BRS

[Gezellig]

Recent Cessna Skycatcher chute failed to deploy.

<http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1215-full.html#198852>

What are the real values, and in what "normal situations" is BRS
worthwhile? Are there significant insurance cost reducs that make this
system cost effective?

[john smith]

In article >,
Gezellig > wrote:

> Recent Cessna Skycatcher chute failed to deploy.
>
> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1215-full.html#198852>
>
> What are the real values, and in what "normal situations" is BRS
> worthwhile? Are there significant insurance cost reducs that make this
> system cost effective?

Keep in mind that it was a cross-controlled spin and that the BRS is not
a spin chute. Spin chutes are mounted to the tail to get them into free
air. The BRS is mounted in the baggage compartment, behind the center of
gravity and center of lift.

[Kingfish]

On Sep 25, 3:54*am, Gezellig > wrote:

> What are the real values, and in what "normal situations" is BRS
> worthwhile? Are there significant insurance cost reducs that make this
> system cost effective?

IIRC there's a deployment envelope for the chute below a certain
airspeed & descent rate(?) The plane got into a flat spin and couldn't
recover & they're looking into why the chute didn't fire. The AVweb
article said the 162 was undergoing testing beyond what is required
for the light sport aircraft certification.

As far as insurance savings with a BRS on board, ask anybody who owns
a Cirrus how much they pay for hull insurance and they'll tell you
it's not cheap, although that probably has more to do with the young
age of the fleet and the number of losses since the SR got its type
certification. I'm guessing the cost has come down in the last few
years, though.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Gezellig wrote:
> Recent Cessna Skycatcher chute failed to deploy.
>
> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1215-full.html#198852>
>
> What are the real values, and in what "normal situations" is BRS
> worthwhile? Are there significant insurance cost reducs that make this
> system cost effective?

There shouldn't be any reductions in Hull insurance because if the BRS
is deployed the airframe is usually going to be a loss.

[pgbnh]

I don't think anyone installs BRS to save on insurance. More like saving
their life


"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...
> Recent Cessna Skycatcher chute failed to deploy.
>
> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1215-full.html#198852>
>
> What are the real values, and in what "normal situations" is BRS
> worthwhile? Are there significant insurance cost reducs that make this
> system cost effective?

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

pgbnh wrote:
> I don't think anyone installs BRS to save on insurance. More like saving
> their life
>

Yet the money spent on a BRS would probably save more lives if it were
spent on training.

[Peter Dohm]

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
m...
> pgbnh wrote:
>> I don't think anyone installs BRS to save on insurance. More like saving
>> their life
>>
>
> Yet the money spent on a BRS would probably save more lives if it were
> spent on training.

That is a certainty.

[Jim Logajan]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
> m...
>> pgbnh wrote:
>>> I don't think anyone installs BRS to save on insurance. More like
>>> saving their life
>>>
>>
>> Yet the money spent on a BRS would probably save more lives if it
>> were spent on training.
>
> That is a certainty.

The portions of the posts providing supporting material for the above
assertions failed to reach my Usenet provider.

No doubt once pilots are trained to the rigorous standards applied to
ground vehicle drivers the accident rates of pilots will drop to the levels
seen by those drivers.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>> pgbnh wrote:
>>>> I don't think anyone installs BRS to save on insurance. More like
>>>> saving their life
>>>>
>>> Yet the money spent on a BRS would probably save more lives if it
>>> were spent on training.
>> That is a certainty.
>
> The portions of the posts providing supporting material for the above
> assertions failed to reach my Usenet provider.
>
> No doubt once pilots are trained to the rigorous standards applied to
> ground vehicle drivers the accident rates of pilots will drop to the levels
> seen by those drivers.

First, what the hell do ground vehicle drivers have to do with?

But there is lots of data out there that additional flight training
reduces accidents. I will pose as proof for that statement the fact that
an IR pilot will get a lower insurance rate than the same pilot with the
same total number of hours who doesn't have an IR.

[Kingfish]

On Sep 26, 9:57*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:

> > No doubt once pilots are trained to the rigorous standards applied to
> > ground vehicle drivers the accident rates of pilots will drop to the levels
> > seen by those drivers.
>
> First, what the hell do ground vehicle drivers have to do with?

I believe my sarcasm detector just went off.

