Parachute anyone?

[[email protected]]

Howdy All,

What is the consensus among homebuilders on using parachutes: either personal
or ballistic for the whole airplane?

While they are expensive, it seems like they might be pretty cheap insurance.

All thoughts and ideas welcome,

tom pettit

[Bill Daniels]

Actually, I hate USING parachutes, WEARING one is a good idea.

Bill Daniels

> wrote in message ...
> Howdy All,
>
> What is the consensus among homebuilders on using parachutes: either
personal
> or ballistic for the whole airplane?
>
> While they are expensive, it seems like they might be pretty cheap
insurance.
>
> All thoughts and ideas welcome,
>
> tom pettit

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Bill Daniels" > wrote:

> Actually, I hate USING parachutes, WEARING one is a good idea.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
> > wrote in message ...
> > Howdy All,
> >
> > What is the consensus among homebuilders on using parachutes: either
> personal
> > or ballistic for the whole airplane?
> >
> > While they are expensive, it seems like they might be pretty cheap
> insurance.
> >
> > All thoughts and ideas welcome,
> >
> > tom pettit
>

I am NOT a fan of ballistic parachutes for anything other than
ultralights, where engine/structure may be substandard.

Even for a 2-place homebuilt, a ballistic parachute has a limited value.

It will eat 50-75 lbs of your useful load;

it is expensive to maintain, as the pyrotechnics have to be replaced
every 5 years or so;

it is expensive to buy($5000-$10000);

The pyrotechnics may present a safety hazard (rember flares? they caused
more hangar fires than lives saved -- I even know of two lives LOST
because the flare hung up on a wing strut.)

[RU ok]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 04:24:10 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote:

>The pyrotechnics may present a safety hazard (rember flares? they caused
>more hangar fires than lives saved -- I even know of two lives LOST
>because the flare hung up on a wing strut.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please state the details of the lives lost.

A rep of the BRS company, Jeff Peltier, is currently online
with the RV List hyping the use of ballistic parachutes.
If I understood correctly, he claims that lives have NOT
been lost in the use of ballistic chutes.


Here's Jeff's entry into the RV List....

"Hello RV owners,
Due to the very high interest exhibited by Vans owners
over the years, we've currently entered into the design
phase regarding the installation of BRS ballistic emergency
parachute systems to Vans RV-6,-7 and -9. We have
purchased a new fuselage for the purpose of static structural
pull tests, and may be interested in acquiring other fuselages
or parts for the various tests required of this effort. We are
also open to any questions or comments that you may have
regarding parachute installation on Vans aircraft. Any input
will be appreciated. We would really like to hear from you."


Here's Mr. Peltier's statement concerning NO DEATHS...

Message: #117851
Date: Dec 26, 2003
Subject: Chutes for RVs

"In business for 22 years, over 17,000 units delivered. Nearly 1%
of all units delivered have been used in real, life-saving events!
In comparison, airbags in cars have saved (?) 1 person for every
50,000 units. These government mandated safety devices have
killed at least 80 children under the age of 12. Ballistic parachutes
have never actually KILLED anyone, that we are aware of.


Jeff Peltier
Design Engineer
BRS INC.
(651)457-7491


You might want to search/visit the forum at.....
http://www.matronics.com/search


Barnyard BOb --

[sean trost]

Bob,
I think that Orval is talking about flares not the ballistic portion of
the BRS. As I read it he does not claim that a BRS has cost any lives.

Good Morning !
Sean

RU ok wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 04:24:10 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> > wrote:
>
>
>>The pyrotechnics may present a safety hazard (rember flares? they caused
>>more hangar fires than lives saved -- I even know of two lives LOST
>>because the flare hung up on a wing strut.)
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Please state the details of the lives lost.
>
> A rep of the BRS company, Jeff Peltier, is currently online
> with the RV List hyping the use of ballistic parachutes.
> If I understood correctly, he claims that lives have NOT
> been lost in the use of ballistic chutes.
>
>
> Here's Jeff's entry into the RV List....
>
> "Hello RV owners,
> Due to the very high interest exhibited by Vans owners
> over the years, we've currently entered into the design
> phase regarding the installation of BRS ballistic emergency
> parachute systems to Vans RV-6,-7 and -9. We have
> purchased a new fuselage for the purpose of static structural
> pull tests, and may be interested in acquiring other fuselages
> or parts for the various tests required of this effort. We are
> also open to any questions or comments that you may have
> regarding parachute installation on Vans aircraft. Any input
> will be appreciated. We would really like to hear from you."
>
>
> Here's Mr. Peltier's statement concerning NO DEATHS...
>
> Message: #117851
> Date: Dec 26, 2003
> Subject: Chutes for RVs
>
> "In business for 22 years, over 17,000 units delivered. Nearly 1%
> of all units delivered have been used in real, life-saving events!
> In comparison, airbags in cars have saved (?) 1 person for every
> 50,000 units. These government mandated safety devices have
> killed at least 80 children under the age of 12. Ballistic parachutes
> have never actually KILLED anyone, that we are aware of.
>
>
> Jeff Peltier
> Design Engineer
> BRS INC.
> (651)457-7491
>
>
> You might want to search/visit the forum at.....
> http://www.matronics.com/search
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --
>

[D. Grunloh]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> II am NOT a fan of ballistic parachutes for anything other than
> ultralights, where engine/structure may be substandard.

