Jump to content

BRS coming to a Mooney near you!


Tommy

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Tommy said:

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?

 

You're kidding right?? The Mooney M20 has terrible spin recovery! That's why they're prohibited. It does recover, so way back in the day it got certified, but it takes something like 3,000 ft to do it and you had better be an expert at it. The Cirrus SR-22 has been demonstrated many times to recover from spins just fine and in a reasonable amount of altitude. Here is an interview with one of the Cirrus engineers and their thinking on spins and the CAPS system.

http://www.kineticlearning.com/pilots_world/safety/06_05/article_06_03.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 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.

I disagree 100%. A properly completed warm up of the engine, then a complete run up check will result in fuel exhaustion on the ramp with the selector in the OFF position.

I do agree that some of the speedier pilots may be able to get further.  How many pilots actually check that the engine will run on the selected tank during run up?

On every run up check I do at my shop before doing an annual, I set the fuel selector to OFF, it does not take long for the engine to quit.  Certainly you could not make the runway.

If you don't believe it, try it on your own plane and time it.

Clarence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

I disagree 100%. A properly completed warm up of the engine, then a complete run up check will result in fuel exhaustion on the ramp with the selector in the OFF position.

I do agree that some of the speedier pilots may be able to get further.  How many pilots actually check that the engine will run on the selected tank during run up?

On every run up check I do at my shop before doing an annual, I set the fuel selector to OFF, it does not take long for the engine to quit.  Certainly you could not make the runway.

If you don't believe it, try it on your own plane and time it.

Clarence

Two things - you do the tank check at run up?  I am of the school to not switch tanks right before take off.  So I do my check of drawing from each tank while still warming up, shortly before I taxi.  Does that do anything?  Now I am doubting as running on one tank for 15 seconds might not be doing much other than running on the fuel already in the lines?

The other thing - what is happening when a pilot has the airplane on off while taxing and then tries to take off only to have that late fuel exhaustion failure?  Has the engine been running only on the fuel that has been in the lines all that time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

>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.

You do realize that if you spin a plane at pattern altitude, and your passenger is holding on to the red handle and pulls immediately, that you will still hit the ground hard before the chute deploys? Many people list this scenario as their justification for BRS, but it is outside of BRS' own published limitations . . .

Engine out over forest, terrain and city--with the chute deployed, you drift wherever the wind blows you. I've seen news photos where the chute was tangled in power lines. Floating gently into a hillside [if 35 mph vertical velocity can be called "gentle'] isn't my idea of a fun ride, especially if there's a nearby valley floor. Same for hitting tall buildings under the chute instead of roads, parks and golf courses. While I hope this never happens to any of us, we've all seen pictures and videos of planes with engine trouble landing in these areas. Don't think those are the time to give up directional control . . .

Engine failure at night is a good scenario for a chute, again giving up directional control and choice of impact location.

Midairs are so incredibly rare that I'm not very worried, my chances of getting struck by lightning while flying are much better. I know someone who was hit by lightning in his Glasair [we were based at the same field when it happened], and it blew his spinner off.

It's all in what worries you are trying to mitigate. Don't go for the rare midair, go for the frequent [running out of fuel, forgetting to drop the gear].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Hank said:

You do realize that if you spin a plane at pattern altitude, and your passenger is holding on to the red handle and pulls immediately, that you will still hit the ground hard before the chute deploys? Many people list this scenario as their justification for BRS, but it is outside of BRS' own published limitations . . .

Engine out over forest, terrain and city--with the chute deployed, you drift wherever the wind blows you. I've seen news photos where the chute was tangled in power lines. Floating gently into a hillside [if 35 mph vertical velocity can be called "gentle'] isn't my idea of a fun ride, especially if there's a nearby valley floor. Same for hitting tall buildings under the chute instead of roads, parks and golf courses. While I hope this never happens to any of us, we've all seen pictures and videos of planes with engine trouble landing in these areas. Don't think those are the time to give up directional control . . .

Engine failure at night is a good scenario for a chute, again giving up directional control and choice of impact location.

Midairs are so incredibly rare that I'm not very worried, my chances of getting struck by lightning while flying are much better. I know someone who was hit by lightning in his Glasair [we were based at the same field when it happened], and it blew his spinner off.

It's all in what worries you are trying to mitigate. Don't go for the rare midair, go for the frequent [running out of fuel, forgetting to drop the gear].

Yes - I realize that - reread what I said please:  I said that I want the GFC500 autopilot more than I want a BRS - specifically for the spin in the pattern scenario.  THE ESP is meant to prevent stall spins (hopefully).  I bet the spin in the pattern scenario is greater probability than all those other factors put together.

