BRS Deployment History

[NC Bill]

Rick Beach, the keeper of the records at COPA (Cirrus Owners and Pilots Asso), sent me this link to post.

 

http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/CAPSHistory.aspx

 

It's includes the entire 11 history of ALL 36 'chute deployments in a CIRRUS from 2002 until last weeks activation in Liberty, Ohio.

 

I take the liberty of posting it on CTFLIER to high-lite what a valuable piece of safety equipment that "little RED handle" is in our aircraft.

 

It's my guess that no one ever wished they hadn't pulled the handle. Some probably wished they had. :blush:

 

Fly safe!

[Jim Meade]

Bill,

 

Thanks for posting this. It is interesting reading. I hope to get back to OSH on Friday and see the BRS people and use their demonstration device. I'll report back after that and add some thoughts and questions of my own.

 

I will say just this - I hope we pilots don't treat the BRS as a "panic and pull" device. I don't mean we should play games as to whether we should deploy that - I don't mean that at all. I mean that I hope that we have thought about it ahead of time such that if we decide to pull the handle we are including it in whatever other protocol in indicated for the situation we're in. That may indeed mean the first thing we do as quickly as we can do it, but it might also mean the second or third thing we do based on the situation. I'll talk about that after Friday.

 

Great topic.

[Runtoeat]

Bill, thanks for posting. Impressive that the the data indicates the BRS has made saves when activated in spin or inverted conditions as long as one has a few hundred feet to provide deployment. It doesn't seem to do too well if activated just prior to impact :huh:

[CT4ME]

Here's the ENTIRE BRS Deployment list, from their website. A few CT's in there, starting in 1997. The last one on the list is a CT... (list could use some updating)

http://brsparachutes.com/lives_saved.aspx

Tim

[FlyingMonkey]

The standard BRS system is one of the reasons I want a CT over other LSAs. I'm just astounded that other manufacturers have not picked this up as a standard safety item (except for the Sting series), and wonder if this is one of the reasons for FD's market leadership.

[NC Bill]

Anecdotal evidence on COPA over the years suggests that more than one wife was convinced by the BRS.

 

Sine quod non

[FlyingMonkey]

Anecdotal evidence on COPA over the years suggests that more than one wife was convinced by the BRS.

 

My wife is cool with flying with me, but she really likes the idea of a big red handle she can pull if I'm killed by an in-flight ninja.

[Runtoeat]

MrMorden, is "in-flight ninja" another term for arterial blockage? Dehabilitating things don't occur very often to pilots per the published stats but it does happen. Good that your wife knows where the red handle is. My wife insisted that I have the parachute if I bought a plane although having it still doesn't convince her to fly with me. At the time, I thought it really wasn't that necessary but the more I fly with the BRS, the more I like having it.

 

 

[Flying C Farms]

Bill,

It is interesting reading. I hope to get back to OSH on Friday and see the BRS people and use their demonstration device. I'll report back after that and add some thoughts and questions of my own.

[Flying C Farms]

Tried the demo device, even has sound effects. Gives a good sense of the force required to pull.

While at the BRS booth,I was told it was not their requirement to have our chutes repacked at six years, Several discussionss, then back to CT and speak with Tom,who told me it was BRS who required the six year. Back to BRS. worked my way up the chain of who was there.

Basically learned that Cirrus pushed for the 10 year and is now wanting a longer time period. So where is FD on this.

Tech. guy said the problems they see are mostly with soft packs.

BRS did tell me they do not like where the pull handle is on our planes. They wanted it where our pencil holder is located Discussed the time it takes for a turn around from them. Asked why it can not be like a annual. Midnight on last day of the month which would allow some time if away from home base.Also discussed that our canister is inside a closed compartment. So why not some check of the cannister to determine if it would need a repack sooner or later.

Maybe Jim will havemore to say on all this.

[NC Bill]

I'd be grateful if someone at OSH would get a definitive word from BRS & FD as to whether the FAA requires a 6 year repack of the parachute. What are the legal consequences of not doing a repack until the rocket needs replacement?

 

We can discuss the wisdom of referring the repack until later, but I'd be grateful to know the answers.

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help on this question.

[Jim Meade]

Sorry I didn't see this thread till after I returned from OSH. I had a nice 15 minute session with one of the techs but didn't know to ask him some of the questions.

 

He said turnaround time on our chutes is as little as 3 days to a couple of weeks. They want their money up front, to be blunt, so if you need your chute back pronto pay up front. Also, call Derek Kuefler and tell him you need it back. He walks back to the production line and establishes the priority. Your payment and communication make a difference.

 

I was happy to sit in the seat and pull the cord. First the tug to remove the handle from it's retainer, then the harder pull to blow the rocket. I had the feeling and thought it even sounded like the sensation one gets when pulling on a clicking torque wrench or a heavy trigger pull. Resistance then a snap or click.

 

Frankly, I'd like to come up with a reasonable realistic training aid that I could let passengers try to make sure they could engage it.

