BRS coming to a Mooney near you!

[Tommy]

Well not quite but...

http://www.flyingmag.com/brs-aerospace-to-handle-whole-aircraft-parachute-installations-for-cessna-models?src=SOC&dom=fb

Now BRS is available to Cessna 172 and 182. Is this retrofit? And how much will it cost? And who will take up the offer if it comes to Mooney?

I can see Cirrus' boss fuming over this. 

Edited October 4, 2017 by Tommy

[Hank]

Talk to chrixxer and danb . . . Mooneys don't need no parachute! Built safe for over 60 years.

[johncuyle]

Makes a lot of sense for a 172 since those get used as primary trainers. And the 182 since those usually have useful load to burn. Never met a Mooney owner desperate to lose fifty pounds of useful plus add yet another expensive repetitive inspection for no increase in capability. I mean, sure, bladders kinda fall into that category but at least those are intended to prevent ever needing a reseal.

[gsxrpilot]

Not me, I'm a pilot not a passenger...

[Tommy]

I can understand Cirrus has it because of poor spin recovery which probably does not apply to Mooneys

But what's the point on 172 / 182 then? Wouldn't the same reasons that apply to them apply to us?

 

[neilpilot]

A local C182 had a BRS chute installed in 2011. 

BTW he used it when he departed the shop right after the install. Seems the shop turned his fuel selector off, told him it was off, but he took off with it OFF. Google NTSB N795ZS.

[aviatoreb]

Just now, neilpilot said:

A local C182 had a BRS chute installed in 2011. 

BTW he used it when he departed the shop right after the install. Seems the shop turned his fuel selector off, told him it was off, but he took off with it OFF. Google NTSB N795ZS.

Good thing he had that brs I guess.

[aviatoreb]

I don't think our landing gear is good for brs.  I doubt it would ever be offered to us.

if it were I would strongly consider it.

[M20S Driver]

50 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

I don't think our landing gear is good for brs.  I doubt it would ever be offered to us.

if it were I would strongly consider it.

+1

[RLCarter]

2 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

Not me, I'm a pilot not a passenger...

I like picking my landing spot as well

[Tommy]

2 hours ago, neilpilot said:

A local C182 had a BRS chute installed in 2011. 

BTW he used it when he departed the shop right after the install. Seems the shop turned his fuel selector off, told him it was off, but he took off with it OFF. Google NTSB N795ZS.

How?

[ArtVandelay]

How?

Probably skipped the runup.

[peevee]

10 minutes ago, Hyett6420 said:

Sounds like he needed to be taught how to fly again and use anchecklist.

love these comments. you've never missed something, right? Never forgot to close the cowl flaps in cruise or open on descent?

[Hank]

Just now, peevee said:

love these comments. you've never missed something, right? Never forgot to close the cowl flaps in cruise or open on descent?

Misadjusting the cowl flaps, or not leaning for a few extra minutes after leveling off, or missing a radio handoff, usually won't damage the airframe and end the flight. 

Like forgetting to out the gear down, I would expect departing with the fuel turned off would at least result in a 709 ride, especially since the resulting chute pull caused significant airframe damage.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, peevee said:

love these comments. you've never missed something, right? Never forgot to close the cowl flaps in cruise or open on descent?

Those examples are quite different than not completing a run up before departing or switching the fuel selector off.

Clarence

Edited October 4, 2017 by M20Doc

[peevee]

13 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Those examples are quite different than not completing a run up before departing twitch the fuel selector off.

Clarence

History has proven time and time again the engine will run through a runup and run out of fuel just after rotation with the selector off. I suspect even moreso with a carbed airplane and a full bowl.

[peevee]

23 minutes ago, Hank said:

Misadjusting the cowl flaps, or not leaning for a few extra minutes after leveling off, or missing a radio handoff, usually won't damage the airframe and end the flight. 

Like forgetting to out the gear down, I would expect departing with the fuel turned off would at least result in a 709 ride, especially since the resulting chute pull caused significant airframe damage.

they won't, but checking the fuel is no harder to forget. this "it can't happen to me" attitude frequently displayed here smacks of invincibility. It can happen to any of us and just takes something out of the ordinary to distract from your normal routine.

[mike_elliott]

9 hours ago, johncuyle said:

Makes a lot of sense for a 172 since those get used as primary trainers. And the 182 since those usually have useful load to burn. Never met a Mooney owner desperate to lose fifty pounds of useful plus add yet another expensive repetitive inspection for no increase in capability. I mean, sure, bladders kinda fall into that category but at least those are intended to prevent ever needing a reseal.

Yea think of it as a way Cessna will bolster sales, when a 18 hr student pilot gets into a situation that scares him some, so he  pulls the red handle. Headlines might be "Record Cessna Sales...chute just saved another student pilot, airframe damaged beyond repair"

[ArtVandelay]

I wonder if a BRS helps your insurance rate?

