Crash one wrote:Most of those pictures show an undamaged prop, so if the BRS is a solution to an engine reliability problem I would suggest that it is extremely irresponsible of the manufacturer.
I’d rather buy a reliable aircraft than a half baked piece of krap full of electronic gizmos and a “get you out of the schit” device for WHEN it goes tits up.
Is that a kids climbing frame in the garden, first picture???
The industrial building with the chute on the roof, pure chance it didn’t go through an office window!!
Not to mention the car parks, roads and what seems to be a horse paddock.
Pretty irresponsible behaviour all round if this is routine.
Selfish, irresponsible, dangerous to anyone on the ground, disgraceful lack of reliability on the part of the manufacturer.
Altogether a farcical sales gimmick!!
Hmmmm. The engines are Continental 550 (some turbo) or 360. Does your comment apply equally to all of the other manufacturers using those engines? Are other makes of engine any better?
I agree that there are too many failures, and the engine manufacturers need to address this properly; but it is unfair to lay this at the door of any aircraft manufacturer.
I have been watching a series on TV about light aircraft crash investigations in Alaska. Many seem to follow engine failures yet none has been a Cirrus. Of course that doesn’t prove that the Continental engines Cirrus use are disproportionately reliable any more than your claim proves that they are disproportionately unreliable.
Turning back to BRS and your claims about Cirrus reliability.
The stats are still: 20 years in service, 6000 airframes, 87 saves, zero fatalities, zero injuries of any kind on the ground. Oh, and a fatal accident rate about half that in the GA SEP population.
Again: read the description of what happens in a BRS pull and tell me - seriously - that there isn’t a better chance of avoiding such an aircraft descending under a huge red parachute following a loud bang than one gliding in silently at over three times the speed vertically, up to 50 times faster across the ground or just crashing at whatever its terminal velocity ends up being.
Remember also that the damage footprint of an aircraft under BRS is pretty much limited to the size of the aircraft whereas an aircraft gliding in or just crashing will make a much bigger footprint and potentially do many times as much damage.
In that connection: you mentioned an aircraft under CAPS potentially hitting an office window. A bit like this, perhaps?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27287656No aircraft under BRS has ever done, and probably never could do, damage on this scale.
Tell me how many people have been killed on the ground in the last 20 years by pilots doing PFLs or simply crashing for some other reason without benefit of a BRS that might have saved them or those they killed on the ground? More than zero?
Note that, despite the stats I have quoted repeatedly: I do not call people who choose to fly aircraft without BRS selfish, reckless or anything else. They choose how they will fly, hopefully they train properly and do everything they can to fly safely. I wish them all every success.
But don’t knock those of us that have chosen to follow the evidence because we believe, with clear justification, that it really is less dangerous for everyone. Whether in the aircraft or on the ground.