 

I, too, wish the handle were elsewhere. I think it's awkward for some and probably makes it harder to pull.

 

The guy talking to me showed photos and re-enactments of several late deployments. According to him, planning and deliberation were not high on the list of those who pulled the chute. It sounded more like panic. Several of his examples were late or low deployments as in engine failure on take-off so I may have felt that way, as well.

 

He didn't seem concerned about getting the shrouds into the prop on a plane like the CT. A pusher or pylon mounted engine, maybe.

 

 

[Runtoeat]

Flying C and Jim, would you say that the handle was harder to pull than you thought it would be? Would you classify the effort to pull the handle as "moderate"?. Would you say that a small person with minimum physical ability would have a problem deplying the chute? I'm trying too get a feeling for the effort required to use the BRS. I have a 2006 CTSW that was re-fitted with a later model canister type BRS (1350HS). This has a pivoting handle similar to the 2008 and later CT's but it is low on the back bulkhead in the same location as factory 2006.

[Jim Meade]

The example used at the BRS booth was like that in a C-182. It was mounted about the height of your right shin. I' had read somewhere that the pull force was about 40 pounds (this is my recollection - I am not stipulating this) so I had that number in my mind when I pulled the handle and would not dispute it. I thought the handle was maybe slightly easier to pull out of it's detent than it was to fire the rocket, but not a lot harder. If in doubt about what it feels like, put your torque wrench on a solid bolt and set it for 40 pounds.

 

The first pull was to get the handle out of a detent. Then the handle has a couple of inches of cable attached to it and is slack. You could move it all around. So, you pull the handle, then you can either jerk it again or pull up the slack and pull or whatever you want - it's very definitely possible to make it a two stage operation. If you accidentally pull the handle out of the first detent that does not mean you fire the rocket unless you pull again or continue the pull. Of course, you could pull and fire all at once if you wanted to, it would pull out of the detent, take up the slack and continue to fire the rocket if you pulled hard enough continuously, which is likely what would happen in real life. The guy said pull it out straight in line with the cable, not off at an angle. If you blew the rocket in one big, continuous pull, you are more likely to do that than if you made a two state operation out of it.

 

I do not know if you could stuff the handle back in the detent and put the pin if if you accidentally pulled it out of the first detent but didn't fire the rocket. Good question for BRS.

 

The handle on the CTSW is in a much more awkward spot but after I pulled the handle in the booth I felt that I could pull the handle in the SW with either hand from either seat.. I am not saying I like where it is at, just that I'm very comfortable I could engage it. I am also sure my wife could engage it.

 

Maybe you more scientific pilots can suggest a training aid such as a weight, a spring or something that approximates the resistance of the handle such that you could feel comfortable that your passenger could pull it?

 

If you lean forward or down to grab the handle (an in the booth demo) and the straighten up or lean back, you get all the weight of your body in motion to add to the force. If you pull it out of the CTSW, you are using just muscle power or maybe twisting power. I am no scientist and don't know if that makes much different but intuitively it would seem like the former is easer to get a lot of force on than the latter. However, I did it in the demo with muscle power and it was not difficult at all.

 

After having executed the demo, I thought, "this is not a big deal" and would say as much to any of you, but at the same time I'm glad I sat in the demo and if it comes around would encourage you to experience it yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

[Roger Lee]

You can indeed put the handle back in its receptacle if you only pull it out until the slack is out of the cable. It is only held in place by 2 "O" rings. BRS advises that if you really need the chute in an emergency to pull the handle and don't stop until it fires. One long steady pull.

[FlyingMonkey]

MrMorden, is "in-flight ninja" another term for arterial blockage? Dehabilitating things don't occur very often to pilots per the published stats but it does happen. Good that your wife knows where the red handle is. My wife insisted that I have the parachute if I bought a plane although having it still doesn't convince her to fly with me. At the time, I thought it really wasn't that necessary but the more I fly with the BRS, the more I like having it.

 

I'm only 45 and in good health, so I use "in flight ninja" to mean anything that might render me incapable or flying or pulling the handle. Could be heart attack, a mid-air that injures me, UFO paralysis ray, whatever.

[chanik]

I was reading up on CAPS deployment and accdent rates for Cirrus http://www.cirruspilots.org/media/p/621587.aspx

Mostly because I wanted more detail on how many times people failed to activate the chute. Nice report (they heuristically estimate ~1/2 of their fatalaties are due to unactivated chutes)

 

For grins and giggles I tried to figure out the FD overall accident rate. They don't publish it but very roughly there are 340 currently registered planes and 10 accidents over the last 24 months (from the NTSB total of 23). That's a lousy statistical sample but presuming something like 80hrs/yr average per plane that works out to ballpark 20 accidents per 100,000 flight hours, much higher than GA overall of 6.3. The fatality rate is still 0 which is pretty good (especially compared to Cirrus).

