Ballistic Recovery System

The Genesis-2 was designed to incorporate a Ballistic Recovery System. My ship and at least one other US Genesis-2 is flying with a BRS installed. I regularly monitor the NTSB accident reports for glider accidents and this month I see 3 Cirrus Design Group accidents. The Cirrus is a power aircraft, but is of interest to me because they come from the factory with a BRS installed. Well, January has seen 3 successful deployments of Cirrus ballistic recovery systems. Two at high altitude and one on final at 400 feet! All from loss of engine power. One deployment occurred in 30 knot ground wind and pilot and passenger had to make a quick exit of the ship because it was being drug across the ground by its fully inflated chute. There is no way to jettison the chute.
JJ

JJ

They couldn't make the runway from 400ft on final??? Could you post a link to the reports?

Boggs

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:27:36 AM UTC-6, Waveguru wrote:
JJ They couldn't make the runway from 400ft on final??? Could you post a link to the reports? Boggs

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/br...05X43412&key=1

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/br...07X12103&key=1

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/br...09X92051&key=1

400 feet three miles out. Engine not responding to throttle, and not making power. Think you could make it in a Cirrus that was not made by Schempp-Hirth? Sounds to me like he had troubles and didn't properly adjust a long ways back. And, take a look at that airport on a three mile final to runway 29.

Not going to defend or criticise his final action. Just seems like so many power pilots count on the engine running to get them to the destination once on final. And when it doesn't keep running, well, it is not good for anyone.

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:44:59 AM UTC-8, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:27:36 AM UTC-6, Waveguru wrote:

JJ They couldn't make the runway from 400ft on final??? Could you post a link to the reports? Boggs



http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/br...05X43412&key=1



http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/br...07X12103&key=1



http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/br...09X92051&key=1



400 feet three miles out. Engine not responding to throttle, and not making power. Think you could make it in a Cirrus that was not made by Schempp-Hirth? Sounds to me like he had troubles and didn't properly adjust a long ways back. And, take a look at that airport on a three mile final to runway 29.



Not going to defend or criticise his final action. Just seems like so many power pilots count on the engine running to get them to the destination once on final. And when it doesn't keep running, well, it is not good for anyone.

400 feet three miles out. On a 3 degree glidslope? I doubt it. 400' is more like a 1/4mile final.

I agree. I looked at all 3 reports; one sounds like a real engine failure
(severe vibrations) in IMC. They gave it a valid try -- flew an ILS approach --
and gave up at 1000' AGL when they couldn't maintain the glideslope. The others,
what were they thinking? The one guy was trying a straight-in approach from
5 miles out. We really hated those types when we flew off a paved runway.
The third was at 9000 feet! The glide range had to be something approaching
20 miles from up there! I can't believe there wasn't a runway around somewhere!

Matt

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 3:12:34 PM UTC-6, wrote:
400 feet three miles out. On a 3 degree glidslope? I doubt it. 400' is more like a 1/4mile final.

400 feet altitude, 3 degree glide slope is 1.44 miles out. But, why would you set half flap when still 5 miles out? Don't have any Cirrus time, so I don't know what they teach you for that plane. But, at 100 knots, and 5 miles, you have got time to do several things. Not really in danger of overflying the airport unless really high. And since he was well below glideslope at 3 miles, well, he wasn't any too high on his approach...

The one in France, I assume he flew through the valley and not over the mountains. So, he should have had good altitude and time to think. Unclear as to altitude of pulling the chute.

Steve

If you have the Google Earth plugin (or want to install it) you can see the approach to Runway 29 he

http://www.aircraft.io/airport/W22/

(Click on Advanced Settings to configure 3 miles out with a 1.5 degree slope).

The airport is up on a mesa, so if the pilot was 400 ft AGL 3 miles out, that may have been even lower relative to the runway.

AM

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 4:05:46 PM UTC-6, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 3:12:34 PM UTC-6, wrote:

400 feet three miles out. On a 3 degree glidslope? I doubt it. 400' is more like a 1/4mile final.



400 feet altitude, 3 degree glide slope is 1.44 miles out. But, why would you set half flap when still 5 miles out? Don't have any Cirrus time, so I don't know what they teach you for that plane. But, at 100 knots, and 5 miles, you have got time to do several things. Not really in danger of overflying the airport unless really high. And since he was well below glideslope at 3 miles, well, he wasn't any too high on his approach...



The one in France, I assume he flew through the valley and not over the mountains. So, he should have had good altitude and time to think. Unclear as to altitude of pulling the chute.



Steve

Steve Leonard wrote, On 1/29/2014 8:44 AM:
Not going to defend or criticise his final action. Just seems like
so many power pilots count on the engine running to get them to the
destination once on final. And when it doesn't keep running, well,
it is not good for anyone.

My understanding is most of them do not always fly within reach of a
safe landing for most of the flight, so why make an exception for the
approach to a landing?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:32:41 PM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
My understanding is most of them do not always fly within reach of a safe landing for most of the flight, so why make an exception for the approach to a landing? -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)

Because you can, Eric.

Steve Leonard wrote, On 1/31/2014 7:14 AM:
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:32:41 PM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell
wrote:
My understanding is most of them do not always fly within reach of
a safe landing for most of the flight, so why make an exception for
the approach to a landing? -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State,
USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)

Because you can, Eric.

Well, I can and do. Or was that a plural "you"?

The power pilots can do it for the rest of the flight, but don't, so why
would it be more prudent to do it on final than anywhere else?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)