Whole aeroplane parachutes

[AlexC1981]

I had no idea such things existed!

The story is from last year. I'm no pilot, but I would imagine that if you lost engine power in a light aircraft like a Cirrus SR22 you would be safer gliding down under control rather than using a parachute and have no control where you land.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-h...

[Dr Jekyll]

AlexC1981 said:

I had no idea such things existed!

The story is from last year. I'm no pilot, but I would imagine that if you lost engine power in a light aircraft like a Cirrus SR22 you would be safer gliding down under control rather than using a parachute and have no control where you land.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-h...

Very often you would be better off gliding down. The point of the chute is for situations such as being over terrain without landing opportunities, or in poor visibility. Some pilots like the idea that if they become incapacitated in flight a non pilot passenger just needs to pull the handle. I agree that a device that guarantees a crash has it's limits.

[Cl4rkyPH]

AlexC1981 said:

I had no idea such things existed!

The story is from last year. I'm no pilot, but I would imagine that if you lost engine power in a light aircraft like a Cirrus SR22 you would be safer gliding down under control rather than using a parachute and have no control where you land.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-h...

The parachute is manually operated, so the pilot or indeed the passenger(s) (if the pilot is incapacitated) can decide whether to pull it straight away or glide for a bit.

[African Grey]

When you glide you still fly fast, in my aircraft it is just under 90kts. Then you reach the ground and want to lose the speed down to stall speed (58kts.) but still be in control of the aircraft during impact hoping that there isn't a rock or a rut that you didn't see or that the wing tip won't dig in. When you are under the canopy your descend is much slower and your risk is smaller.

[agent006]

The trouble with gliding down under control is that it implies that there's something suitable to land on.

Years ago a cirrus parachuted into someone's garden a few roads away from us. Can't think of anywhere, other than the airport he was heading for, that you could even think of landing something on the approach he would've been taking. Given he ended up in Langdale Road, he might've been considering the school playing field, but it's nowhere near long enough and landing on an unknown grass surface has got 'summersaulting fireball' writ large all over it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestersh...

[towser44]

Didn't that one in the Solent parachute down the other week also?

Edit - Yes, looks like it did, ended upside down in the Solent

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-52...

Edited by towser44 on Monday 29th June 22:29

[AlexC1981]

Interesting stuff. I suppose a soft vertical landing is better than a fast angled one no matter where you end up. Nice looking little aeroplane, the SR22.

[AER]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT58pzY41wA

[ecsrobin]

Mike Patey owner of the now crashed Draco is fitting one to his “scrappy” super cub project he does an interview with a pilot who loses a wing and is lucky to be alive a parachute in that scenario could of had him walking away with no injuries potentially.

https://youtu.be/7bOEnNpSBCM

[anonymous-user]

Consider the energy profile of a gliding descent vs a parachute descent. Where does the energy go and at what point in the descent?

Now you should understand why the parachute descent can be safer in a significant number of circumstances!

[eharding]

BRS (Ballistic Recovery System) parachutes have undoubtedly saved lives, but have also led to airframe losses which in other circumstances might have been avoided (AFAIK the Cirrus that ended up in a garden in Gloucester was perfectly functional prior to the pilot pulling the handle - he simply wasn't up to operating what is quite a sophisticated aircraft, relying on the autopilot without being fully trained to use it).

There are also circumstances when a BRS deployment - intentional or otherwise - is really going to hurt. I think the Cirrus design also relies on the undercarriage to absorb some of the impact energy of a CAPS landing (Cirrus Airframe Parachute System - their BRS brand name), hence a water landing is actually worse for the occupants.

The other issue is that should you come to grief without deploying the BRS, you've now also got a decent sized pyrotechnic device in an unknown state alongside all of the rest of the flammable stuff in your thoroughly broken aeroplane. I remember a Cirrus accident at Waltham which resulted in the aircraft cartwheeling down the runway on takeoff and catching fire - the occupants walked away, but the molten wreck was gingerly hauled off the runway and over to the hangars on the far side of the airfield, awaiting the man from Cirrus to come and disarm the BRS rocket - he ended up in hospital, not as a result of the BRS firing, but because he didn't notice the Gannet gently rotting away next to the Cirrus wreck, walked into the Gannet's prop and sliced his head open.

[Simpo Two]

eharding said:

The other issue is that should you come to grief without deploying the BRS, you've now also got a decent sized pyrotechnic device...

Whey does it need to be fired out? Is it for speed of deployment over a drogue?

[eharding]

Simpo Two said:

eharding said:

The other issue is that should you come to grief without deploying the BRS, you've now also got a decent sized pyrotechnic device...

Whey does it need to be fired out? Is it for speed of deployment over a drogue?

Fastest and most reliable way of getting the full canopy extracted and deployed in the range of possible scenarios e.g. very low airspeed, aircraft spinning etc. I'm not sure if the microlight systems such as those in the video linked above use pyrotechnics or a spring though.

[5150]

Aircraft I fly for fun has BRS....there’s a rocket which the chute is attached too, which fires out of a panel in the rear top section of the fuselage.

There is a bit of a debate as to when you’d use it.....there’s no instructions as to when you must use it, but it’s nice to have the option. . . . I’d sooner use it for a ditching rather than flying the aircraft onto the water (or should that say ‘in to...’). . . .

[anonymous-user]

5150 said:

Aircraft I fly for fun has BRS....there’s a rocket which the chute is attached too, which fires out of a panel in the rear top section of the fuselage.

There is a bit of a debate as to when you’d use it.....there’s no instructions as to when you must use it, but it’s nice to have the option. . . . I’d sooner use it for a ditching rather than flying the aircraft onto the water (or should that say ‘in to...’). . . .

