Skunkworks85 Posted May 12, 2019 Report Share Posted May 12, 2019 http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2019/03/flight-design-ctls-n81kk-incident.html?m=1 Appears they tried the BRS, but did not work. Any thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Jefts Posted May 12, 2019 Report Share Posted May 12, 2019 There was some discussion some time ago about checking that the parachute cords were attached in the right place. Apparently some were not looped through the connector pin. If you search this site you may be able to find those discussions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tip Posted May 13, 2019 Report Share Posted May 13, 2019 I sure hope that BRS & Flight Design are looking into this. It looks like the rocket part is hanging off the side of the plane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skunkworks85 Posted May 13, 2019 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2019 For reference, I sure hope they find the root cause, Makes me have a little less faith in the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted May 13, 2019 Report Share Posted May 13, 2019 44 minutes ago, Skunkworks85 said: . . . . Makes me have a little less faith in the system. No need for that. Just make sure competent maintenance technicians have assembled and inspected the BRS system for proper installation. Pure and simple, if things aren’t hooked up right . . . it ain’t gonna’ work as advertised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skunkworks85 Posted May 13, 2019 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2019 37 minutes ago, WmInce said: No need for that. Just make sure competent maintenance technicians have assembled and inspected the BRS system for proper installation. Pure and simple, if things aren’t hooked up right . . . it ain’t gonna’ work as advertised. That is based on the assumption that, in this case, things were not hooked up correctly. if they were, and still failed, is my point of concern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cluemeister Posted May 13, 2019 Report Share Posted May 13, 2019 The fact they were still able to land the plane after they thought the chute was deployed is pretty impressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted May 13, 2019 Report Share Posted May 13, 2019 1 hour ago, Skunkworks85 said: That is based on the assumption that, in this case, things were not hooked up correctly. if they were, and still failed, is my point of concern. Just for the record, I made no assumptions of the sort. If BRS is installed correctly, there is no need for losing “faith,” any more than losing “faith” in a properly installed engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted May 13, 2019 Report Share Posted May 13, 2019 1 hour ago, Cluemeister said: The fact they were still able to land the plane after they thought the chute was deployed is pretty impressive. I wouldn't exactly call it impressive. IMHO. a good pilot will continue to fly the airplane, regardless, until it comes to rest at the surface. Unless he is wearing a parachute, it’s seems to be the best option. During any emergency . . . continue to fly the airplane! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted May 14, 2019 Report Share Posted May 14, 2019 One nice thing about the CT series, is that they have a strong enough structure and land slowly enough that if one goes off airport with full flaps and lands at minimum speed, there is quite a low chance of a "very bad" (e.g. fatal) outcome. The airplane might end up on its back, but the people will most likely walk away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted May 14, 2019 Report Share Posted May 14, 2019 Concur. The killer is speed . . . both vertical and forward. The slower, the better. In most of the cases, the safety cell absorbs much of the shock and does a good job of protecting occupants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted May 14, 2019 Report Share Posted May 14, 2019 On 5/13/2019 at 11:02 AM, Skunkworks85 said: For reference, I sure hope they find the root cause, Makes me have a little less faith in the system. In this photo, it appears the flaps are in the 0° position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyb Posted May 15, 2019 Report Share Posted May 15, 2019 Is there any indication that the BRS was incorrectly installed on this aircraft? If not, this would be of concern to me. FWIW, a number of years ago there was an instance in which the Cirrus parachute was activated and it didn't deploy. There was a very extensive investigation by Cirrus, BRS, and the FAA. I turned out that under certain aerodynamic conditions, the inertial forces on the plane were so great that they overcame the power of the rocket expelling the parachute. This was important information for the pilots to understand. My hope is that this is thoroughly investigated. Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted May 15, 2019 Report Share Posted May 15, 2019 2 hours ago, andyb said: Is there any indication that the BRS was incorrectly installed on this aircraft? I would say the fact that the rocket fired but the chute didn't extract is strong circumstantial evidence of an incorrect installation. The chute is attached to the rocket, so either the rocket didn't have enough force to extract the parachute, indicating a rocket issue or a chute packing problem, or the chute was simply not correctly attached to the rocket. My money is on the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyb Posted May 15, 2019 Report Share Posted May 15, 2019 16 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said: I would say the fact that the rocket fired but the chute didn't extract is strong circumstantial evidence of an incorrect installation. The chute is attached to the rocket, so either the rocket didn't have enough force to extract the parachute, indicating a rocket issue or a chute packing problem, or the chute was simply not correctly attached to the rocket. My money is on the latter. I don't know enough about the technical aspects of this to come to an intelligent conclusion. With that said, I don't know how we would disqualify that there's some kind of design or quality issue that cause the problem here. Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLang Posted May 15, 2019 Report Share Posted May 15, 2019 2 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said: I would say the fact that the rocket fired but the chute didn't extract is strong circumstantial evidence of an incorrect installation. The chute is attached to the rocket, so either the rocket didn't have enough force to extract the parachute, indicating a rocket issue or a chute packing problem, or the chute was simply not correctly attached to the rocket. My money is on the latter. When I purchased my used 07 CTSW, since I was new to the type, the first thing I did when I got it in my hangar was spend time inspecting the plane to get familiar with it. In the process I discovered that the rocket was completely unattached to the chute; the chute straps were hanging loose right next to -- but not attached to -- the rocket buckle. A chute repack was noted and signed off in the logbook, and the plane had gone through TWO condition inspections since then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skunkworks85 Posted May 15, 2019 Author Report Share Posted May 15, 2019 The Rocket to parachute Lanyard is clearly seen hanging out of the hatch, that would indicate that the rocket pick up collar was attached to the rocket as well as the parachute. Regardless, I have E-mailed BRS about this incident, Since the BRS documentation states that you are required to report any deployment to them, No response, yet, But at least they are aware of this incident, If they didnt already know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted May 15, 2019 Report Share Posted May 15, 2019 27 minutes ago, Skunkworks85 said: BRS documentation states that you are required to report any deployment to them, Or what? can "require" anything they want, but that don't make it so. I'm not saying it's not a *great* idea to tell BRS, I'm just saying they can't really "require" jack shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted May 15, 2019 Report Share Posted May 15, 2019 4 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said: Or what? can "require" anything they want, but that don't make it so. I'm not saying it's not a *great* idea to tell BRS, I'm just saying they can't really "require" jack shit. It possible. The could require agreement to qualify for purchase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted May 16, 2019 Report Share Posted May 16, 2019 15 hours ago, Ed Cesnalis said: It possible. The could require agreement to qualify for purchase. Unless it's a legally enforceable signed contract, I don't think so. I never signed anything with BRS when I bought the airplane. Any such agreement would be between FD and BRS I would suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZZ Top Posted May 24, 2019 Report Share Posted May 24, 2019 Is there any report as to what altitude the chute was pulled? Yes, always fly the plane! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skunkworks85 Posted June 20, 2019 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2019 On 5/15/2019 at 12:14 PM, FlyingMonkey said: Or what? can "require" anything they want, but that don't make it so. I'm not saying it's not a *great* idea to tell BRS, I'm just saying they can't really "require" jack shit. Finally found were i read this: So I would read that as: If you ever want the aircraft to be (legally)considered airworthy after a deployment, A notification must be sent to BRS informing them of said deployment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted June 20, 2019 Report Share Posted June 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Skunkworks85 said: Finally found were i read this: So I would read that as: If you ever want the aircraft to be (legally)considered airworthy after a deployment, A notification must be sent to BRS informing them of said deployment. That is not what it says. There are three things here: 1) The aircraft is unairworthy after deployment. That makes sense, panels or fabric get ripped, gear gets stressed, etc. 2) The aircraft must be returned to service by the appropriate authority? Who is that? NOT BRS. That is the repairing mechanic (and/or owner in case of an experimental). 3) BRS must be notified. This is written as a command to make it sound like a legal requirement, but it's not. In reality it's a request by BRS to let them know about it so they can track events and develop statistics. BRS has no say whatsoever in the airworthiness of an airplane. Don't create requirements where they don't exist. There are plenty on pilots already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyb Posted June 20, 2019 Report Share Posted June 20, 2019 Perhaps heavy-handed wording on BRS's part, but I'm hard-pressed to think of any reason not to contact them, as it's in our interest that they know about deployments be they successful or unsuccessful. With that said, I'm still very interested in what happened here and why it didn't deploy. To me that's the important issue. Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted June 20, 2019 Report Share Posted June 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, andyb said: Perhaps heavy-handed wording on BRS's part, but I'm hard-pressed to think of any reason not to contact them, as it's in our interest that they know about deployments be they successful or unsuccessful. With that said, I'm still very interested in what happened here and why it didn't deploy. To me that's the important issue. Andy I'm not arguing you shouldn't contact them, just that there is no legal or airworthiness requirement to do so. I still don't thing we have a definite confirmation the chute failed. It seems circumstantial at this point, unless I missed something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.