All Cessna Piston Singles to be Offered With Ballistic Recovery Parachutes

[Larry Dighera]

As a marketing ploy this may sell more aircraft, but is it
wise/responsible to offer pilots the option of becoming passengers of
their flights? Is it wise to add pyrotechnic explosives to the forced
landing site? In any event, it's seems a bold move.

CESSNA TO OFFER BRS PARACHUTES IN SKYCATCHER, ALL PISTON SINGLES
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/976-full.html#196346)
The folks at Ballistic Recovery Systems
(http://www.brsparachutes.com)
have been hinting since this summer, when Cessna introduced its
Skycatcher Light Sport Aircraft at EAA AirVenture, that the new
airplane would be equipped with a BRS parachute. This week, Cessna
finally made it official. The BRS system will be offered as a
factory-installed option not only for the Skycatcher, but for all
of Cessna's piston singles. "We've been working with Cessna since
the beginning on their remarkable new design and we are pleased
that they see the value in having leading-edge safety features
like the BRS system on board," said BRS CEO Larry Williams. The
Skycatcher parachute will sit aft of the seats, similar to the
current installations available for the Cessna Skyhawk and Skylane
models.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/976-full.html#196346

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

>
> As a marketing ploy this may sell more aircraft, but is it
> wise/responsible to offer pilots the option of becoming passengers of
> their flights?


Sure it is. this way when you run out of the litle fuel you were able to
carry because of the excess weight of the chute you can ust float on
down....

Bertei

[Deadstick]

It's the same thing we did with cars. Rather than requiring drivers
to be more skilled or qualified to operate cars, we made bigger,
stronger cars that can withstand more horrific crashes and call them
"safer." This makes smaller cars less safe in comparison, thus
shifting demand toward the "safer" cars without decreasing the
probability that those cars will be involved in an accident.

Cessna aircraft already have a reputation for being safe. It's about
all they have anymore. They can't claim to be the fastest, or the
cheapest or the best equipped. So all they can do is promote their
safety record.

Foolproof systems do not take into account the ingenuity of fools --
Gene Brown

[Darkwing]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> As a marketing ploy this may sell more aircraft, but is it
> wise/responsible to offer pilots the option of becoming passengers of
> their flights? Is it wise to add pyrotechnic explosives to the forced
> landing site? In any event, it's seems a bold move.
>
<snip>

I think pilots tend to poo poo safety innovations way to much. Anything that
makes GA flying safer or at least the perception that GA flying is safer
because of x, y or z is a plus. GA needs all the positive news it can get. I
know that a parachute is no substitute for poor planning but an engine out
right after takeoff in a no win situation or a midair or something similar a
chute might be the only thing that will save your ass.

-----------------------------------------
DW

[Kingfish]

On Oct 11, 8:44 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> As a marketing ploy this may sell more aircraft, but is it
> wise/responsible to offer pilots the option of becoming passengers of
> their flights? Is it wise to add pyrotechnic explosives to the forced
> landing site? In any event, it's seems a bold move.
>

I think this was driven by Cirrus aircraft including the BRS system in
all their planes. It was a smart marketing decision due to the
majority of the non-flying population seeing GA aircraft being
dangerous. Cory Lidle's & JFK Jr's high profile accidents didn't help
this. IMHO, anything that improves safety is beneficial although
there's always some sort of tradeoff.

A while back when there seemed to be a spate of Cirrus accidents, I
started to think maybe those pilots got too complacent and figured the
chute would save them in a worst-case scenario. Then again maybe it
was a question of unfamiliarity with the airplane? Regardless, I
haven't heard of an Cirrus accidents in quite a while now (a good
thing) and think the training may have finally caught up?

[Jim Logajan]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Is it wise to add pyrotechnic explosives to the forced landing site?

How many BRS rockets have exploded so far and with what results?

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:24:03 -0000, Deadstick >
wrote in om>:

>It's the same thing we did with cars. Rather than requiring drivers
>to be more skilled or qualified to operate cars, we made bigger,
>stronger cars that can withstand more horrific crashes...

So when do you think it might be appropriate for the PIC to deploy a
parachute?

A. When regaining control of the aircraft is not possible?

B. When the plot becomes lost?

C. In unintentional IMC operations?

D. Engine failure over:
a. Hospitable terrain
b. Inhospitable terrain

E. Only when the PIC is prepared to assume moral and financial
responsibility for any damage or trauma caused as a result of
abandoning command to the BRS system?

F. ...

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:24:43 -0400, "Darkwing"
<theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> As a marketing ploy this may sell more aircraft, but is it
>> wise/responsible to offer pilots the option of becoming passengers of
>> their flights? Is it wise to add pyrotechnic explosives to the forced
>> landing site? In any event, it's seems a bold move.
>>
><snip>
>
>I think pilots tend to poo poo safety innovations way to much. Anything that
>makes GA flying safer or at least the perception that GA flying is safer
>because of x, y or z is a plus. GA needs all the positive news it can get.

Personally, I prefer reality over illusion, but there are those who
would believe that a BRS is worth it's weight, I'm sure. In some
situations it's priceless. It's like an ELT in that regard. Perhaps
it's time to issue a rule mandating all earlier vintage aircraft be
retrofitted with shoulder belts, or air-bags. At least the PIC
doesn't have to abandon his command for those devices to reduce
injury.

>I know that a parachute is no substitute for poor planning but an engine out
>right after takeoff is a no win situation or a midair or something similar a
>chute might be the only thing that will save your ass.

Or a spin in a Cirrus.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 11, 10:24 am, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:

> I think pilots tend to poo poo safety innovations way to much. Anything that
> makes GA flying safer or at least the perception that GA flying is safer
> because of x, y or z is a plus. GA needs all the positive news it can get. I
> know that a parachute is no substitute for poor planning but an engine out
> right after takeoff in a no win situation or a midair or something similar a
> chute might be the only thing that will save your ass.

An engine failure right after takeoff would likely leave too
little altitude for the 'chute to do much good. Got to figure in your
reflexes, too. A midair often tears the airplane to pieces and throws
the occupants out. What good is a BRS there? Assuming the thing stays
together enough, the 'chute itself might be damaged or the pilot
incapacitated.
Cirrus used it because they had to, to get the airplane
certified. It has some nasty spin tendencies if the fuel load gets
imbalanced or if the pilot is incompetent, and the 'chute is the only
way to avoid drilling a big expensive hole in the ground. That's what
I understand, anyway.
Most accidents involve the same old avoidable factors. Engine
failures are most commonly caused by carb ice (fuel injection removes
that risk), then fuel starvation, then oil starvation, then
catastrophic failure. The last two are WAY down the list. CFIT
accidents involve flying into terrain that you didn't see or expect,
often out of control because the pilot flew into weather he wasn't
equipped for. The occasional developing CFIT might be avoided with a
'chute, but to use it the pilot is going to have to admit he screwed
up and he might resist that.
And, of course, a 'chute is useless in the rather common
landing or takeoff accident where control is lost.
It's like anti-skid brakes. People can't drive properly, can't
be bothered or don't want to learn, and let the manufacturer convince
them that the system is indispensable and will save your life. Except
that it just breeds complacency and they drive more and more
aggressively until they finally get the car into a situation that even
the ABS can't save them from, and bang! another totally avoidable
accident. A 'chute will instill a sense of security that might lead
the pilot into stretching his fuel or poking the airplane into some
clouds that might have granite in them. He'd be better off a little
bit scared so that he doesn't do stupid things.
See http://www.4vfr.com/?goto=view_article&section=articles&article_key=296
Dan