BRS coming to a Mooney near you!

[neilpilot]

59 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

The thought of completing a run up and getting airborne with the selector OFF is in my opinion utter BS.

Clarence

In the N759ZS incident I mentioned earlier, it was a C182 with a Continental Motors IO-470F engine.  Per NTSB, "According to the pilot, he taxied the airplane to the intersection at mid-field and performed a preflight run-up and checklist. During the checklist he touched the fuel selector valve lever to verify the fuel was selected to "BOTH" tanks. He reported that the selector valve was not pointed toward either wing."  Also, "On July 5, 2011, a follow-on examination was conducted by the Safety Board near Holly Springs, Mississippi. During the examination the fuel selector valve was found in the "OFF" position."

The pilot was a well known lawyer, and just maybe also a "liar"

[ArtVandelay]

Instead of spending $20K on a parachute for your plane why don't you get one for yourself for less than $1K
and get to practice skydiving. Get spares for the passengers. After all this what they use on aerobatic planes.
José

Anyone know how much altitude you need to fully deploy skydiving parachute?

[jetdriven]

7 minutes ago, neilpilot said:

In the N759ZS incident I mentioned earlier, it was a C182 with a Continental Motors IO-470F engine.  Per NTSB, "According to the pilot, he taxied the airplane to the intersection at mid-field and performed a preflight run-up and checklist. During the checklist he touched the fuel selector valve lever to verify the fuel was selected to "BOTH" tanks. He reported that the selector valve was not pointed toward either wing."  Also, "On July 5, 2011, a follow-on examination was conducted by the Safety Board near Holly Springs, Mississippi. During the examination the fuel selector valve was found in the "OFF" position."

The pilot was a well known lawyer, and just maybe also a "liar"

That Plane has a header tank it must burn down before going dry. Not the same risk with these planes. 

Edited October 5, 2017 by jetdriven

[aviatoreb]

3 minutes ago, teejayevans said:

Anyone know how much altitude you need to fully deploy skydiving parachute?

That's not the problem - how much altitude do you need to climb out of your airplane while it is diving?  And be sure not to get hit by the tail of the airplane on the way out.

Ever try to open your door in flight with 175mph winds holding it closed?

Better put explosive door locks.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

That Plane has a header tank it must burn down before going dry. Not the same risk with these planes. 

I've never seen a Cessna 182 with a header tank, the 185 does though.

Clarence

[Tommy]

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

[Piloto]

43 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

That's not the problem - how much altitude do you need to climb out of your airplane while it is diving?  And be sure not to get hit by the tail of the airplane on the way out.

Ever try to open your door in flight with 175mph winds holding it closed?

Better put explosive door locks.

You have a good point about the door. For STCs test flights I have pulled the door factory hinge pin and replaced it with a lawn mower throttle control cable. When in need to exit you pull on the cable and the door snap open immediately.

José

[Piloto]

1 hour ago, teejayevans said:

Anyone know how much altitude you need to fully deploy skydiving parachute?

Could not be that much since crazy people jump off buildings in free fall to later open the chute.

José

[Tommy]

13 minutes ago, Bob_Belville said:

With engine analyzers and moving map GPSs plus Synthetic Vision on Aspen, tablets and even phones, in the extremely unlikely event of losing an engine at night or IMC I'm pretty certain we're better off with our electronics eyes that riding a blind chute into the path of a train, an 18 wheeler, or the big cat compound of the NC Zoo. 

Pilots walk away from off field (TV's breathless crash) landings almost daily. An almost non event that hardly makes the local news unless the plane happens to have the novelty of a chute.

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.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Tommy

[Tommy]

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....

Edited October 6, 2017 by Tommy

[Piloto]

For night emergencies you can get night vision goggles to see landing terrain. I myself would look for lakes or maybe roads on my GNS 530W, which ever is closer.

José 

[aviatoreb]

Ok - think outside the box. How many tiny electric motors - quadcopter - octocopter style do I need to float my mooney to a soft landing?

[DonMuncy]

2 hours ago, M20Doc said:

This whole discussion of getting airborne with the fuel selector in the OFF position is quite interesting, so today I did some testing.  While not in a Mooney the results apply.

While running up a 180 HP Comanche (same engine and carb as a C model) I turned the fuel selector off while at 1800 RPM, the engine quit in 35 seconds.

After lunch I flew my Comanche 400 (2 E, F or J model engines)I also turned the selecto to OFF, less than 30 seconds later the engine quit.

The thought of completing a run up and getting airborne with the selector OFF is in my opinion utter BS.

Clarence

If your test was at 1800, and the engine quit in 35 seconds, wouldn't it take longer at idle/taxi speeds. I suspect that with an ordinary taxi distance and run-up, we would still be OK. I wonder if someone was very near the runway when they fired up, would they get in trouble.