[Mike]

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
m...
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>>> m...
>>>> pgbnh wrote:
>>>>> I don't think anyone installs BRS to save on insurance. More like
>>>>> saving their life
>>>>>
>>>> Yet the money spent on a BRS would probably save more lives if it
>>>> were spent on training.
>>> That is a certainty.
>>
>> The portions of the posts providing supporting material for the above
>> assertions failed to reach my Usenet provider.
>>
>> No doubt once pilots are trained to the rigorous standards applied to
>> ground vehicle drivers the accident rates of pilots will drop to the
>> levels seen by those drivers.
>
> First, what the hell do ground vehicle drivers have to do with?
>
> But there is lots of data out there that additional flight training
> reduces accidents. I will pose as proof for that statement the fact that
> an IR pilot will get a lower insurance rate than the same pilot with the
> same total number of hours who doesn't have an IR.

I have little doubt that you are spot on with your evaluation. However the
reality is there's a lot of pilots out there that simply don't invest
anything in training other than the mandatory flight review every two years,
and even at that if they can find a buddy CFI that will endorse their log
book in exchange for a free lunch they certainly will. As a result, those
are the guys that are more likely to run out of fuel, inadvertently fly into
IMC or icing conditions, or whatever other jams they manage to get
themselves into.

[Jim Logajan]

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>>> m...
>>>> pgbnh wrote:
>>>>> I don't think anyone installs BRS to save on insurance. More like
>>>>> saving their life
>>>>>
>>>> Yet the money spent on a BRS would probably save more lives if it
>>>> were spent on training.
>>> That is a certainty.
>>
>> The portions of the posts providing supporting material for the above
>> assertions failed to reach my Usenet provider.
>>
>> No doubt once pilots are trained to the rigorous standards applied to
>> ground vehicle drivers the accident rates of pilots will drop to the
>> levels seen by those drivers.
>
> First, what the hell do ground vehicle drivers have to do with?

It was a sardonic comment on the lack of correlation of formal training
with accident rates in the only other comparable transportation mode
available to the general public.

> But there is lots of data out there that additional flight training
> reduces accidents.

The point isn't whether the additional training reduces accidents, it is
whether the point of diminishing returns has been reached where other
mechanisms like safety equipment can yield a similar or even better
reduction in fatalities.

> I will pose as proof for that statement the fact
> that an IR pilot will get a lower insurance rate than the same pilot
> with the same total number of hours who doesn't have an IR.

You'll note that the first sentence of my original post made note of a lack
of supporting documentation you supplied for your assertions. Even though I
accept the claim that additional training can reduce accidents, there are
no numbers provided on how much training reduces the accident rate. Nor are
numbers provided on how many potentially fatal accidents were resolved to
non-fatal accidents due to BRS deployments. Without those two numbers it is
impossible for me, at least, to come to the same conclusion as you or Peter
Dohm. It is not at all obvious or self-evident to me. Present the numbers
on both sides to convince me.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>>>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>>>> m...
>>>>> pgbnh wrote:
>>>>>> I don't think anyone installs BRS to save on insurance. More like
>>>>>> saving their life
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yet the money spent on a BRS would probably save more lives if it
>>>>> were spent on training.
>>>> That is a certainty.
>>> The portions of the posts providing supporting material for the above
>>> assertions failed to reach my Usenet provider.
>>>
>>> No doubt once pilots are trained to the rigorous standards applied to
>>> ground vehicle drivers the accident rates of pilots will drop to the
>>> levels seen by those drivers.
>> First, what the hell do ground vehicle drivers have to do with?
>
> It was a sardonic comment on the lack of correlation of formal training
> with accident rates in the only other comparable transportation mode
> available to the general public.
>
>> But there is lots of data out there that additional flight training
>> reduces accidents.
>
> The point isn't whether the additional training reduces accidents, it is
> whether the point of diminishing returns has been reached where other
> mechanisms like safety equipment can yield a similar or even better
> reduction in fatalities.

I will grant you that there is a point of diminishing returns. But I've
been flying on and off and as certificated pilot for over half of my 46
years and haven't reached that point yet. In fact, I can't think of any
good pilot that I've ever met including pilots with 10K+ hours that
wouldn't agree that some more training will make them a safer pilot.

And BRS for the 601XL I'm building costs a little over $5000. That is
equal to around 100 hours of instruction and flying of my plane. Or 20
hours of upset and recovery in an acro plane.

If you don't think that that money would be better spent on either of
those two options rather than a chute that (A) is only of use in some
limited situation and (B) if deployed will destroy the aircraft then you
must think that most people have reached the peak that aircraft training
has to offer. If that is the case let me know where you fly with these
folks so I can try to steer clear of the area.


