Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
#1603543
Possibly. But would you want a 'quick release' system on a parachute? :?


I can see the the potential need for that once the descent is finished, as it could? possibly make a bad situation worse.

The best solution although probably never will happen is to make the 'chute steerable once deployed then bang it off when down.
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1603555
I doubt that controversies about when to use/not-use a BRS will go away soon, nor about the decision making of pilots who select BRS in some circumstances, will go away any day soon.

But it's hard to dispute that there are at-least some circumstances where it can save lives.

G
#1603560
Full Metal Jackass wrote:
How long do you think it would need for a pilot to work out his engine has (suddenly) failed? Yet deployments have happened from 400 - 500 feet without injury. Yes, no-one expects to lose a wing. Onboard were a CPL student and Flight Examiner. Let's assume the one on the side who loses the wing, sees it go. What's his reaction going to be? I know that if I were passenger in my plane and the (low) wing on my side let go, I would not be turning to the pilot and saying:

'I say old chap, did you notice you've lost your right wing? Jolly bad show, what, what'? No, I'd be reaching for the handle first, talking later.

I'm quite intrigued here by the negativity shown towards BRS, that people are trying to demonstrate the limitations of the BRS rather than it's capabilities. Perhaps this accident has touched a nerve with a lot of pilots - after all, an engine failure is something you can train for, quite a number here have (unfortunately) had to face such an event and proven themselves to be up to the challenge by bringing their ailing machine back to earth without significant injury yet if you lose a wing, it's game over - at least, without BRS. Are these pilots trying to persuade themselves that BRS is unnecessary, that in an event which might have saved the occupants, it would not have been able to deploy in a timely manner? I'm truly curious......

I'm not negative about BRS, I just feel in this case it would have made no difference. I watched the first video of the wing separation I estimate about 7 or 8 seconds from separation to the chute appearing and 12+ seconds to deployment. In that video the pilot had the advantage of being straight and level at considerable speed prior to intiating the climb and separation, that would not be the case climbing out in a PA28. It only takes 7.8 seconds for a 1 ton object to fall 1000 feet.
User avatar
By Full Metal Jackass
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1603567
romille wrote:
Full Metal Jackass wrote:
How long do you think it would need for a pilot to work out his engine has (suddenly) failed? Yet deployments have happened from 400 - 500 feet without injury. Yes, no-one expects to lose a wing. Onboard were a CPL student and Flight Examiner. Let's assume the one on the side who loses the wing, sees it go. What's his reaction going to be? I know that if I were passenger in my plane and the (low) wing on my side let go, I would not be turning to the pilot and saying:

'I say old chap, did you notice you've lost your right wing? Jolly bad show, what, what'? No, I'd be reaching for the handle first, talking later.

I'm quite intrigued here by the negativity shown towards BRS, that people are trying to demonstrate the limitations of the BRS rather than it's capabilities. Perhaps this accident has touched a nerve with a lot of pilots - after all, an engine failure is something you can train for, quite a number here have (unfortunately) had to face such an event and proven themselves to be up to the challenge by bringing their ailing machine back to earth without significant injury yet if you lose a wing, it's game over - at least, without BRS. Are these pilots trying to persuade themselves that BRS is unnecessary, that in an event which might have saved the occupants, it would not have been able to deploy in a timely manner? I'm truly curious......


Having watched the first video of the wing separation I estimate about 7 or 8 seconds from separation to the chute appearing. In that video the pilot would had the advantage of being straight and level at considerable speed, not so climbing out in an Arrow. It only takes 7.8 seconds for a 1 ton object to fall 1000 feet.


Sorry, there's no way I can put this but it appears we have plenty of flat earth believers haunting this thread, who believe that BRS is for wimps, who believe that if you lose a wing, you should accept your fate :roll: :roll: :roll:

Right, rant mode off.

1) That aircraft was pulling negative Gs. What is easier? Reaching for a handle whilst experiencing 1G, straight and level flight or whilst pulling (multiple) negative Gs?

2) The delay between loss of wing and activation of the chute was approx 2s - so enough time for the pilot to go 'what the f***' and reach for the chute. 3 - 4 seconds later the chute is fully deployed - to check this, watch the end and you'll see the video in real time. Use the pause button to see that at 0:57 seconds, the wing fails, at 0:59 seconds you see the rocket deploying, at 1:03 the chute is deployed.

Additionally, your assumption of the Arrow dropping straight to the ground and hitting it 7.8 seconds later does not take into account drag, projected area, lift generated by the (still flying) wing etc.

3) what is it with this fascination with 'the Arrow was climbing out'? Does that make a difference? No. The ATC recordings show the aircraft had been in the air for at least one, maybe 2 minutes and as such, could have been significantly higher than 1000 feet. The only thing we know is that we don't know how high the Arrow was. But had it been equipped with BRS and been higher than, say, 600 feet, the chances are, both would have survived. As it was, it didn't have BRS therefore regardless of whether it was at 800 feet or 8000 feet altitude, the wing failure was always going to be a fatal outcome.
#1603601
BRS and Ejector Seats have a lot in common. They are both excellent safety systems which require sensible and realistic training on when to use them. Both have envelopes outside which their efficacy is not guaranteed. Pilots using them will still die despite attempting to use them. None of these facts is an argument not to have them.

The two people on this aircraft may have died before the BRS deployed, but that ain’t an argument against having it. The suggestion they may not have pulled fast enough is an argument for better training, not against fitting BRS.

Any reasonable safety system which provides more options for survival is to be welcomed.
By Nick
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1603614
I did consider BRS on my last two aeroplanes. But due to the reduced luggage space and the fact that I like to go camping/touring I decided against it. If you don't like the risk do something about it. Either fir BRS or don't fly. Simple.

Nick.
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1603619
Dodo wrote:There seems to be a bit of thread drift going on here.
I can't find any new information about why the wing of the accident aircraft separated. Does anyone else on here have any news?


Isn't it about now we get all self righteous and urge speculators to wait for the NTSB report?

(NTSB , unlike AAIB, sometimes issue a preliminary report in pretty short order)

Peter :wink:

PS I have a theory, based on discussion last week with our aero-engineers on the need for our a/c to undergo an AD inspection of the stabilator trim control at annual this month.But as I'm no expert I'm keeping my gob shut.
User avatar
By GrahamB
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1603671
Fascinating though it is to watch the rerun of the BRS debate, isn’t it all a bit irrelevant? You can’t, to the best of my knowledge, retro-fit a PA28 with one.

It’s equally irrelevant for most of us as well, who can’t afford or otherwise don’t have access to an aircraft with BRS, nor want to fly a microlight.
2Donkeys, Joe Dell, cockney steve and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By Flintstone
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1603677
PeteSpencer wrote:
Dodo wrote:There seems to be a bit of thread drift going on here.
I can't find any new information about why the wing of the accident aircraft separated. Does anyone else on here have any news?


Isn't it about now we get all self righteous and urge speculators to wait for the NTSB report?



It might be, if anyone had speculated as to the cause.

The crystal ball merchants haven’t had a chance though, what with all the arguments over whether or not to fly with a security blanket.

:wink:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7