Judging interest in developing a BRS system for the Mooney fleet

[MyNameIsNobody]

Shoulder harnesses, strobes, lights, maintenance, flying on a regular basis, risk avoidance are, to me, examples of cost effective risk mitigation.  A ballistic chute, for me, not so much.

[Bennett]

Ron, good to see you on the forum. Best of luck on the first flight on the M10 series.

I've been trying to get the AmSafe (or other) airbags installed on my J for the last three years. There have Moonspace forum polls that show interest in having such airbags as now available on the newest Mooneys. Anything the factory can do to make these available for earlier M20 series would be appreciated. Apparently Mooney thinks they are a good idea or they wouldn't be on the newest M20s.

[Marauder]

Hank:  I like your posts and Don's, too.

I do not troll, and I try to be accessible for any and all questions ... although y'all put a lot of stuff up on this site )  I am the chief engineer on the new M10.  I will answer any questions that you want to ask at rblum@mooney.com or fly-in-home@att.net or (316) 295-7812 depending on your preference (and my availability).  We, Mooney, would love to save every life that we can (it's hard to save lives when you're not making a profit at it, though).  To say that we have not looked at a whole-aircraft parachute would be naïve (and erroneous).  Just as you individually do, we too must make a business case that makes cents.

The three pages of discussion above that I have read completely are no different than that which we hear at each and every event that we attend.  Some pro; some con; all valid.

Cirrus may have most of the sales ... at this time, but how many airplanes are we as an industry producing today?  We made an order of magnitude more airplanes 30-40 years ago ... and I think that there are more people on Earth today than there was back then.  Why are people not buying airplanes?  That's the question that we need to answer.

If there is an etiquette rule about me not being able to be a member on MooneySpace, please let me know, and I will dismiss myself.  Honestly, I know that I definitely WON'T see all your posts (which I apologize for upfront).  Each and everyone of you is a valued member of our family, and you opinion counts.  THANKS TO ALL!  -Ron

Ron -- thanks for joining the forum! The industry you are in has some gorillas in the market and taking market share will be a challenge. Not that it can't be done. Avidyne is starting to compete against Garmin for the WAAS GPS business while BK is floundering.

You are dealing with demographic challenges of an older population of customers who won't spend the money on a new plane and another population of younger pilots who can't afford a new plane.

When I bought my 16 year old used Mooney in 1991, the Js were selling for the $140k range and they were just out of my price range.

Would I love a new Mooney? You betcha!

The gap you need to fill is the one between the used buyers and those who can afford the $500k+ new airplanes. I haven't seen the pricing for the M10, but if it can deliver the performance of our older fleet and is priced right, there is a market.

As for the pilot community, not sure how much Mooney does to attract young potential pilots, but corporate sponsorship of Young Eagles programs, etc. may help you compete against the PlayStation generation.

I was hooked on Mooneys when I took my first ride in one in 1986.

Good luck and continue to check in with us! A healthy Mooney Corporation is a good thing for us all.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DonMuncy]

Welcome Ron

Glad to have you.

[Ron Blum]

Thanks all for your welcoming comments.  We are trying to do everything we can to keep costs down ... and to be honest, I think that the FAA is actually trying to help with the new regulations.  I sit on the ASTM Committee for F44, the rewrite of Part 23.  Don't expect miracles, but any change in the right direction would be a miracle in itself. :o)

[carusoam]

Ron, I'm glad you can join us.  

It has always been nice to hear from people in the Mooney company.  Stacey had been known to give us updates on the health of the company when there were not many people left to keep the lights on.  He did a great job of wearing the many hats it took to  keep customers in the air.

For me, I am a fan of backwards integration. Putting things into my aging airframe that are proven by the factory to work on new airframes.

When it comes to safety improvements like airbags, All Mooneys since 1958 are very similar in size, shape and layout.  The F, J, R and S are extremely similar.

For the business minded...  There comes a time in a pilot's life, the plane is paid for, the kids have left the house and it's time to spend on things that make sense.

Bennet voiced his opinion softly above.  He is a high tech kind of guy who has gone further down the road than most of us. We all go that way sooner or later. He sees the value in safety updates and acquires them when they are available.

my next projects are probably AOA, Airbag seat belts, and WAAS GPS related.

It really helps to know what the factory thinks about the best way to integrate these products into the older airframes.

The coolest thing to keep in mind...