>
>> I will pose as proof for that statement the fact
>> that an IR pilot will get a lower insurance rate than the same pilot
>> with the same total number of hours who doesn't have an IR.
>
> You'll note that the first sentence of my original post made note of a lack
> of supporting documentation you supplied for your assertions. Even though I
> accept the claim that additional training can reduce accidents, there are
> no numbers provided on how much training reduces the accident rate. Nor are
> numbers provided on how many potentially fatal accidents were resolved to
> non-fatal accidents due to BRS deployments. Without those two numbers it is
> impossible for me, at least, to come to the same conclusion as you or Peter
> Dohm. It is not at all obvious or self-evident to me. Present the numbers
> on both sides to convince me.

And you will note that I posed as proof that the insurance companies
have done just that by giving better rates to those with IR as opposed
to those that don't. Insurance carriers also give better rates for those
with more time in type. Yet I've never seen a discount for planes with a
chute. If you have anything to show that that isn't the case please post
it.

[Gezellig]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:19:19 -0400, John Smith wrote:

> In article >,
> Gezellig > wrote:
>
>> Recent Cessna Skycatcher chute failed to deploy.
>>
>> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1215-full.html#198852>
>>
>> What are the real values, and in what "normal situations" is BRS
>> worthwhile? Are there significant insurance cost reducs that make this
>> system cost effective?
>
> Keep in mind that it was a cross-controlled spin and that the BRS is not
> a spin chute. Spin chutes are mounted to the tail to get them into free
> air. The BRS is mounted in the baggage compartment, behind the center of
> gravity and center of lift.

Agreed.

[Gezellig]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:05:02 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

> Gezellig wrote:
>> Recent Cessna Skycatcher chute failed to deploy.
>>
>> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1215-full.html#198852>
>>
>> What are the real values, and in what "normal situations" is BRS
>> worthwhile? Are there significant insurance cost reducs that make this
>> system cost effective?
>
> There shouldn't be any reductions in Hull insurance because if the BRS
> is deployed the airframe is usually going to be a loss.

Point and a good one.

[Gezellig]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 08:57:31 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

> But there is lots of data out there that additional flight training
> reduces accidents. I will pose as proof for that statement the fact that
> an IR pilot will get a lower insurance rate than the same pilot with the
> same total number of hours who doesn't have an IR.

I wonder what the actual ROI is on an IR rating in this case.

[Gezellig]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:48:21 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

> You'll note that the first sentence of my original post made note of a lack
> of supporting documentation you supplied for your assertions. Even though I
> accept the claim that additional training can reduce accidents, there are
> no numbers provided on how much training reduces the accident rate. Nor are
> numbers provided on how many potentially fatal accidents were resolved to
> non-fatal accidents due to BRS deployments.

According the BRS, you're wrong :)

http://brsparachutes.com/default.aspx

I don't believe this claim of life-saving helps their cause. it was what
got me thinking in the first place of the real value of BRS.

If it isn't insurance, is it that "one time it works and saves my life"
thing that justifies it?

[Mike]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>>>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
>>>> m...
>>>>> pgbnh wrote:
>>>>>> I don't think anyone installs BRS to save on insurance. More like
>>>>>> saving their life
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yet the money spent on a BRS would probably save more lives if it
>>>>> were spent on training.
>>>> That is a certainty.
>>>
>>> The portions of the posts providing supporting material for the above
>>> assertions failed to reach my Usenet provider.
>>>
>>> No doubt once pilots are trained to the rigorous standards applied to
>>> ground vehicle drivers the accident rates of pilots will drop to the
>>> levels seen by those drivers.
>>
>> First, what the hell do ground vehicle drivers have to do with?
>
> It was a sardonic comment on the lack of correlation of formal training
> with accident rates in the only other comparable transportation mode
> available to the general public.
>
>> But there is lots of data out there that additional flight training
>> reduces accidents.
>
> The point isn't whether the additional training reduces accidents, it is
> whether the point of diminishing returns has been reached where other
> mechanisms like safety equipment can yield a similar or even better
> reduction in fatalities.
>
>> I will pose as proof for that statement the fact
>> that an IR pilot will get a lower insurance rate than the same pilot
>> with the same total number of hours who doesn't have an IR.
>
> You'll note that the first sentence of my original post made note of a
> lack
> of supporting documentation you supplied for your assertions. Even though
> I
> accept the claim that additional training can reduce accidents, there are
> no numbers provided on how much training reduces the accident rate. Nor
> are
> numbers provided on how many potentially fatal accidents were resolved to
> non-fatal accidents due to BRS deployments. Without those two numbers it
> is
> impossible for me, at least, to come to the same conclusion as you or
> Peter
> Dohm. It is not at all obvious or self-evident to me. Present the numbers
> on both sides to convince me.

