Tommy

Came across this on Flying Mag. A review of DA-62 Twins "It's a pity, however, that so few people are expected to buy it. Don't blame Diamond for that. Light-piston twin sales have been so slow for so long that most aircraft buyers — and aviation writers — have written off the segment as all but dead. And no wonder. There aren't nearly as many pilots hanging around airports today who will tell you they need a twin. That's mainly a byproduct of the rise of high-performance piston singles like the Cirrus SR22 and Cessna TTx, which can do pretty much everything a twin can but with substantially reduced operating costs and essentially no ­safety penalty." "With a single, obviously, there's only one engine to care for, and the chances of it quitting are low — and if it does quit in the Cirrus, there's a full-airframe parachute to save the day." The way I read it is that a BRS is equivalent of having an extra engine when it comes to safety. A statement that is not to be taken lightly. Now an extra engine will set you back 70K plus annual running cost and maintenance of at least 3K a year (excluding the extra fuel burn) vs. 17k BRS plus 0.5K a year maintenance.

My point exactly, 150 threads earlier....

My money is on that the house would've still be standing if he had a BRS. But I digress. In the meantime, let's just be happy that no one was hurt and wait for the formal report.

Now now, Hank. You are waking up neighbors. Chillax, bud. It's only an online forum. I am not putting words into your mouth. I didn't use "quotation marks." I am merely telling you how I interpreted it when you said those things. I know you were taking a cheap shot at the chute but I am calling you out on the insensitive nature and the absurdities of drawing conclusions before the official report.

Hardly a controlled flight in my opinion and I agree that water near the bank would've been a much better place to put the plane down. Sit it under the sun for couple of days, it's good as new!

Now that's more like it, Hank! And welcome back! I know you miss me! Okay I take issues with the fact we knew almost nothing about the first incident and very little about the second (I see how you add landing / accident to your statement, clever). So it's tactless to draw conclusions on who had a better landing simply based on the outcome. If it turns out that the first guy could've saved himself if he decided to plough into a park full of kids but instead he aimed for the rough terrains. Would that change your view? Plus we don't even know if the incident occurred during a landing. Not content with dissing first guy's airmanship (mind you, he is now dead), you then insinuated the guy would've been okay if his plane had the structural strength of our Mooney and no chute required as if the first incident is chute related.

Care to explain then - this is the 3rd time that I've asked you - why do you think the second landing is a good one not the first? What happened in the first? And how did the structural strength and no chute make a difference? I am asking for clarification of the "A's" that you had been saying all along, Hank.

No one died in that incident. There was another incident in Virginia, the pilot involved didn't fare so well. Details are sketchy but according to Hank, it's because he executed a bad landing in a plane that has no structural strength of a Mooney and has a useless chute instead... I do agree with your assessment on how it is only by miracle that no one was hurt in this Mooney incident. If anything, flying directly into someone's house after doing a 90 degree turn at the threshold isn't really a convincing evidence of a controlled flightl but I will wait for NTSB's report.

"The second landing is the good one" Do I need to keep repeating that? Why are you keep digging the hole, Hank? Without knowing the details of the first incident OR the second, I am just curious how do you conclude that it's good airmanship and structural strength that save the day? Flying directly into someone's house after doing a 90 degree turn at the threshold isn't really a convincing evidence.

Do you have the link to this accident? I couldn't find anything. There was a fatal accident involving a Piper towing a glider in Virginia.

You called the second landing a "good one. Then to say that it's Mooney's construction. Then to say it's not the chute that matters. You must have known something about the first accident that I don't. Perhaps you can enlighten me? If you don't, then my little gentle reminder of the tactless nature of your comment stands, Hank.

I can't find any information on the accident involving the experiment. Perhaps you know something about it to think that chute has something to do it, Hank? Always love it when Mooney pilots brags about the construction when people died flying other types of planes: "Ah, only if he was flying a Mooney...." It's just a tad bit crass and probably more so if Experimental's fatality turns out to be something preventable with a BRS.

That also begs the question, is the sealant all 'round the entire tank or just bottom part of it? Reason asking is that if it's only the bottom part then filling to half definitely beats filling to the top, keeping it cool whilst giving you the flexibility of flying withe more weight and less stress on the gear.

Is there any truth in keeping the tanks full in order to protect the tank sealant? v.s. the additional weight on the gear v.s. unable to take off for that impromptu scenic flight with 4 big boys / girls!

I am well aware of the additional risk of flying at night, Bob. In particular is the inability to pick a good spot for forced landing and that's the risk stopping many including myself from flying at night. And no amount of training can prepare you for picking the right spot at night to put down - that's why a catastrophic system failure almost always result in severe injury or death at night when there is no airstrip within the gliding distance. Same applies to hard IMCs (day or night). Now if I have the right rating, good deal of experience, and the plane is capable of doing it, then BRS is NOT emboldening me. Bob, you need to get around this and I hate to repeat myself, I am not advocating flying in conditions that you are not qualified to do so with a BRS. What BRS does is giving me options to UNFORESEEN (as compared to foreseen when you take off in conditions that you are not qualified to do so) emergencies that are highly survivable during day VMC but not so at night / hard IMC.

