BRS coming to a Mooney near you!

[Tommy]

2 hours ago, Hank said:

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 . . .

"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."

[MIm20c]

Great thing about this product is YOU can choose to purchase and install it.  It is not being forced on those who don’t want to pull the lever. 

[Hank]

7 hours ago, Tommy said:

"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."

BRS cannot mitigate task saturation. Night IMC is touchier than I want to deal with. Going anyway "because I have a chute to pull if I get overwhelmed" is the type of advice and action I see regarding BRS. Personally, I'd rather stay on the ground than crash, with or without a chute. 

Airframe parachutes are completely unrelated to gun control, though, at least in this hemisphere (ever how you slice it--.Western and Northern  ). I'm hugely in favor of gun control, and used to shoot competition with my revolver to improve my control of the gun.

[Tommy]

2 hours ago, Hank said:

BRS cannot mitigate task saturation. Night IMC is touchier than I want to deal with. Going anyway "because I have a chute to pull if I get overwhelmed" is the type of advice and action I see regarding BRS. Personally, I'd rather stay on the ground than crash, with or without a chute. 

Airframe parachutes are completely unrelated to gun control, though, at least in this hemisphere (ever how you slice it--.Western and Northern  ). I'm hugely in favor of gun control, and used to shoot competition with my revolver to improve my control of the gun.

"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. 

[Tommy]

10 hours ago, Bob_Belville said:

Tommy, your "very vague" is for most of us "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer". 

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/march/flight-training-magazine/after-sundown

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. 

[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.

Edited October 9, 2017 by Tommy

[steingar]

10 hours ago, Tommy said:

"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.

Actually, 1-1.5K a year for maintenance and repack.  And an extra engine can be had quite economically in today's market, twins can be had for less than singles in many instances.  There isa  pretty big training penalty in twins though.  Currency and training are pretty important, so that you know what to do when the mill quits.