You failed to note that the assertion in question contained the word
"probably", which clearly noted to the most casual reader that this was
simply his opinion. Furthermore, the "proof" which you demand would be next
to impossible to achieve since there are too many variables involved, and
even if such proof were provided you could simply poke holes in it due to
the large number of variables and still not achieve whatever gold standard
of "proof" you require.

[Mike]

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
m...
> And you will note that I posed as proof that the insurance companies have
> done just that by giving better rates to those with IR as opposed to those
> that don't. Insurance carriers also give better rates for those with more
> time in type. Yet I've never seen a discount for planes with a chute. If
> you have anything to show that that isn't the case please post it.

What might be a better exercise is to show exactly where the BRS would be
useful at all. The vast majority of fatal accidents happen below 1,000' AGL
for which the BRS has limited or no value. Only 16% of fatal accidents
occur in the cruise phase of flight, to which it would seem the BRS has the
most value, but many of them are as a result of weather so I don't think you
could include even all of those in the instances in which BRS would be of
value.

Compare that to things like airbags, shoulder harnesses, stronger seats and
training, which have the potential to prevent death in all phases of flight.

[Jim Logajan]

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
> And you will note that I posed as proof that the insurance companies
> have done just that by giving better rates to those with IR as opposed
> to those that don't. Insurance carriers also give better rates for
> those with more time in type. Yet I've never seen a discount for
> planes with a chute. If you have anything to show that that isn't the
> case please post it.

Either your information is incorrect or the following quote is no longer
correct:

"Avemco, the leading aviation insurance underwriter, has already
recognized the life and property saving potential of the product, and
granted a 10% discount on insurance premiums for those pilots choosing
to fly with the BRS system."

The above is quoted from here:
http://www.spacepda.net/featuredcomp/featuredcomp.php3?compid=8&arc=1

Also noted on these web pages where Avemco isn't named:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20020080316_2002127568.pdf
http://nasatechbriefs.com/Spinoff/spinoff2002/ps_2.html

[Jim Logajan]

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
> I will grant you that there is a point of diminishing returns. But
> I've been flying on and off and as certificated pilot for over half of
> my 46 years and haven't reached that point yet. In fact, I can't think
> of any good pilot that I've ever met including pilots with 10K+ hours
> that wouldn't agree that some more training will make them a safer
> pilot.

I think your observation is valid but seems to reinforce, rather than
refute, my own view that after some point in a pilot's life emphasis on
training yields either ephemeral results or reaches a point where it is of
little further value relative the costs.

But I can see how it could also be seen as an argument to maintain
continuous refresher training. I'd agree with that of course.

> And BRS for the 601XL I'm building costs a little over $5000. That is
> equal to around 100 hours of instruction and flying of my plane. Or 20
> hours of upset and recovery in an acro plane.

I considered a 601XL as a homebuilt project but it didn't appear to be a
good platform for installing a chute because it cut into the useful load a
tad too much but more importantly pushed CG balance too far aft (at least
for a baggage compartment install). Really liked the plane otherwise.

> If you don't think that that money would be better spent on either of
> those two options rather than a chute that (A) is only of use in some
> limited situation and (B) if deployed will destroy the aircraft then
> you must think that most people have reached the peak that aircraft
> training has to offer. If that is the case let me know where you fly
> with these folks so I can try to steer clear of the area.

I think I'd spend money on both training AND a ballistic chute. ;-)
Which would simply up my cost of aviating, I suppose. I hate being put into
either-or situations and would find a way to both train and have a plane
with a BRS - or not fly.

(Actually where I'm training they have been starting to use a personal
parachute more often when flying their single seater glider. I don't think
it is because they think they've reached the peak of possible training,
though!)

[Stella Starr]

Gezellig wrote:

> If it isn't insurance, is it that "one time it works and saves my life"
> thing that justifies it?