When it comes to machinery, there are two types of buyers.  Those that can afford new machines, so they do...And those that can afford used machines and upgrade them over time.  There are insignificant new machine sales lost to guys that want to take on a project.  Buying a new machine is a project in itself.

Briefly:  (thoughts that come to mind)

1) welcome aboard.

2) glad you are here.

3) don't fear losing 'new' sales to updated used machines.

4) Mooney plane owners are pretty avid.  Buy and hold is a common strategy for this asset.

5) Pilots with a plane are looking to update it to improve safety.  Backwards compatibility of new updates is important.

6) Factory support for every piece, part, nut and bolt, document, and service bulletin are greatly appreciated.

7) We like to train, Share information, and get together when able.

8) Have you considered attending a  Mooney fly-in? (A proper invite can be extended)

http://mooneyspace.com/topic/17018-nj-mooney-pilots-fly-in-dec-2015/?page=4#comment-247235

Best regards,

-a-

[mike_elliott]

12 hours ago, Ron Blum said:

I am curious.  Did all of the original Mooney's come with shoulder harnesses?

If not, did someone provide an STC to incorporate shoulder harnesses in ALL Mooney airplanes?  Shoulder harnesses save lives by reducing HIC (Head Impact Criteria).

Also, is there an STC to install air bag harnesses in ALL Mooney airplanes?  These also reduce the chance of head impact.

Putting a price on life is neither possible or practical.  Every life is priceless.  SAFETY, Speed and Style.

I am guessing that if someone (on MooneySpace) wants to pursue the business of installing a whole-airplane chute, that would be great!

If someone would develop airbag harnesses for the vintage fleet at a reasonable price point, that would be one of the best upgrades one could do. I know of one life that very well could have been saved. Amsafe, got your ears on? Lets define reasonable at 1500.

[aviatoreb]

10 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

If someone would develop airbag harnesses for the vintage fleet at a reasonable price point, that would be one of the best upgrades one could do. I know of one life that very well could have been saved. Amsafe, got your ears on? Lets define reasonable at 1500.

I think the STC for the amsafe for the models it is available for - long bodies, is something like twice that.  Nonetheless, if it were available I would get it asap.

[DXB]

14 hours ago, Ron Blum said:

If there is an etiquette rule about me not being able to be a member on MooneySpace, please let me know, and I will dismiss myself.  Honestly, I know that I definitely WON'T see all your posts (which I apologize for upfront).  Each and everyone of you is a valued member of our family, and you opinion counts.  THANKS TO ALL!  -Ron

Quite to the contrary, it's awesome to have you here- thank you for bringing your perspective and also helping keep the breed alive.   And please put folks in their place here when this unruly bunch gets outta line .

[Tom]

I followed this up with BRS.

The R&D to develop a system for the Mooney would cost a fair sum of money (obviously) thus developing a STC for the Mooney in all reality would need to require corporate Mooney to lead the way with BRS (unless private investors where willing to group together for the endeavor).

It was stated that a BRS system developed for the long-body Mooney would very likely be able to be installed on the mid and short-bodied vintage Mooneys.  It was further offered that, at least currently, FAA is playing nicely to help BRS develop a retrofit chute for a different certified airframe and that development is going easier/faster than with previous airframe developments (FAA apparently recognizing the utility of the safety device). 

It was suggested that any Mooney owners wishing to encourage Mooney International to work with BRS to develop a ballistic recovery system should contact CEO (Jerry Chen) or VP (Tony Parker) and advise them of such interest.

 

[Ron Blum]

Yes, we have listened to pitches from BRS and other corporations in the whole-aircraft recovery chute business.

From an Engineering view, the operating envelope of a whole-aircraft parachute is very, very different from short-body airplanes to the current production airplane.  Speeds and weights are both dramatically different.  It's not a one size fits all.  The chute operating envelope on a Cirrus is not nearly the entire operating range of the airplane, both in speed (high and low) and altitude.  Nor is that envelope where the airplane is usually operating.

The costs to develop a system is very, very high, and there is a lot of risk, too.  As a comparison, when we do a spin program on a new airplane, we develop a releasable chute to get the pointy end going forward again.  Because of that, a typical spin program today is estimated between $1.5M and $2M.  That chute installation then limits the airplane high speed envelope due to the fact that if the chute would inadvertently come out at high speed, it could possibly over G the occupants or take some of the airplane with it on the way off.  Yes, there are sliding reefers (and other devices) that would allow a slower deployment of the chute, but that is more development.  This also slows the deployment time down, which is not what you want in other situations.  I wish there could be a simple, easy, inexpensive, does it all device that could eliminate all fatal airplane situations.  Honestly, it's on my list to Santa this year, as it has been every year before, too.