They are justified in any case where they may be effective
(even if structures are not substandard). Hang gliders use them
all the time, as do the parapente. It's not only for structural failure
or engine trouble.

>
> it is expensive to maintain, as the pyrotechnics have to be replaced
> every 5 years or so;

I believe they are now talking about 12 years on the rocket.

Maintenance is high at about $600 for a repack for the smaller ones
every six years. Annual or semi-annual repacks for the soft pack
with shipping will cost about the same overall.

Total cost for a UL version is $3 per hour of flying time if you fly
100 hours per year and keep it 12 years.

--Dan Grunloh (half way there)

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
RU ok > wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 04:24:10 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> > wrote:
>
> >The pyrotechnics may present a safety hazard (rember flares? they caused
> >more hangar fires than lives saved -- I even know of two lives LOST
> >because the flare hung up on a wing strut.)
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Please state the details of the lives lost.

I didn't blame parachutes for lives lost. The incicent involved two
pilots at the University of Illinois about 1958 or '59, where they fired
a parachute flare out the window of a Cessna 140, practicing night
emergencies. The flare hung up on the wing strut. They crashed and were
killed.




> A rep of the BRS company, Jeff Peltier, is currently online
> with the RV List hyping the use of ballistic parachutes.
> If I understood correctly, he claims that lives have NOT
> been lost in the use of ballistic chutes.
>
>
> Here's Jeff's entry into the RV List....
>
> "Hello RV owners,
> Due to the very high interest exhibited by Vans owners
> over the years, we've currently entered into the design
> phase regarding the installation of BRS ballistic emergency
> parachute systems to Vans RV-6,-7 and -9. We have
> purchased a new fuselage for the purpose of static structural
> pull tests, and may be interested in acquiring other fuselages
> or parts for the various tests required of this effort. We are
> also open to any questions or comments that you may have
> regarding parachute installation on Vans aircraft. Any input
> will be appreciated. We would really like to hear from you."
>
>
> Here's Mr. Peltier's statement concerning NO DEATHS...
>
> Message: #117851
> Date: Dec 26, 2003
> Subject: Chutes for RVs
>
> "In business for 22 years, over 17,000 units delivered. Nearly 1%
> of all units delivered have been used in real, life-saving events!
> In comparison, airbags in cars have saved (?) 1 person for every
> 50,000 units. These government mandated safety devices have
> killed at least 80 children under the age of 12. Ballistic parachutes
> have never actually KILLED anyone, that we are aware of.


I actually witnessed one of the saves -- it was at the Salinas (CA)
airshow, where an ultralight was demonstrating steep maneuvers. The
outboard wing structure broke and the pilot deployed the chute, lowering
all to the ground.



> Jeff Peltier
> Design Engineer
> BRS INC.
> (651)457-7491
>
>
> You might want to search/visit the forum at.....
> http://www.matronics.com/search
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --
>

Mr. Peltier makes no mention of payload penalties or deployment
airspeeds beyond which either the parachute will shred or tear itself
away from the structure.

I still see no justification for a BRS on a regular airplane. It is far
easier, cheaper and lighter to beef up critical parts of the structure
than to install a BRS, with its pyrotechnic maintenance requirements
thrown in.

[Mark]

>I am NOT a fan of ballistic parachutes for anything other than
>ultralights, where engine/structure may be substandard.
>
>Even for a 2-place homebuilt, a ballistic parachute has a limited value.
>
>It will eat 50-75 lbs of your useful load;

I don't believe so. I recently had a BRS-5 750 UL on a Maxair Drifter
XP503 2 place experimental. The weight of the 'chute was right around
23 lbs
>
>it is expensive to maintain, as the pyrotechnics have to be replaced
>every 5 years or so;

Currently for BRS the rockets are good for 12 years and the 'chute
needs to be repacked every six years. Also, with the newer models you
remove the rocket from the 'chute to ease shipping when sending the
canister back for repack.
>
>it is expensive to buy($5000-$10000);

Current pricing for my model is $2,195.00. The Cessna 172 model will
run you almost 16K.
>
>The pyrotechnics may present a safety hazard (rember flares? they caused
>more hangar fires than lives saved -- I even know of two lives LOST
>because the flare hung up on a wing strut.)