That would do it for me.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>> And you will note that I posed as proof that the insurance companies
>> have done just that by giving better rates to those with IR as opposed
>> to those that don't. Insurance carriers also give better rates for
>> those with more time in type. Yet I've never seen a discount for
>> planes with a chute. If you have anything to show that that isn't the
>> case please post it.
>
> Either your information is incorrect or the following quote is no longer
> correct:
>
> "Avemco, the leading aviation insurance underwriter, has already
> recognized the life and property saving potential of the product, and
> granted a 10% discount on insurance premiums for those pilots choosing
> to fly with the BRS system."
>
> The above is quoted from here:
> http://www.spacepda.net/featuredcomp/featuredcomp.php3?compid=8&arc=1
>
> Also noted on these web pages where Avemco isn't named:
> http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20020080316_2002127568.pdf
> http://nasatechbriefs.com/Spinoff/spinoff2002/ps_2.html

While I can find mention of a 10% discount for a new rating or
certificate on the AVEMCO site I can't find any mention of a discount
for a BRS. In fact a Google search for the word parachute {parachute
site:avemco.com} only comes up with two hits and both are talking about
the kind you wear on your back. I'm not saying they don't offer the
discount just that I couldn't find any mention of it on their site.

I'll be calling Avemco and a couple of others in the next week or so
because it is time to get insurance for my 601XL. I'll ask each one and
report back.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
:

> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>>> And you will note that I posed as proof that the insurance companies
>>> have done just that by giving better rates to those with IR as
>>> opposed to those that don't. Insurance carriers also give better
>>> rates for those with more time in type. Yet I've never seen a
>>> discount for planes with a chute. If you have anything to show that
>>> that isn't the case please post it.
>>
>> Either your information is incorrect or the following quote is no
>> longer correct:
>>
>> "Avemco, the leading aviation insurance underwriter, has already
>> recognized the life and property saving potential of the product, and
>> granted a 10% discount on insurance premiums for those pilots
>> choosing to fly with the BRS system."
>>
>> The above is quoted from here:
>> http://www.spacepda.net/featuredcomp/featuredcomp.php3?compid=8&arc=1
>>
>> Also noted on these web pages where Avemco isn't named:
>> http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20020080316_20021
>> 27568.pdf http://nasatechbriefs.com/Spinoff/spinoff2002/ps_2.html
>
> While I can find mention of a 10% discount for a new rating or
> certificate on the AVEMCO site I can't find any mention of a discount
> for a BRS.

Prolly figure you'll run out of gas because your BRS took up so much of
your payload!



Bertie

[Mike]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
> :
>
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>>>> And you will note that I posed as proof that the insurance companies
>>>> have done just that by giving better rates to those with IR as
>>>> opposed to those that don't. Insurance carriers also give better
>>>> rates for those with more time in type. Yet I've never seen a
>>>> discount for planes with a chute. If you have anything to show that
>>>> that isn't the case please post it.
>>>
>>> Either your information is incorrect or the following quote is no
>>> longer correct:
>>>
>>> "Avemco, the leading aviation insurance underwriter, has already
>>> recognized the life and property saving potential of the product, and
>>> granted a 10% discount on insurance premiums for those pilots
>>> choosing to fly with the BRS system."
>>>
>>> The above is quoted from here:
>>> http://www.spacepda.net/featuredcomp/featuredcomp.php3?compid=8&arc=1
>>>
>>> Also noted on these web pages where Avemco isn't named:
>>> http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20020080316_20021
>>> 27568.pdf http://nasatechbriefs.com/Spinoff/spinoff2002/ps_2.html
>>
>> While I can find mention of a 10% discount for a new rating or
>> certificate on the AVEMCO site I can't find any mention of a discount
>> for a BRS.
>
> Prolly figure you'll run out of gas because your BRS took up so much of
> your payload!

Or crash on takeoff on a hot day because of overloading.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
> > :
> >
> >> Jim Logajan wrote:
> >>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
> >>>> And you will note that I posed as proof that the insurance companies
> >>>> have done just that by giving better rates to those with IR as
> >>>> opposed to those that don't. Insurance carriers also give better
> >>>> rates for those with more time in type. Yet I've never seen a
> >>>> discount for planes with a chute. If you have anything to show that
> >>>> that isn't the case please post it.
> >>>
> >>> Either your information is incorrect or the following quote is no
> >>> longer correct:
> >>>
> >>> "Avemco, the leading aviation insurance underwriter, has already
> >>> recognized the life and property saving potential of the product, and
> >>> granted a 10% discount on insurance premiums for those pilots
> >>> choosing to fly with the BRS system."
> >>>
> >>> The above is quoted from here:
> >>> http://www.spacepda.net/featuredcomp/featuredcomp.php3?compid=8&arc=1
> >>>
> >>> Also noted on these web pages where Avemco isn't named:
> >>> http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20020080316_20021
> >>> 27568.pdf http://nasatechbriefs.com/Spinoff/spinoff2002/ps_2.html
> >>
> >> While I can find mention of a 10% discount for a new rating or
> >> certificate on the AVEMCO site I can't find any mention of a discount
> >> for a BRS.
> >
> > Prolly figure you'll run out of gas because your BRS took up so much of
> > your payload!
>
> Or crash on takeoff on a hot day because of overloading.

