BRS

[squirrel 0]

I didnt know where to post this comment, so I started this thread. I have an E-LSA weight shift trike (powered hang glider). And it is equiped with a BRS, Ballistic Reserve System. Its an emergency parachute that brings the entire airplane down under a round parachute, deployed by a solid booster rocket. I installed this on my aircraft because I figured that if I jump with a reserve, why not fly with one too. These parachutes are available for aircraft up to 4 passengers, (great for 152 DZ planes) and being developed for larger planes. With the latest accident, I hope that BRS systems are developed for larger planes quickly, it is such a good idea. Low deployment of coarse is not ideal, but, in some cases, there have been saves at very low altitude. More info available here.

http://www.brsparachutes.com/default.aspx

I think if the military can drop a humvee out of a plane under parachutes, we should be able to have the option to have these systems on GA aircraft.

Curious, any small aircraft owners/pilots out there that have this system, and why did you choose to install it.

________________________________
Where is Darwin when you need him?

[diablopilot 2]

I think they are a mixed bag. Too many reports of pilots using them as a crutch, rather than using proper planning and preventative measures.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[squirrel 0]

Quote

I think they are a mixed bag. Too many reports of pilots using them as a crutch, rather than using proper planning and preventative measures.

good point. being a skydiver first, pilot second...perhaps I look at my BRS in a different way. Pilots need to be taught, "fly like it is not there."

________________________________
Where is Darwin when you need him?

[billvon 3,008]

>Too many reports of pilots using them as a crutch . . .

I agree that that may well be a risk. However, as the use of a BRS generally results in the loss of a $150,000 aircraft (and the use of a skydiving reserve merely results in a $50 repack) I would think that a reserve is far more likely to be used as a crutch by a skydiver than by a pilot.

[pilotdave 0]

BRS systems are not a substitute for engine-out landings, unless there's no safe place to land (mountainous terrain, etc). But there is no substitute for a BRS system in the event of a structural or control failure.

Most jump plane crashes wouldn't be prevented with a BRS system. They are useless on takeoff and landing. But they could possibly be really useful when a jumper takes out the horizontal stabilizer.

Unfortunately, I can't see a retrofit BRS system for just about any jump plane being practical. Very very expensive, heavy, and they take up a lot of room. I'm sure a BRS system will come out for 182s, but I'm also sure it will take up most of the baggage compartment (aka where a couple jumpers are sitting).

Haven't seen the reports of them being used as a crutch... I can't really see how it would be a crutch. When in doubt, whip it out.

Dave

[squirrel 0]

Quote

>Too many reports of pilots using them as a crutch . . .

I agree that that may well be a risk. However, as the use of a BRS generally results in the loss of a $150,000 aircraft (and the use of a skydiving reserve merely results in a $50 repack) I would think that a reserve is far more likely to be used as a crutch by a skydiver than by a pilot.

agreed.

i understand that using my BRS would result in the "totalling" of the aircraft frame, in my case only about 15k...but, lives would be saved...

in many hours of flying my trike, there is only one time, that i thought, just thought, of the BRS. severe thermals, bouncing me, radically flexing my wing. it this case, i had made the decesion to only deploy if my wing failed. i was at sufficent altitude for a deployment.

________________________________
Where is Darwin when you need him?

[mark 107]

Quote

i understand that using my BRS would result in the "totalling" of the aircraft frame, in my case only about 15k...but, lives would be saved...

Widespread use of whole-airframe parachutes would not necessarily result in net lives saved.

BRS advertises a 182-compatible parachute for a little less than $18,000 before installation. It weighs about 85 pounds. Given that most airplane accidents where a parachute might be useful are related to maintenance or fuel, you would be better off investing the money in an engine monitor and oil analysis program, and you would be better off carrying the 85 pounds as fuel.

Additionally, the BRS parachute for a 182 is about 2' x 2' x 3', which reduces cabin room by about 1 skydiver.

Mark

[squirrel 0]

Quote

Quote

i understand that using my BRS would result in the "totalling" of the aircraft frame, in my case only about 15k...but, lives would be saved...

Widespread use of whole-airframe parachutes would not necessarily result in net lives saved.

BRS advertises a 182-compatible parachute for a little less than $18,000 before installation. It weighs about 85 pounds. Given that most airplane accidents where a parachute might be useful are related to maintenance or fuel, you would be better off investing the money in an engine monitor and oil analysis program, and you would be better off carrying the 85 pounds as fuel.

Additionally, the BRS parachute for a 182 is about 2' x 2' x 3', which reduces cabin room by about 1 skydiver.

Mark

not sure i agree with the "choice" to have a BRS or do maintenance...you can have both if you spend the money. I have full guages AND a BRS. money well spent. regarding the size...i thought the BRS for 182s was and external pod, on the top of the plane in the center of the wing. There are different containers though, mine looks like scuba tank.

________________________________
Where is Darwin when you need him?