I also said flying at night - I don't do it - but I would if I had a BRS - but that since I don't - that I am probably safer on that count without a BRS than if I had a BRS at night.

mid-air- very rare - and furthermore I wanted to say the even rarer in this unicorn scenario might be the mid air where everything is still working (pilot and airplane) enough that the BrS can be pulled and it will actually work.

All that said, yeah I would take one if it were reasonable to add.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think of all the scenarios mentioned the only one where I'd want the chute are the night time and IMC emergencies.  If you can't see what you're landing in it is difficult to safely land, that makes sense.  That said, the price tag for that parachute is better than  15 AMU's up front and 1 AMU/year.  That money will buy a lot of training and plenty of care for your engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, steingar said:

I think of all the scenarios mentioned the only one where I'd want the chute are the night time and IMC emergencies.  If you can't see what you're landing in it is difficult to safely land, that makes sense.  That said, the price tag for that parachute is better than  15 AMU's up front and 1 AMU/year.  That money will buy a lot of training and plenty of care for your engine.

I think it would be 25k for a kit and 10k for install.  Or thereabouts.

So my approach for those two emergencies is - night - don't do it.  IMC - stick to no worse than mvfr below so at least there is a hope to pop out and have a little time to find a spot.  But that said - once you are in the clouds - you are never sure if what is below you is really mvfr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read some of the comments here, and I see where pilots would change their flying habits/limits if they had a chute and some identifying those critical emergencies it would be great to have. I have to say I have no idea whether I would spring for a chute for my J if it was available, but it might depend on my mission and locale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Summary..?

1) make the BRS available. Somebody can make use of it...

2) it comes with costs. Financial, volume and WnB...

3) Would be an option for low IMC engine out...

4) Would be an option with engine out in the dark...

5) is unlikely to help at low altitude, with your hands full, and your brain is highly multi-tasking. Automated deployment?

6) helpful for a health issue where you have a few minutes to decide you are having a health issue...

7) Departure over a harsh environment.

*************************

 

8) airbag seat belts may go a long way.  When the field you selected, isn't as long as you would like... available today for many Mooneys. (LBs)

9) it would take some politicking to make airbag seat belts more widely available... the FAA is becoming more lenient towards good ideas that don't have enough data to support traditional approval routes....

10) Would this chute get your family more interested in going flying?

11) would a chute allow a pilot to skip the medical All together and use the driver's license instead?

 

PP collecting ideas, not a chute or seatbelt salesman...

Best regards,

-a-

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

Two things - you do the tank check at run up?  I am of the school to not switch tanks right before take off.  So I do my check of drawing from each tank while still warming up, shortly before I taxi.  Does that do anything?  Now I am doubting as running on one tank for 15 seconds might not be doing much other than running on the fuel already in the lines?

The other thing - what is happening when a pilot has the airplane on off while taxing and then tries to take off only to have that late fuel exhaustion failure?  Has the engine been running only on the fuel that has been in the lines all that time?

Eric,

Before flight I will taxi out on one tank and do my run up on the departure tank, normally the fullest one.

In my airplanes which are fuel injected, the engine will not prime, start and run with the selector in the OFF position.

I can understand that a carbureted plane would run for a while, but with about a cup and a half of fuel in the bowl I don't see it making it to the runway let alone getting airborne.

Clarence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tested the volume of the carb in the O360...  you get to taxi for a long distance.  Long enough to not recognize that the 'both' position is really not a both position.

It was also an indication that the  detents didn't exist on the R & L position either.  Something I would have known to ask about if MS was here back then...

I have added draining both tanks through the center sump pull ring to the check list.

If you got a lot of water in the tank, it may have gotten into the fuel line as well.... draining both lines makes some sense...

Thinking along with you pilots...

Best regards,

-a-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, M20Doc said:

Eric,

Before flight I will taxi out on one tank and do my run up on the departure tank, normally the fullest one.

In my airplanes which are fuel injected, the engine will not prime, start and run with the selector in the OFF position.

I can understand that a carbureted plane would run for a while, but with about a cup and a half of fuel in the bowl I don't see it making it to the runway let alone getting airborne.

Clarence

No, per my training and Owners Manual, I do not switch tanks right before takeoff. Crank the engine on one tank, switch to the other then taxi, runup and depart.

Sometimes I end up noticing that I'm not on the fullest tank. But I takeoff anyway, and climb above 1000 agl before switching.

About the time I bought my Mooney, another C took off from a field I visit occasionally, ran dry and "landed" just shy of the trees. So I've always been careful about this . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's one thing to say that your flying doesn't justify the financial / performance cost of having a BRS, it's quite another to say it's nothing but a gimmick. 

I, for one, feeling uneasy enough sitting in a well-maintained retrieval PC-12 flying 3 hours over flat dessert terrain at night, let alone in a single piston. But night flying is better than day flying in many ways - smoother air, less traffic, city lights, less active restricted airspace etc. It also means I don't have to rush from A to B in order to beat the civil twilight. Same thing applies to flying a single piston in IMC condition - how do you know the cloud base is not only 300 feet above the ground?