In the meantime, learn more about your airplane and your skills and limitations.  Fly your baby more, and treat her well ... and she will treat you well in return.

 

[mike_elliott]

Just now, Ron Blum said:

.  I wish there could be a simple, easy, inexpensive, does it all device that could eliminate all fatal airplane situations.  Honestly, it's on my list to Santa this year, as it has been every year before, too.

In the meantime, learn more about your airplane and your skills and limitations.  Fly your baby more, and treat her well ... and she will treat you well in return.

 

well put Ron. I imagine if we are not supposed to use our tail hooks as a jack point tie down because of structural issues, a chute integration would be a major structural change in itself, opening the complete recertification process.

The weakest link in the accident chain is ourselves and if only we would spend the $ on ourselves that we will on gadgets from Kansas, we could nip a lot of incidents and accidents before they develop.

Take off accidents and engine related failures at this phase will be unmitigated with a chute. We lost a Mooney owner this year that way. Hypoxia related accidents wont be helped with a chute. We believe we lost another this way this year. In flight breakups and loss of control/spin related accidents are far far fewer.

 

[ArtVandelay]

Thinking out loud, could you tie the chute release to the speed brakes and/or landing gear? It would certainly bring down the speed and the landing gear would help soften the impact if landing on a hard surface. To be effective probably would have to improve the deployment speed.

[Ron Blum]

teejay:  You bring up a really good point.  In the Cirrus, the gear is a vital part of the deceleration of the airplane (and the occupants) when the airplane hits the ground or water.  I believe that they changed the hanging attitude of the airplane (more nose down now) because hitting flat on the water decelerates the airplane much, much more rapidly.  Oh, and most Mooneys have retractable gear. 

[bonal]

Since the cost is as much as my Mooney is worth and maybe not even possible for a short body it would make little sence to install a chute. We speak of weight but I wonder how large the unit is and how it would fit as a modification to an existing airframe. Also I know the results of chute deployment have been safe outcomes but I wonder how many would have also been safe outcomes if the pilot continued to fly the airplane to an acceptable off field location rather than just pulling the handle.

[Tom]

2 hours ago, Ron Blum said:

From an Engineering view, the operating envelope of a whole-aircraft parachute is very, very different from short-body airplanes to the current production airplane.  Speeds and weights are both dramatically different.  It's not a one size fits all.  The chute operating envelope on a Cirrus is not nearly the entire operating range of the airplane, both in speed (high and low) and altitude.  Nor is that envelope where the airplane is usually operating.

 

Quite obviously the envelop for the C model is different than that for the Acclaim.  I was recounting that the Engineers who have designed, developed, and received FAA certification of ballistic parachute systems (that have documented many legitimate lives saved in several airframe types, including in a new airframe that is beating the pants off your company) stated that the R&D associated with designing a system for the long-bodied Mooneys would, in all likelihood, be able to be applied to short and mid-length Mooneys.  But what do they know, they've only been producing a successful product for a few decades that adds to safety. 

The cost for the R&D was suggested to be in the neighborhood of 500k, not $1.5M to $2.0M.  If Mooney can't afford (or chooses not to provide) the R&D that its competitors provide, including the safety countermeasures that result from that research, I wouldn't go posting that all over the internet... 

[Ron Blum]

Thanks for the information.

[aviatoreb]

This seems to happen a lot - someone says, hey I want to buy some piece of safety equipment, or I wish some piece of safety equipment were available, then there is a lot of back and forth how it is expensive and some people want it anyway and other people say not worth it.  Fine. Then someone says the money would be better spent to train more.  Spend the money flying your airplane and hire a CFI.  As if that is the retort.  Don't buy seatbelts.  Don't use seatbelts.  Train more.  Fly with more skill.  Hire a CFI to teach you to fly with more skill and better judgement.  

Can't I do both?  Train more and keep an eye out for better equipment and wish for things like airbag seatbelts, and parachutes?

Last week I had a 3 hour lesson that was very thorough and I ended up getting a full BFR, 13 months before I was required a BFR.   I will see him again for a similar lesson in 3 or 4 months.  Still I would buy a parachute if I could.  And airbag seatbelts.  I want to train to make myself better and also consider buying the best equipment. Both.

