Jump to content

Chute did not deploy


Skunkworks85

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

image.png.30b462358c057f4bd1a9ef2129c1dfc5.pngimage.png.3814df37e9fa1dabdcc6247d58136934.png

 

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
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:

image.png.f6ad9c50321e364346c32f6ee01e6ad7.pngimage.png.f6b43f197713c58bbe65ee748d4a6971.png

 

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skunkworks85 said:

Finally found were i read this:

image.png.f6ad9c50321e364346c32f6ee01e6ad7.pngimage.png.f6b43f197713c58bbe65ee748d4a6971.png

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...