I agree with Both Bertie and Mike on this! BRS is also expensive to
maintain -- something like a mandar=ted 5-year life to replacement.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
>> > :
>> >
>> >> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> >>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>> >>>> And you will note that I posed as proof that the insurance
>> >>>> companies have done just that by giving better rates to those
>> >>>> with IR as opposed to those that don't. Insurance carriers also
>> >>>> give better rates for those with more time in type. Yet I've
>> >>>> never seen a discount for planes with a chute. If you have
>> >>>> anything to show that that isn't the case please post it.
>> >>>
>> >>> Either your information is incorrect or the following quote is no
>> >>> longer correct:
>> >>>
>> >>> "Avemco, the leading aviation insurance underwriter, has already
>> >>> recognized the life and property saving potential of the product,
>> >>> and granted a 10% discount on insurance premiums for those pilots
>> >>> choosing to fly with the BRS system."
>> >>>
>> >>> The above is quoted from here:
>> >>> http://www.spacepda.net/featuredcomp/featuredcomp.php3?compid=8
&ar
>> >>> c=1
>> >>>
>> >>> Also noted on these web pages where Avemco isn't named:
>> >>> http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20020080316_
2
>> >>> 0021 27568.pdf
>> >>> http://nasatechbriefs.com/Spinoff/spinoff2002/ps_2.html
>> >>
>> >> While I can find mention of a 10% discount for a new rating or
>> >> certificate on the AVEMCO site I can't find any mention of a
>> >> discount for a BRS.
>> >
>> > Prolly figure you'll run out of gas because your BRS took up so
>> > much of your payload!
>>
>> Or crash on takeoff on a hot day because of overloading.
>
> I agree with Both Bertie and Mike on this! BRS is also expensive to
> maintain -- something like a mandar=ted 5-year life to replacement.


Well, the biggest problem with them as far as I can see is that it will
lead some to rely on them totally and accept that as a substitute for
acquiring or maintaining their skills. More than one has been popped
just because the guy flew into some cloud or ran out of gas..


Bertie

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
> :
>
> > In article >,
> > "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
> >> > :
> >> >
> >> >> Jim Logajan wrote:
> >> >>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
> >> >>>> And you will note that I posed as proof that the insurance
> >> >>>> companies have done just that by giving better rates to those
> >> >>>> with IR as opposed to those that don't. Insurance carriers also
> >> >>>> give better rates for those with more time in type. Yet I've
> >> >>>> never seen a discount for planes with a chute. If you have
> >> >>>> anything to show that that isn't the case please post it.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Either your information is incorrect or the following quote is no
> >> >>> longer correct:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> "Avemco, the leading aviation insurance underwriter, has already
> >> >>> recognized the life and property saving potential of the product,
> >> >>> and granted a 10% discount on insurance premiums for those pilots
> >> >>> choosing to fly with the BRS system."
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The above is quoted from here:
> >> >>> http://www.spacepda.net/featuredcomp/featuredcomp.php3?compid=8
> &ar
> >> >>> c=1
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Also noted on these web pages where Avemco isn't named:
> >> >>> http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20020080316_
> 2
> >> >>> 0021 27568.pdf
> >> >>> http://nasatechbriefs.com/Spinoff/spinoff2002/ps_2.html
> >> >>
> >> >> While I can find mention of a 10% discount for a new rating or
> >> >> certificate on the AVEMCO site I can't find any mention of a
> >> >> discount for a BRS.
> >> >
> >> > Prolly figure you'll run out of gas because your BRS took up so
> >> > much of your payload!
> >>
> >> Or crash on takeoff on a hot day because of overloading.
> >
> > I agree with Both Bertie and Mike on this! BRS is also expensive to
> > maintain -- something like a mandar=ted 5-year life to replacement.
>
>
> Well, the biggest problem with them as far as I can see is that it will
> lead some to rely on them totally and accept that as a substitute for
> acquiring or maintaining their skills. More than one has been popped
> just because the guy flew into some cloud or ran out of gas..
>
>
> Bertie

Yep. A fellow here had a total engine failure in his Cirrus (cam gear
failed) at 6000 ft over South Florida, with his family aboard.