BRS made a system for the retractable gear Lancair evolution - a 320kts cruise speed airplane.  I am sure it can be done for a Mooney.  Yes of course the question is cost, but if BRS says it would cost 500k for the STC then perhaps they are pulling our leg, or perhaps they are overly optimistic, but we should at least use that as a data point that they think it can be done and would cost 500k for an STC.

[Bennett]

At this point I would be happy to settle for airbags. This should be relatively simple as compared to the whole aircraft parachute concept. And do remember that the chute deployment envelope is narrow. I was about to buy a partnership in a new Cirrus until I read though the chute failures- especially the one over the Sierras out of Reno on a very bad night to fly. The main reason I was considering the Cirrus was the parachute feature- not so much for myself, as reassuring passengers. In the 40 years or so that I have been flying, I've had a few incidents that were life threatening, but none in which a parachute would have improved the outcome. The only situation where it absolutely might make a difference would be in a mid-air. I've owned other aircraft which were flown by other pilots (during or after the end of my ownership), which crashed, and in all three situations, (landings and takeoffs) a parachute would not make up for poor judgement (in my mind; stupidity), but in all three situations an airbag would have mitigated injuries.

[Tom]

For what it's worth, I've pinged AmSafe to see what it might take for them to develop and offer their product to the older Mooney fleet (to include a question about offering deposits from enough interested buyers to make it worth their while).  I'll post back if I hear anything. 

If you're interested in doing the same, considering pinging them at info@amsafe.com  .

[ArtVandelay]

The problem with the ongoing chute save count is deciding whether the chute really help. For example in a recent incident the Cirrus was getting low oil pressure, and could have glided back to the airport if required, ended up pulling the chute.

I'm with you on airbags, it should be trivial STC to include all M20 types.

The other danger other than impact forces is fire, which I think bladders could help and of course the soft landing via chute should prevent.

[Andy95W]

In 2012 I contacted Am-Safe out of curiosity for my M20C. The guy I talked to didn't sound like it would be too difficult to get a Field Approval based on the existing STC.

Price would have been about $5000 for the front 2 seats.

I found an article from Flying magazine that says they are worthwhile:

http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/fly-wire/are-airbags-worth-money

But I'm not absolutely convinced.  From the article:

A study of 88 accidents between 2006 and 2009 involving airbag-equipped GA aircraft “found no instances where the airbag caused harm in properly restrained occupants,” the NTSB said. Rather, the study found that the airbag likely mitigated injuries for two occupants within a group of 10 accidents that involved crash forces strong enough to cause injury or deploy the airbag.

So only 1 out of 9 crashes does the airbag actually inflate, and only 20% of those times does the airbag "likely mitigate injuries".  And of course there is no mention about accidents that were so catastrophic that no airbag could have helped.

I put in shoulder harnesses and wouldn't fly without them.

[aviatoreb]

I would be pretty happy to upgrade from my 3 point seatbelt to a 5 point seat belt if such a system existed.  I bet that would be close to as protective as airbag seatbelts.

[ryoder]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

I would be pretty happy to upgrade from my 3 point seatbelt to a 5 point seat belt if such a system existed.  I bet that would be close to as protective as airbag seatbelts.

I was just about to say that.  

[GeorgePerry]

I think the premise of the poll might be flawed.  We are asking pilots what they think.  The better audience to poll are the spouses.  What good is a plane if you spouse won't let you buy it, isn't comfortable in it, or refuses to go along at all.  Education and training is such an important part of the process for pilots that they learn how to manage risk and mitigate potential hazards.  Spouses don't typically have that level of training and don't understanding the complexities of what it take to fly safely no matter how much we try to convince them, its an uphill battle.  

To support my hypothesis, look no further than the sales figures, they are also very telling.  Cirrus outsells Corvallis and Mooney about 30 to 1.  Lots of reasons for that, but in addition to the well known safety data that shows CAPS is a lifesaver, spouses "understand" a parachute.   It gives them back what they are missing in a non BRS equipped aircraft - some level of control and a coping mechanism by which they can intervene, to save themselves or their pilot without the need for extensive training.    

For the record, I'm not a psychologist, but I do have a spouse and she's flown in my Mooneys and in several Cirrus.  She still flies with me in my current aircraft (M20S) but she much prefers the Cirrus simply because it has a red handle.