I flew with one for over 4 years in my Drifter. Luckily I never needed
(or even came close) to use it. It was just another bit of insurance.

For more information on BRS 'chutes: http://brsparachutes.com/

FWIW

Mark

[Gilan]

very simple! If you have a chute you may have more of a chance. If you
don't have a chute you are on your own. The new BRS have 6 year repack
times and 12 years on the rocket life.

--
Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

[Dude]

I would challenge Mr. Peltier's assertion that there is a great interest.
How many Van's owners do you know that are really interested? If he starts
with a lie, how do you trust his company or product claims at all?

I would think that a better solution for a Van's would be a personal chute
if you felt you needed one. But unless you are doing aerobatics, why?
Maybe for hard IMC? If you feel that threatened about what you are about to
do, maybe you shouldn't do it!

Seriously, a Cirrus is meant to be flown as a traveling machine that may see
a lot of Hard IFR. Also, the stall characteristics are rumored to be
quirky, so I see the plus of the chute there. Some homebuilts are
incredibly lightly built which increases the likely need, as well as the
ability to land softly under the canopy.

Van's are solid machines, and are not that light.

IMnotsoHO the main value of a chute is the reassurance that it seems to give
non pilots.

OUT


"RU ok" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 04:24:10 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> > wrote:
>
> >The pyrotechnics may present a safety hazard (rember flares? they caused
> >more hangar fires than lives saved -- I even know of two lives LOST
> >because the flare hung up on a wing strut.)
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Please state the details of the lives lost.
>
> A rep of the BRS company, Jeff Peltier, is currently online
> with the RV List hyping the use of ballistic parachutes.
> If I understood correctly, he claims that lives have NOT
> been lost in the use of ballistic chutes.
>
>
> Here's Jeff's entry into the RV List....
>
> "Hello RV owners,
> Due to the very high interest exhibited by Vans owners
> over the years, we've currently entered into the design
> phase regarding the installation of BRS ballistic emergency
> parachute systems to Vans RV-6,-7 and -9. We have
> purchased a new fuselage for the purpose of static structural
> pull tests, and may be interested in acquiring other fuselages
> or parts for the various tests required of this effort. We are
> also open to any questions or comments that you may have
> regarding parachute installation on Vans aircraft. Any input
> will be appreciated. We would really like to hear from you."
>
>
> Here's Mr. Peltier's statement concerning NO DEATHS...
>
> Message: #117851
> Date: Dec 26, 2003
> Subject: Chutes for RVs
>
> "In business for 22 years, over 17,000 units delivered. Nearly 1%
> of all units delivered have been used in real, life-saving events!
> In comparison, airbags in cars have saved (?) 1 person for every
> 50,000 units. These government mandated safety devices have
> killed at least 80 children under the age of 12. Ballistic parachutes
> have never actually KILLED anyone, that we are aware of.
>
>
> Jeff Peltier
> Design Engineer
> BRS INC.
> (651)457-7491
>
>
> You might want to search/visit the forum at.....
> http://www.matronics.com/search
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --
>

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 06:41:00 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:

>I would challenge Mr. Peltier's assertion that there is a great interest.
>How many Van's owners do you know that are really interested? If he starts
>with a lie, how do you trust his company or product claims at all?
>
>I would think that a better solution for a Van's would be a personal chute
>if you felt you needed one. But unless you are doing aerobatics, why?

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19358&key=1

Ron Wanttaja

[Legrande Harris]

Ron,

If I had a fire, would I want a personal chute or a chute for the plane?
I think I would want out of the plane.

Even if I didn't have a personal chute I think I would try to land as
soon as possible, immediately comes to mind. I don't think a descent
rate of 2-5000' (or more) per minute would be unreasonable. The last
thing I would want to do is sit around in a burning plane that is slowly
(500 fpm) settling down to the ground.

I think the main reason for a ballistic chute is a major structural
failure. So I guess it comes down to what the odds of a major
structural failure are. I think you are our resident odds maker so
what do you think?

[Paul Lee]

In cases of inflight fire sometimes there are advantages to a pusher.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Lee, SQ2000 canard project: http://www.abri.com/sq2000

Ron Wanttaja > wrote in message >...
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 06:41:00 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:
>
> >I would challenge Mr. Peltier's assertion that there is a great interest.
> >How many Van's owners do you know that are really interested? If he starts
> >with a lie, how do you trust his company or product claims at all?
> >
> >I would think that a better solution for a Van's would be a personal chute
> >if you felt you needed one. But unless you are doing aerobatics, why?
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19358&key=1
>
> Ron Wanttaja

[Frank]

How about no power over inhospitale terrain? Trees, large rocks, lot of
water, mountains, valleys. Would you rather fly in to these or settle down
on top of them? I try to avoid these areas, but there are a lot of people
that couldn't fly at all without relocating or taking a chance.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:38:29 -0700, Legrande Harris >
wrote:

>I think the main reason for a ballistic chute is a major structural
>failure. So I guess it comes down to what the odds of a major
>structural failure are. I think you are our resident odds maker so
>what do you think?