"BRS cannot mitigate task saturation." "Going anyway "because I have a chute to pull if I get overwhelmed" is the type of advice and action I see regarding BRS." No one is saying BRS is to mitigate task saturation. Where do you see this kind of advice or action? I never seen Cirrus advertising BRS as a bail out for task saturation in a perfectly flyable plane nor have I read any NTSB report that says "pilot activated BRS with no known system failure." Unless you can provide some evidence to this extraordinary claim, it is a classic straw man, Hank.

Common sense should prevail here. If you have plenty left in the tank (>48lb), even the other tank is fuller, there is really no point of switching especially if you had been managing the fuel appropriately. ie. the difference between tanks shouldn't be much to start with.

"I don't fly IMC at night because it is too risky" - that's a very vague statement, Hank. What risks are you talking about? Catastrophic engine or other system failure? Again, without stating what exactly the risk you are referring, it's hard to see if BRS can mitigate it. Risk homoeostasis has largely been disapproved - certainly in road accidents - based on evidence that the road fatality statistics have fallen considerably since the introduction of safety measures (this little inconvenient thing call Evidence is really getting up your nerve isn't it? *cough* gun control). The net effect of safety devices is a reduction of road fatalities. The question is therefore "what is the net effect of BRS in reduction of GA-related fatality."

So why won't you fly in Night IMC? What additional risks are there and can these be mitigated by BRS? Putting a chute on the plane LOWERS the risk of injuries or death in the event of an emergency. I don't quite follow your logic on ABS. Are you saying that we should remove ABS because it "emboldens" people to drive fast? This argument is quite frustrating, Hank. You think chute not as a life-saving EMERGENCY device but rather a performance-enhancing envelope-pushing one. Therefore people are tempted to do something that they are NOT qualified to do (That's how I interpret it when you said "SHOULDN'T"). At no time I am advocating flying illegally. Rather I am saying that like ABS / seat belts / airbags, it's a life saving device when something unexpected happened even though you did everything right. It gives you that extra peace of mind. The difference is that for Bob because he is an ex F1-race car driver, he is able to drift his car and flip it at the right time so he narrowly avoids the truck that ran a red (as an analogy).

with a BRS rocket.... Oh the irony. Serious note aside, I guess we all have different level of risk threshold. But one thing for sure it's not the lack of courage or training that people opt for BRS. Just like T&Gs are not just for saving money but I digress.

Ad hominem - clear sign of someone loosing the argument or has nothing to contribute to the discussion. In case you and Bob failed to notice, I am actually advocating MORE flying with BRS - at night, in hard IMC or both on a single piston.

I disagree to certain extent. The problem is that the solutions are very different between different failure items on that list. Unless you are prepared to practice all of them well, it's incredibly difficult to see how one can get proficient at dealing with all of them. Not to mention the variables involved (take system component failure for example) and the stress you will be under. But what determines the outcome for all of them? The energy that you carry just before impact AND the surface that you impacted on. The better the surface the more energy you can afford to have. But if you have low energy, almost all surface is survivable and that's what BRS does. Now you can do all sorts of training to deal with the all those emergencies and utilise all the technologies including synthetic visions - you are really drawing a long bow here (I flew in PC-12 with Synthetic Visions at night and you will be insane to think that you can pick the spot to put down the plane with that) or you can pull the chute - APPROPRIATELY and AS A LAST RESORT - to save your ass UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES including ones that no amount of training will save you like mid air or hard IMC with multiple system failures EXCEPT less than 300 feet AGL or when you are unfortunate enough to get tangle up with a power line. This is what I found Bob's argument frustrating. He seems to assume that every pilot will just pull the chute every time there is a hint of problem.

Other point to consider is the potential damage to the ground objects including innocent bystanders who happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time? As far as I know, BRS deployment has never caused a death / injury other than the occupant of the aircraft. I have no qualms of pulling a chute over a busy shopping center or a crowded sports field because I know that giant parachute will serve as a good visual cue to people on the ground to duck for cover but a silent plane charging 60 knots at kids on the beach....

I think you will have better luck with Google Map. The whole idea is that you can't see what's out there in the dark and IMC until the moment you hit the ground - so Synthetic Vision isn't going to help you much except you will be hitting something at 100 feet v.s. something at 2400 feet - therefore your chance of hitting something bad in pretty damn high - now you can hit it travelling at 60 knots or 10 knots. It's your choice. "Pilots walk away from off field (TV's breathless crash) landings almost daily." Love the hyperbole but what's the statistic on the survival rate of a single-piston emergences at Night or in IMC without BRS? Without googling it, I am quite certain it's pretty dismal.

Surprising that no one has posted this joke yet...