[aviatoreb]

Just now, Bob_Belville said:

The brothers who started this whole industry flew kites and gliders before they added an engine. Float what you have to the clearest field you can find. 

Folks who think a chute would be useful repeatedly ignore many of the most prevalent causes of accidents. 

(Within these broad categories it would be useful to know how many of these are on landing or take off where a chute would not help)

1. Loss of Control Inflight 
2. Controlled Flight Into Terrain
3. System Component Failure – Powerplant (it would be useful to know how many of these are on take off where a chute would not help)
4. Fuel Related
5. Unknown or Undetermined
6. System Component Failure – Non-Powerplant
7. Unintended Flight in IMC
8. Midair Collisions Low
9. Altitude Operations
10. Other

That is the best approach - one by one identify each common failure mode and do something to improve your own person chance to each and everyone or t least as many as possible.  Have a plan to do something regarding each.

[gsxrpilot]

Or you all could just sell the Mooney and stay on the ground. That would eliminate a lot of risk factors.

[Tommy]

33 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

That is the best approach - one by one identify each common failure mode and do something to improve your own person chance to each and everyone or t least as many as possible.  Have a plan to do something regarding each.

 

34 minutes ago, Bob_Belville said:

 

1. Loss of Control Inflight 
2. Controlled Flight Into Terrain
3. System Component Failure – Powerplant (it would be useful to know how many of these are on take off where a chute would not help)
4. Fuel Related
5. Unknown or Undetermined
6. System Component Failure – Non-Powerplant
7. Unintended Flight in IMC
8. Midair Collisions Low
9. Altitude Operations
10. Other

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.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Tommy

[Tommy]

22 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

Or you all could just sell the Mooney and stay on the ground. That would eliminate a lot of risk factors.

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. 

Edited October 6, 2017 by Tommy

[gsxrpilot]

4 minutes ago, Tommy said:

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 do all of that now, quite comfortably with my M20K 252.

[Shadrach]

On 10/4/2017 at 6:48 AM, peevee said:

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.

Not on my bird. If I shut the fuel off it quits in 10 to 15 seconds at taxi power IIRC.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Bob_Belville said:

 I'd slap the hand of anyone reaching for a chute in a plane I was flying and when we were safely landed I'd have him tried and shot as a mutineer.

You might find yourself unconscious if you thought you were pilot in command and tried to take control in my aiplane.

Clarence

[Hank]

1 minute ago, M20Doc said:

You might find yourself unconscious if you thought you were pilot in command and tried to take control in my aiplane.

Clarence

And tried and shot as a mutineer after waking up in the ground!

[Tommy]

 

Just now, Hank said:

And tried and shot as a mutineer after waking up in the ground!

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.

[Hank]

16 minutes ago, Tommy said:

Serious note aside, I guess we all have different level of risk threshold. 

Hey! Something we agree on!

I fly my single engine, single point of failure plane in actual IMC, over and across mountains and at night, but I draw the line at Night IMC. 

If putting a chute on your plane changes how and when you are willing to fly, you aren't lowering yiur risk of flight, you're being emboldened to go where maybe you shouldn't.

When you bought your first car with ABS brakes, did you start driving faster because you knew you could stop? Fast driving is dangerous; ABS lowers the risk of driving fast; so now you feel comfortable at higher speeds--your risk exposure remained constant. Don't do the same thing with an airframe chute . . . 

[Tommy]

 

1 hour ago, Hank said:

Hey! Something we agree on!

I fly my single engine, single point of failure plane in actual IMC, over and across mountains and at night, but I draw the line at Night IMC. 

If putting a chute on your plane changes how and when you are willing to fly, you aren't lowering yiur risk of flight, you're being emboldened to go where maybe you shouldn't.

When you bought your first car with ABS brakes, did you start driving faster because you knew you could stop? Fast driving is dangerous; ABS lowers the risk of driving fast; so now you feel comfortable at higher speeds--your risk exposure remained constant. Don't do the same thing with an airframe chute . . . 

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). 

 

 

[Hank]

Tommy, it has been proven (google "risk homeostasis") that improving safety technology rarely results in increased safety, fewer accidents, injuries or deaths. The statements above by several pilots about activities they avoid due to high risk, but which theynwould pursue with a chute, clearly show this.

New safsty technology is intended to reduce accidents and save lives. But it usually only increases the risks that people take, because it gives them (whether perceived or real) reduction in risk, so to maintain their own "acceptable risk level," they undertake riskier activities.

Making a flight with a chute that you would not make without the chute is asking for trouble . . .

I don't fly IMC at night because it is too risky, and a chute on the plane and another one for me, with an ejection seat, would not change my mind. What would? Triple the proficiency that I have time for, and one or more turbine engines (not turbo props) would get me thinking seriously about it. Adding a chute so that I can drift down into whatever is there (engine running or not)  just doesn't cut it. The margins for flight control are too thin, the odds of something not engine-related are too high . . .