In my analysis of the homebuilt accidents from 1998 through 2000, I count
about 30 cases of either structural damage or control failure on fixed-wing
homebuilts. That's out of about 606 total fixed-wing homebuilt
accidents...about 4.5% of the accidents. There was one additional accident
where the witnesses indicated the wing had failed, but the NTSB could not
verify it from the wreckage (happened at low altitude over a lake).

Of the 30 cases, 11 resulted in fatalities. One had a ballistic chute
(fouled on the structure during deployment). Three involved aerobatics.
One resulted from VFR flight into IFR conditions.

So, if the criteria is limited to fixed-wing structural or control failures
in non-aerobatic VFR flight, there were six accidents in the 1998-2000 time
period where fatalities might have been prevented with either a personal or
ballistic parachute. That's about 1% of total fixed-wing homebuilt
accidents.

This doesn't include the cases of in-flight fires (at least three, during
1998-2000), other common reasons for ballistic-chute use (engine failures
over hostile terrain, etc.), or those accidents which were not included in
the NTSB databases (ultralights, non-reported accidents, etc.).

Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:58:15 GMT, I wrote:

>In my analysis of the homebuilt accidents from 1998 through 2000, I count
>about 30 cases of either structural damage or control failure on fixed-wing
>homebuilts. That's out of about 606 total fixed-wing homebuilt
>accidents...about 4.5% of the accidents. There was one additional accident
>where the witnesses indicated the wing had failed, but the NTSB could not
>verify it from the wreckage (happened at low altitude over a lake).
>
>Of the 30 cases, 11 resulted in fatalities. One had a ballistic chute
>(fouled on the structure during deployment). Three involved aerobatics.
>One resulted from VFR flight into IFR conditions.

After re-reading this, I realized I should have provided more information
on use of "floatation devices." Of the 30 cases, three pilots bailed out,
and one successfully used a ballistic chute. Two of the bailout pilots
suffered minor injuries, and the third was uninjured. One of the three
(Fly Baby) was a failure of the primary structure, the other two were
control failures.

Thus, half the structural and control failure accidents were either fatal
or dire enough that the pilot opted for a recovery device.

Ron Wanttaja

[Holger Stephan]

Mid-airs are another case. A chute may still work with the structure
partially disintegrated or the control system jammed.

- Holger

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> ...
> This doesn't include the cases of in-flight fires (at least three, during
> 1998-2000), other common reasons for ballistic-chute use (engine failures
> over hostile terrain, etc.), or those accidents which were not included in
> the NTSB databases (ultralights, non-reported accidents, etc.).
>
> Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:37:22 -0800, Holger Stephan
> wrote:
>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>> ...
>> This doesn't include the cases of in-flight fires (at least three, during
>> 1998-2000), other common reasons for ballistic-chute use (engine failures
>> over hostile terrain, etc.), or those accidents which were not included in
>> the NTSB databases (ultralights, non-reported accidents, etc.).
>
>Mid-airs are another case. A chute may still work with the structure
>partially disintegrated or the control system jammed.

True, but mid-airs are even rarer than structural failure. Nine homebuilts
involved in midairs in my 1998-2000 database period, five were fatal. In
some of the fatalities, the pilot was probably dead or unconscious after
the collision, so neither a personal nor ballistic parachute would have
been much good.

But...as I've pointed out in the past...in those rare cases where you
*need* one, nothing else will do.

Ron Wanttaja

[Holger Stephan]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> ...
> True, but mid-airs are even rarer than structural failure. Nine
> homebuilts
> involved in midairs in my 1998-2000 database period, five were fatal. In
> some of the fatalities, the pilot was probably dead or unconscious after
> the collision, so neither a personal nor ballistic parachute would have
> been much good.
> ...

I agree, Ron. However, even though mid-airs are rare they are one of the
causes for catastrophic accidents we have limited control over. By
selecting a (relatively) safe design to build one can get the liklihood of
it falling apart in flight under the chances of getting run over by one of
the blind nuts. For the design I build (BD-4) this is already true: There
was at least one case of a mid-air with jammed control system but no
catastrophic structural failure (great statistical data, ain't it?). BTW,
in the mid-air case the pilot got the elevator control unstuck just in time
to land a plane that had a third or so being ripped off earlier. He walked
away, so I guess that even counts as a good (however not perfect) landing.

Ever since these two military jets came in no time out of nowhere and buzzed
in close proximity under my hang glider over the Largo di Garda in Italy I
do the swivel with some sense of urgency.

- Holger