What sort of aircraft is that, out of interest?

I've never flown a Cirrus or any other aircraft with a BRS, but the AAIB report above mentions that the pilots operating handbook for the Cirrus specifies when BRS should be used, and that in this case the pilot followed the guidance.

I can see the benefits in having BRS, but if I thought I could glide and land the aircraft safely then I'd struggle to push the button (though I clearly would if I had to) knowing that it would wreck the airframe, and that I'd lose the ability to have some control over where the aircraft landed.

As I said, I've never had any training on it, so not claiming any expertise, but interesting one to ponder.

[anonymous-user]

Inkyfingers said:

if I thought I could glide and land the aircraft safely then I'd struggle to push the button (though I clearly would if I had to) knowing that it would wreck the airframe, and that I'd lose the ability to have some control over where the aircraft landed.

As I said, I've never had any training on it, so not claiming any expertise, but interesting one to ponder.

If you watched the (very good) video posted earlier up there ^^^^ they cover this point, and mention that deaths in Cirus aircraft were as bad as those for aircraft without BRS/CAPS because pilots WEREN'T using the system! They introduced training to cover the use of the system and there death rate fell markedly!

In short, pilots didn't want to use it if they could "fly out of it" but by the time they worked out they couldn't fly out of it, it was too late to use the system! Same problem as with ejector seats!

[anonymous-user]

5150 said:

Aircraft I fly for fun has BRS....there’s a rocket which the chute is attached too, which fires out of a panel in the rear top section of the fuselage.

There is a bit of a debate as to when you’d use it.....there’s no instructions as to when you must use it, but it’s nice to have the option. . . . I’d sooner use it for a ditching rather than flying the aircraft onto the water (or should that say ‘in to...’). . . .

I’m not sure, I think I’d rather ditch it myself rather than be a passenger after deploying the BRS.

Obviously if you’ve had a mid air collision or some kind of exciting structural failure and your aircraft stops flying then it would be great but if it was just an engine failure or fuel problems etc I’d rather do it myself.

I’ve had a couple of events where I might have been tempted to use it but recovered in the end. Maybe I’d have been more injured by the BRS landing as you don’t really have any control over where you end up.

Once I was spinning and the plane wouldn’t recover using normal techniques. Turned out it was overloaded but lowering some flap ballooned is out of the spin. I’d probably have used the BRS as I was watching the altimeter winding down thinking I was going to crash.

I suppose if I’d had the option at the time, I would have liked to have had it just incase.

[anonymous-user]

Max_Torque said:

If you watched the (very good) video posted earlier up there ^^^^ they cover this point, and mention that deaths in Cirus aircraft were as bad as those for aircraft without BRS/CAPS because pilots WEREN'T using the system! They introduced training to cover the use of the system and there death rate fell markedly!

In short, pilots didn't want to use it if they could "fly out of it" but by the time they worked out they couldn't fly out of it, it was too late to use the system! Same problem as with ejector seats!

Sorry, I missed the video, will have a look.

It's a fascinating question of human performance (or rather human nature), a bit like the temptation to turn back towards the airfield when engine fails on climb out.

[eharding]

El stovey said:

5150 said:

Aircraft I fly for fun has BRS....there’s a rocket which the chute is attached too, which fires out of a panel in the rear top section of the fuselage.

There is a bit of a debate as to when you’d use it.....there’s no instructions as to when you must use it, but it’s nice to have the option. . . . I’d sooner use it for a ditching rather than flying the aircraft onto the water (or should that say ‘in to...’). . . .

I’m not sure, I think I’d rather ditch it myself rather than be a passenger after deploying the BRS.

Obviously if you’ve had a mid air collision or some kind of exciting structural failure and your aircraft stops flying then it would be great but if it was just an engine failure or fuel problems etc I’d rather do it myself.

I’ve had a couple of events where I might have been tempted to use it but recovered in the end. Maybe I’d have been more injured by the BRS landing as you don’t really have any control over where you end up.

Once I was spinning and the plane wouldn’t recover using normal techniques. Turned out it was overloaded but lowering some flap ballooned is out of the spin. I’d probably have used the BRS as I was watching the altimeter winding down thinking I was going to crash.

I suppose if I’d had the option at the time, I would have liked to have had it just incase.

In principle it's the same decision you have to make when the parachute is strapped to your own body rather than the aircraft - by opting to make use of it you are largely relinquishing any further influence over the course of events, and writing off the aircraft in the process (I'm talking of emergency parachutes of course, rather than the loons who use them for fun.....)

I almost always wore a parachute when flying aerobatics, but did so without on some occasions. The only time I ever briefly considered using one was trying a mulleroid in the Pitts - a couple of my mates in the group had solemnly told me how well MAXG flew them, so off I went. It all started well, vertical up line, airspeed decaying nicely, full rudder and forward stick, round she went and......the cockpit filled completely with smoke. For a split second I thought the thing was on fire, and I was going to have to step over the side. A couple of seconds later it cleared and everything went back to normal (for going arse over tit down the sky values of normal, but that was easy enough to sort out). What had actually happened was that when it was built MAXG had the breather from the inverted oil system plumbed into the 4:1 exhaust manifold header. A nice neat solution, but the start of the mulleroid was just perfect for dumping a huge gob of oil into the exhaust and drawing the smoke into the cockpit. Going back to Waltham and recounting the tale to my mates, who then solemnly told me that happened every time as well. Gits.

It was after I sold my share in MAXG, but eventually the group decided that they'd move the oil breather away from the exhaust - which I could understand - but rather than running a line down to the tail they just moved it to the side of the cowling, where it could conveniently drip on the right brake housing, which I thought was possibly sub-optimal....

Edited by eharding on Wednesday 1st July 12:56