[Tommy]

There is never a lack of cynicism from Mooney pilots towards BRS. 

Is it really just a marketing ploy to sell more planes? Or maybe BRS can be a life saver in, say, 

1) Engine failure at night 

2) Mid air collision / breakup

3) Inadvertent spin 

4) Engine failure in IMC and high terrain 

5) Engine failure over mountainous / dense forest 

6) Loss of control from, say, run away / stuck trim

To say that you can't pick a landing spot with BRS is probably not true. You might be able to pick the spot over where you pull the chute and get pretty close to where you like to hit the ground. 

 

 

[jkhirsch]

20 minutes ago, Tommy said:

 

It does add some complexity to the decision making process. If the engine fails do you immediately use the use the chute? What is the decision height if you don't get your glide quite right to your intended landing spot?

If your engine fails now the decision is find a spot and get down safely.

[steingar]

One  my pals has it in his Skyhawk.  Takes up the whole luggage bay.

I can see the attraction, those things have saved lives.  How many is debatable, since I'm certain some of those "saves" could have glided to a safe landing.

And what I've read about Mooney spins makes me very much not want to get into one.

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, Tommy said:

There is never a lack of cynicism from Mooney pilots towards BRS. 

Is it really just a marketing ploy to sell more planes? Or maybe BRS can be a life saver in, say, 

1) Engine failure at night 

2) Mid air collision / breakup

3) Inadvertent spin 

4) Engine failure in IMC and high terrain 

5) Engine failure over mountainous / dense forest 

6) Loss of control from, say, run away / stuck trim

To say that you can't pick a landing spot with BRS is probably not true. You might be able to pick the spot over where you pull the chute and get pretty close to where you like to hit the ground.

Its true - and this is partly mooney people justifying why they don't have one to themselves, but also we are folks who may have decided that the brs was not an important enough factor to 100% make the decision to get a cirrus, or 182 with add on.

That said - I would carefully consider adding one if it became available for my current mooney.  not saying 100% I would add one, but call it 70% depending on the rest of the parameters - weight, where it is installed, how appropriate it really seems generally (eg landing gear? - and can you land with it gear up or is it critical to put the gear down or risk breaking your spine? and of course cost is in there too).

But to your list, I do my best to mitigate each and every one of those factors:

>1) Engine failure at night 

Engine failure scares the crap out of me...but at night forget about it.  For this reason alone, I do not generally fly at night.  last time I flew at night was 2.5 years ago during the required cross country and hours and landings associated with my commercial.  The one time before that was about 5 years.  I give up the night which is sort of a pain, meaning I need to rush to get home, to get wheels up in time to land before dark - I consider civil twighlight to be safe enough.  If I had a parachute I might just start flying at night all the time with some dose of safety, but I bet I am safer at night by not - by only flying during the day.

>2) Mid air collision / breakup

Knock on wood!!!  I was an early adopter of ADSB in, and I am always on flight following.  In any case, yes quite a danger but statistically low probability.  I am not sure all mid airs are such that a parachute would do anything anyway - the collision would have to be just right.  So it is a false sense of safety.

>3) Inadvertent spin 

Absolutely a big deal and clear and present danger.  esp the famous base to final turn is responsible for many horrible accidents including even a famous Mooney test pilot - what was his name?  The best we can do is concentrate, sterile cockpit at certain times, esp in ifr in certain phases of flight and training.  But it is for this failure mode that I am very very keen on the new Garmin gfc500 autopilot which has esp envelope protection that even while hand flying actively tries to nudge you to stay within appropriate angles of attack.  I will upgrade to some such technology asap available.  I consider such an autopilot solution significantly better than a parachute solution for this specific failure mode.

>4) Engine failure in IMC and high terrain 

See 1).  Scary - for this reason a) I almost exclusively only fly in marginal vfr (in imc up high), and also b it was a major piece in my thinking when I decided to buy a turbo - so that I can have the possibility to fly very high over hostile terrain with a hope of gliding someplace reasonable, at least a fighting chance to do so.

>5) Engine failure over mountainous / dense forest 

Again - the turbo to fly high - but we have lots of forest around here, so for flatter terrain, yeah I am often exposed.

>6) Loss of control from, say, run away / stuck trim

Yup - good list.  #5 and #6 - I would likely buy a BRS if available. 

BTW for hostile terrain, you forgot to mention - sometimes flying over an urban environment, where i would rather be high to treat it like hostile terrain, instead I am vectored very low, for miles, and that always buggers me.

[tigers2007]

Skip the overhaul (on a good running engine) and install a BRS? For every hour after overhaul how much does the engine put back in our pocket? $15/hr?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bravoman]

Agree with the comments above that it would definitely be good to have under certain conditions where the chance of an off airport landing that would be survivable would be minimal.