biggin Hill

My Rallye flies quite nicely at full gross. It handles better than a comparable Cessna at full gross, but still, that’s 1.4 hours of fuel in weight.

Tököl LHTL

Cobalt wrote:

I believe Germany has / had the rule for UL/microloghts that the weight of the resdue system is ignored for the purpose of classification

Nothing to do with Germany. It is in fact an EASA regulation. A microlight with BRS is allowed to have MTOW 472.5 kg and only 450 kg without. In Germany the BRS is mandatory, but nowhere else I believe ?

ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Someday, I may eventually buy a home build that someone else has built.

I think in that case, a BRS would be very reassuring when you’re trusting someone else’s building skills ;)

EIWT Weston

Cobalt wrote:

I believe Germany has / had the rule for UL/microloghts that the weight of the resdue system is ignored for the purpose of classification. One of e rare examples where the regulator realised that regulation can prevent safety, and fixed it.

Annex II provides extra allowance for ULs when equipped with parachute (for example two seater plane (land) has 450 kg without and 472.5 with). If you go above that, you are automatically in EASA’s purview, there’s nothing you can do about it. Also, they call it “total recovery parachute system,” not sure what exactly that means (what constitutes total recovery?).

LeSving wrote:

A microlight with BRS is allowed to have MTOW 472.5 kg and only 450 kg without.

It’s a bit more complicated than that.

180 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top