He did not pop the chute but made a successful deadstick landing on an
airport. Skill trumps BRS every time!

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
>> news:o_r_fairbairn-FF6AE1.20002229092008@70-3-168-
216.area5.spcsdns.ne
>> t:
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
>> >> > :
>> >> >
>> >> >> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> >> >>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>> >> >>>> And you will note that I posed as proof that the insurance
>> >> >>>> companies have done just that by giving better rates to those
>> >> >>>> with IR as opposed to those that don't. Insurance carriers
>> >> >>>> also give better rates for those with more time in type. Yet
>> >> >>>> I've never seen a discount for planes with a chute. If you
>> >> >>>> have anything to show that that isn't the case please post
>> >> >>>> it.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Either your information is incorrect or the following quote is
>> >> >>> no longer correct:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> "Avemco, the leading aviation insurance underwriter, has
>> >> >>> already recognized the life and property saving potential of
>> >> >>> the product, and granted a 10% discount on insurance premiums
>> >> >>> for those pilots choosing to fly with the BRS system."
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The above is quoted from here:
>> >> >>> http://www.spacepda.net/featuredcomp/featuredcomp.php3?compid=
8
>> &ar
>> >> >>> c=1
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Also noted on these web pages where Avemco isn't named:
>> >> >>>
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/2002008031
>> >> >>> 6_
>> 2
>> >> >>> 0021 27568.pdf
>> >> >>> http://nasatechbriefs.com/Spinoff/spinoff2002/ps_2.html
>> >> >>
>> >> >> While I can find mention of a 10% discount for a new rating or
>> >> >> certificate on the AVEMCO site I can't find any mention of a
>> >> >> discount for a BRS.
>> >> >
>> >> > Prolly figure you'll run out of gas because your BRS took up so
>> >> > much of your payload!
>> >>
>> >> Or crash on takeoff on a hot day because of overloading.
>> >
>> > I agree with Both Bertie and Mike on this! BRS is also expensive to
>> > maintain -- something like a mandar=ted 5-year life to replacement.
>>
>>
>> Well, the biggest problem with them as far as I can see is that it
>> will lead some to rely on them totally and accept that as a
>> substitute for acquiring or maintaining their skills. More than one
>> has been popped just because the guy flew into some cloud or ran out
>> of gas..
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Yep. A fellow here had a total engine failure in his Cirrus (cam gear
> failed) at 6000 ft over South Florida, with his family aboard.
>
> He did not pop the chute but made a successful deadstick landing on an
> airport. Skill trumps BRS every time!
>

Yeh. I think they might be a good idea on the types of ultralights that
are inclined to flold their wings up, though..


Bertie

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Mike" <nospam@ microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>>>>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>>>>>>>> And you will note that I posed as proof that the insurance
>>>>>>>> companies have done just that by giving better rates to those
>>>>>>>> with IR as opposed to those that don't. Insurance carriers also
>>>>>>>> give better rates for those with more time in type. Yet I've
>>>>>>>> never seen a discount for planes with a chute. If you have
>>>>>>>> anything to show that that isn't the case please post it.
>>>>>>> Either your information is incorrect or the following quote is no
>>>>>>> longer correct:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Avemco, the leading aviation insurance underwriter, has already
>>>>>>> recognized the life and property saving potential of the product,
>>>>>>> and granted a 10% discount on insurance premiums for those pilots
>>>>>>> choosing to fly with the BRS system."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above is quoted from here:
>>>>>>> http://www.spacepda.net/featuredcomp/featuredcomp.php3?compid=8
>> &ar
>>>>>>> c=1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also noted on these web pages where Avemco isn't named:
>>>>>>> http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20020080316_
>> 2
>>>>>>> 0021 27568.pdf
>>>>>>> http://nasatechbriefs.com/Spinoff/spinoff2002/ps_2.html
>>>>>> While I can find mention of a 10% discount for a new rating or
>>>>>> certificate on the AVEMCO site I can't find any mention of a
>>>>>> discount for a BRS.
>>>>> Prolly figure you'll run out of gas because your BRS took up so
>>>>> much of your payload!
>>>> Or crash on takeoff on a hot day because of overloading.
>>> I agree with Both Bertie and Mike on this! BRS is also expensive to
>>> maintain -- something like a mandar=ted 5-year life to replacement.
>>
>> Well, the biggest problem with them as far as I can see is that it will
>> lead some to rely on them totally and accept that as a substitute for
>> acquiring or maintaining their skills. More than one has been popped
>> just because the guy flew into some cloud or ran out of gas..
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Yep. A fellow here had a total engine failure in his Cirrus (cam gear
> failed) at 6000 ft over South Florida, with his family aboard.
>
> He did not pop the chute but made a successful deadstick landing on an
> airport. Skill trumps BRS every time!
>

