[GrahamB]

And an aircraft descending under BRS is always landing without undue hazard? (Just asking... )

To date, yes, it would seem.

[Kemble Pitts]

Since the introduction of SERA there is no land clear requirement as there used to be under the UK RotAR:

SERA.3105 Minimum heights
Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the competent authority, aircraft shall not be flown over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open- air assembly of persons, unless at such a height as will permit, in the event of an emergency arising, a landing to be made without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.…

The (emergency) landing can, in principle, be made within the congested area.

It would be interesting to see how the lawyers interpret 'without undue hazard to persons on the surface'. I would read that in much the same way as the old 'land clear' requirement that meant 'not parks and the like' as you couldn't presume that the 'locals' wouldn't be there.

Have the rules actually changed in reality?

[TheFarmer]

And an aircraft descending under BRS is always landing without undue hazard? (Just asking... )

To date, yes, it would seem.

Mad isn’t it?!

You can get arrested for dropping a tissue out of your Cub window and not know where it’ll land, but it’s fine to drop a tonne of metal and plastic with the same disregard.

One day the FAA and CAA will see sense.

[Sooty25]

And an aircraft descending under BRS is always landing without undue hazard? (Just asking... )

To date, yes, it would seem.

Mad isn’t it?!

You can get arrested for dropping a tissue out of your Cub window and not know where it’ll land, but it’s fine to drop a tonne of metal and plastic with the same disregard.

One day the FAA and CAA will see sense.

But slow decent into a populated area under BRS would always be favourable to an uncontrolled decent in the event of an airframe failure

[Pilot H]

There have been very many casualties on the ground caused by aircraft without BRS, either as a result of mid-air collision, airframe failure, or stall spin at low level during forced landings.

The real question to be asked is:

"How many of those historic ground casualties would have been spared had the aircraft had BRS?"

The number of historic ground casualties with BRS is currently Zero, but even if it were not, there would still be an overwhelming argument in favour of BRS...

Because unless the number of people injured on the ground with BRS were to exceed the number injured on the ground without BRS then the naysayers are just engaging in baseless rhetoric.

[GAFlyer4Fun]

In addition to the SERA wording, SkywayCode p55 offers this guidance:

In the event of an engine failure, single engine aircraft should be able to glide clear of any congested areas. You should not rely on being able to land in parks or other open spaces within congested areas, since there may be people on them.

If a pilot was unable to land clear after a SEP engine failure over an obviously congested area, as the Skyway Code is a CAA publication my guess is the prosecutor is more likely to use it than the defence lawyer if the pilot ends up in court.

[T67M]

There have been very many casualties on the ground caused by aircraft without BRS...

Do you have any data for this? I know when the UK NPPL was first being planned, the statistics showed very few casualties on the ground following aircraft accidents, with the vast majority being in a single incident in the town of Lockerbie when a 747 was blown apart by a bomb.

[Lefty]

Without doing any research at all, I know of three incidents where uninvolved civilians were injured by a/c doing forced landings.
1) 3-4 years ago an a/c landing on a beach in Australia killed a person walking on a beach
2) 2-3 years ago an a/c doing a forced landing in Devon, injured a walker
3) 2 years ago, an a/c crashed at a flyin at Brimpton airfield and seriously injured a lady sitting in her car watching the aircraft.

Having been involved in flying - and reading every available aviation news reports for the past 55 years - I know the number of people injured by forced landing a/c is somewhere in the region of 100 +, but I don’t have the time to go research it for you.

I do however know for certain, that the number of uninvolved persons injured by a Cirrus “plummeting” earthward under a parachute is (precisely) zero. None - nada!

[Dave W]

Given the vastly inferior numbers of BRS equipped aircraft in the GA cohort, it's a vastly different exposure to the specific hazard though.

The stats in themselves lead to no firm conclusion, I'd say - and that's from someone with no opinion one way or the other.

[Flyin'Dutch']

'Inferior' - might 'lower' be a better choice in this context?

[Dave W]

Actually, yes - it certainly would! Sorry!

[mikehallam]

Some lurid claims for BRS when e.g. the Brimpton Tiger Moth (accident mentioned a few posts above0 was barely airborne in a botched take off.
Hardly a BRS case, in fact with all the folk around geting close to help, may be it really was a 'good thing' it didn't possess and armed missile on board !

[Sooty25]

.

I do however know for certain, that the number of uninvolved persons injured by a Cirrus “plummeting” earthward under a parachute is (precisely) zero. None - nada!

So far.

[BehyBill]

Does a vertical landing on concrete where you only kill yourself count?

[Sooty25]

In addition to the SERA wording, SkywayCode p55 offers this guidance:

In the event of an engine failure, single engine aircraft should be able to glide clear of any congested areas. You should not rely on being able to land in parks or other open spaces within congested areas, since there may be people on them.

If a pilot was unable to land clear after a SEP engine failure over an obviously congested area, as the Skyway Code is a CAA publication my guess is the prosecutor is more likely to use it than the defence lawyer if the pilot ends up in court.

Well I suppose having a CAA prosecutor waving the Skyway code at me would be a good thing as it would mean I'd survived!