There was a time when people were cynical about seat belts...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tommy said:

There was a time when people were cynical about seat belts...

Yes and airbags and helmets and safety goggles and hearing protection and respirators and ... jeez, the list goes on and on. Some people just hate change.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DaV8or said:

Yes and airbags and helmets and safety goggles and hearing protection and respirators and ... jeez, the list goes on and on. Some people just hate change.

Early days but I am making a prediction that BRS will become a prerequisite safety equipment for any single piston GA aircraft that is IFR / NVFR capable. 

What is the service life of a BRS system?
A.  At 10 years the chute needs to be repacked and the rocket replaced. Every 5 years a small mil spec device called “line cutter” needs to be replaced. 

Doesn't sound like it will cost a lot to maintain this thing.

Q.  How much force does it take to pull the deployment handle?
A.  The safety cover pulls off easily. However, the actual deployment handle requires a noticable effort by either pilot or front passenger who need to exert about 40 pounds of force. This force has been demonstrated by a 12 year old female.

So for those of you that fly with your loved ones a lot, it's an option if you become incapacitated. It sure is easier to teach someone to pull the chute over a safe place than teaching how to land. 

Edited by Tommy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Tommy said:

Early days but I am making a prediction that BRS will become a prerequisite safety equipment for any single piston GA aircraft that is IFR / NVFR capable. 

Perhaps you are right but...its not just a matter of convincing a stodgy old school population to adopt, like it was with seatbelts in cars in the 1960s-70s.

The FAA has regulated so as to forbid me to install one in my airplane and the obstacle is sufficiently high to make it so the BRS company is not likely to overcome the obstacle any time soon. I would perhaps install this thing but the point is mute since I am forbidden.

Even worse - airbag seatbelts are even more of a no brainer.  Especially given they are already in newer Mooneys.  I am still forbidden by regulations.  About 7 years ago I was regularly emailing with the am safe people but they didnt seem likely to extend their STC. Again for cost benefit analysis given the difficulties-expenses presented by the FAA STC process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tommy said:

Early days but I am making a prediction that BRS will become a prerequisite safety equipment for any single piston GA aircraft that is IFR / NVFR capable. 

What is the service life of a BRS system?
A.  At 10 years the chute needs to be repacked and the rocket replaced. Every 5 years a small mil spec device called “line cutter” needs to be replaced. 

Doesn't sound like it will cost a lot to maintain this thing.

AS I understand it the 10 year bill as somewhere between 10 and 15 AMUs, can't recall the exact number.  Still, that's 1 AMU/year in chute costs.  Doesn't seem cheap to me, but to each his (or her) own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, steingar said:

AS I understand it the 10 year bill as somewhere between 10 and 15 AMUs, can't recall the exact number.  Still, that's 1 AMU/year in chute costs.  Doesn't seem cheap to me, but to each his (or her) own.

That is for the Cirrus isn't it - the problem with the Cirrus - at least the original ones is that they embedded those chutes deep Into the fiberglass so requiring some invasive body work and then to repair the fix after.  

I wonder how much the 10 year bill is on a standard placement like in a C172/182 where it just sits there in the luggage bay accessible for access.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a passenger pulls it, does the engine turn off? Or is that a separate step? And landing gear?
I would think they would have a switch on the handle that would auto drop the gear. This provides some protection on landing and will slow the plane down. I would placard it that the mixture should be pulled to shutdown the engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

That is for the Cirrus isn't it - the problem with the Cirrus - at least the original ones is that they embedded those chutes deep Into the fiberglass so requiring some invasive body work and then to repair the fix after.  

I wonder how much the 10 year bill is on a standard placement like in a C172/182 where it just sits there in the luggage bay accessible for access.

I talked to my pal with the one in his Skyhawk.  Still has to be some installation, the thing has to be mounted to hold the whole airframe.  anyhow, the $10-15K came from him.  I just can't recall the exact number.  Not cheap by my standards.  I suppose if you can afford to buy a new Cirrus that expense probably isn't that big a deal.  An old Skyhawk is another matter.

Were it me, and I really wanted  parachute I'd buy one and wear it in flight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, steingar said:

I talked to my pal with the one in his Skyhawk.  Still has to be some installation, the thing has to be mounted to hold the whole airframe.  anyhow, the $10-15K came from him.  I just can't recall the exact number.  Not cheap by my standards.  I suppose if you can afford to buy a new Cirrus that expense probably isn't that big a deal.  An old Skyhawk is another matter.

Were it me, and I really wanted  parachute I'd buy one and wear it in flight.

Hmmm  I thought it was 10-15 for a cirrus so I assumed it would be much less for other airplanes where you don't need to do fiberglass work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.