Which completely supports my original position that the $5000 would be
better spent on training.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
m...
>> Yep. A fellow here had a total engine failure in his Cirrus (cam gear failed)
>> at 6000 ft over South Florida, with his family aboard. He did not pop the
>> chute but made a successful deadstick landing on an airport. Skill trumps BRS
>> every time!
>>
>
> Which completely supports my original position that the $5000 would be better
> spent on training.

I think that BRS makes most sense at the "margins" of GA, and probably makes
less sense for the rest of us. As Bertie already mentioned, one "margin" might
be fragile ultralights. In my opinion, a single-engine airplane that is likely
to be used for serious travel in night IFR and/or over vast unlandable terrain
probably represents another logical "margin". The Cirrus seems to fit neatly
into the second category. 5 AMU's should be small change to anyone who needs
the capabilities of, and can afford to fly, a new Cirrus.


--
Vaughn

.................................................. .......
Nothing personal, but if you are posting through Google Groups I may not receive
your message. Google refuses to control the flood of spam messages originating
in their system, so on any given day I may or may not have Google blocked. Try
a real NNTP server & news reader program and you will never go back. All you
need is access to an NNTP server (AKA "news server") and a news reader program.
You probably already have a news reader program in your computer (Hint: Outlook
Express). Assuming that your Usenet needs are modest, use
http://news.aioe.org/ for free and/or http://www.teranews.com/ for a one-time
$3.95 setup fee. Newsguy, http://www.newsguy.com/ offers a variety of
reasonably priced services. If you wish to experiment with real Usenet access,
they will give you a free 2-day trial account.
.................................................. ........

Will poofread for food.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
> m...
>>> Yep. A fellow here had a total engine failure in his Cirrus (cam gear failed)
>>> at 6000 ft over South Florida, with his family aboard. He did not pop the
>>> chute but made a successful deadstick landing on an airport. Skill trumps BRS
>>> every time!
>>>
>> Which completely supports my original position that the $5000 would be better
>> spent on training.
>
> I think that BRS makes most sense at the "margins" of GA, and probably makes
> less sense for the rest of us. As Bertie already mentioned, one "margin" might
> be fragile ultralights. In my opinion, a single-engine airplane that is likely
> to be used for serious travel in night IFR and/or over vast unlandable terrain
> probably represents another logical "margin". The Cirrus seems to fit neatly
> into the second category. 5 AMU's should be small change to anyone who needs
> the capabilities of, and can afford to fly, a new Cirrus.
>
>


That 5 AMU figure is for a Zenith 601XL Ex-HB.

How does 18 AMUs for a 172 and 20 AMUs for a 182 strike you. That is not
installed.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
m...
> That 5 AMU figure is for a Zenith 601XL Ex-HB.
>
> How does 18 AMUs for a 172 and 20 AMUs for a 182 strike you. That is not
> installed.

OK, I though 5 sounded a bit small, but am too lazy to check. So a Cirrus
BRS must be worth vaguely 20 to 25 AMU. As a % of the total package cost, it
still fits.

Vaughn

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote

> Yep. A fellow here had a total engine failure in his Cirrus (cam gear
> failed) at 6000 ft over South Florida, with his family aboard.
>
> He did not pop the chute but made a successful deadstick landing on an
> airport. Skill trumps BRS every time!

You would be foolish to not land deadstick, if there was a choice. BRS is
(or should be) for when all other options come up blank.

Over much of NC's mountains, there is little choice for a landing site, much
of the time. That's when it could save your life.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote
>
>> Yep. A fellow here had a total engine failure in his Cirrus (cam gear
>> failed) at 6000 ft over South Florida, with his family aboard.
>>
>> He did not pop the chute but made a successful deadstick landing on
>> an airport. Skill trumps BRS every time!
>
> You would be foolish to not land deadstick, if there was a choice.
> BRS is
> (or should be) for when all other options come up blank.
>
> Over much of NC's mountains, there is little choice for a landing
> site, much of the time. That's when it could save your life.

As I have said in the past, mostly whben you incorporate a better idiot
proof device, you build a better class of idiot.



Bertie