 

I am intriqued about unpulled chutes partly because I see it as very antithetical to all the training I have had and also unlikely for any pilot to sort out in some stressful moment. Cirrus is trying to fix this, and I sympathize. Rule 1,2,3 etc has always been to KEEP FLYING THE AIRPLANE, NEVER STOP FLYING and so on. That makes sense if I'm spinning out of control in some Piper. I sort of have nothing better to do than apply a single focus on getting the plane back to controlled flight. Pulling the handle is a complete departure from this: Forget about flying and do this other thing. It's very hard to break an adrenaline soaked brain away from some demanding task. I imaging the military must have extensive training about this when it comes to using ejection seats. So I now often rehearse how and when I will pull the handle. And wonder if I really would

[Roger Lee]

Hi Kurt,

 

Does it help your statistics if I tell you there are 360 CT's in the US.

[FredG]

Kurt, great information on CT accident rates.

 

I hear all kinds of speculation of risk factors for LSA accidents, e.g., pilots transitioning from larger, legacy airplanes, but I am not aware of a publicly available empirical examination of risk factors for LSA crashes. The biggest problem, of course is getting reliable information on the non-crash comparison group (hypothetically, if half of all LSA crashes were among pilots who had just transitioned from larger aircraft, we might get excited. Unless it were also true that half of all non-crash LSA pilots had also just transitioned from larger aircraft). Insurance companies have that information, but do they release it in any useful way?

 

Sorry if this gets the thread off on a tangent.

[Duane Jefts]

Thinking about it and rehearsing is the first step to eventual success should it be necessary to deploy the chute. Everyone should do that.

 

As far as the military ejection seat training goes - things happen fast in a fighter jet and suprisingly, you will know instantly whether or not to eject. Look at air show crashes for example, they eject pretty fast don't they? Try taking off of a carrier with a power loss - same thing, the boys are out in a hurry. They are trained to recognize and react to specific situations without hesitation. They are put through every possible situation in a simulator so they will recognize it when one arises. Of course you have to remember they don't own their plane so there is no real financial loss if they leave it in the ocean.

 

I think that if you are flying an aircraft with a chute system, you should plan in advance - if this happens, I pull the handle, it that happens, I don't - and then stick to the plan. When these situations are planned for in advance and then, when they happen, all one has to do is execute the plan.

 

I think the chute system on the CT's makes it an extremely overall safe plane to fly. With passengers it should be part of your brief.

[chanik]

Sure but my point is without that drilled in training, few people would eject. I, like most pilots, have zero training in blowing a chute so I've had to self-drill on the concept.

 

360 helps just a little. The FAA has exactly 348 Flight Design GMBH registered planes. http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/AcftRef_Results.aspx?Mfrtxt=FLIGHT+DESIGN+GMBH&Modeltxt=&PageNo=1

(That's how you have to search NTSB or FAA registry)

Remember 23 have crashed. So maybe a dozen are written off.

 

If you really want to noodle accident rates overall, the best source by far are the Nall reports. http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html

There you can learn to not fly in turbine singles. That IMC is actually pretty damn dangerous even when flown legally. And unexpectedly (for me) that the lethality rate (deaths per hours flown) for: Private, Commercial, ATP, CFI, Instrument Rated, when flying non-commercially, are all about the same. Having two pilots on board doesn't help and may actually make it worse. Sport Pilots are lower and Student pilots are statistically safest. Probably because they aren't yet trying their hand at scud running or under pressure to get their friends to the ski resort mountain airport even though a storm is moving in.

[Jim Meade]

Duane, I think your point on training is well taken. Military trained pilots seem to eject "by the numbers". The L39 guy at the Quad Cities airshow didn't seem to eject. I wonder if civilian fighter jet pilots get the same indoctrination that you refer to?

 

I agree that chute pull should be part of the passenger briefing and should be part of our training.

 

I'd like to see a compendium of manufacturer and interest group literature, accident findings and so forth to help us know when we should automatically pull, when we should consider pulling and when we should not.

 

I suppose the bottom line is "it depends" but it seems to me there is a lot of room for discussion and mutual education on this topic.

 

 

[FlyingMonkey]

Duane, I think your point on training is well taken. Military trained pilots seem to eject "by the numbers". The L39 guy at the Quad Cities airshow didn't seem to eject. I wonder if civilian fighter jet pilots get the same indoctrination that you refer to?

 

Many civilian-ized military aircraft do not have hot ejection seats. The maintenance and inspection requirements involved (plus they contain explosives, so BATFE gets involved) are burdensome, so they are often deactivated, many times before the airplane is imported to ease customs.

[techman]

Here is a link to a cirrus chute pull. No 42 for cirrus. Fortunately there are not as many for the CT but always a good reminder...

 

http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/fairfield_cty/plane-crash-in-danbury-passengers-safe#.UP9W_qU1ZFI

 

 

[Runtoeat]

Interesting that the Facebook writers, including a former ATP, don't have much of a clue about BRS system. People are blown away when I show them my CTSW. Normal reply after looking my plane over; "Wow, this is a real airplane, with a parachute too!".