Recovery parachutes again!

This from the Aero-News Propwash email letter:

************
The whole-airplane
parachute company, Ballistic Recovery Systems, Inc., has now saved
179 pilot and passenger lives. The latest dramatic save happened
when New Yorker Ilan Reich deployed the BRS System last Thursday,
June 30th, while he was flying his Cirrus SR22 at 3,000 feet near
Haverstraw, NY.

"The system worked as advertised and I'm alive today because it
did," said Reich.
************

Wouldn't it be fairer to say that BRS has led to the loss of a hundred
or so aircraft? Surely many or most of those aircraft could have been
flown to a safe landing.

In this case, the pilot evidently had a mild heart attack, diabetic
stroke, or some such medical emergency, or what he decided was an
emergency. (He was treated and released, so it couldn't have been much
if anything.) If he has a problem, he shouldn't be flying--or driving,
for that matter. I assume he has no BRS system on his automobile.

It seems to me that the BRS system is analagous to the carrying of
cell phones by wilderness trekkers. A few genuine emergencies may be
averted, but a much larger number of unnecessary and very expensive
searches (or parachute deployments) have been built into the system. A
few years ago, three women climbed to the top of the Tripyramids in
New Hampshire, a trio of 4,000=foot peaks not far from a ski area.
They felt tired, so they called 911. Eventually a helicopter was
deployed from Concord 50 miles away. When it landed, the women balled
out the pilot for taking so long.

I can't wait till someone sues BRS when its parachute lets him down
too far from civilization.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

The BRS is a tool and nothing else. Use it or don't, but to ascribe
malice to its mere existence is silly.

There are certainly legitimate uses (Ultralights that had structural
failure and deployed the chute successfully, for example) and suspect
ones (a theoretical case where someone goes NORDO and pulls the silks
in panic), but in the end, it's up to the customer to exercise
judgement (the same judgement that we, as pilots, are expected to use
every time we go flying) as to whether or not it's appropriate.

Years ago, I read many of the same arguments against GPS, but it has
become quite a useful tool. Sure, there will always be the occasional
person who files direct everywhere, never knows exactly where he is
because the GPS is doing the thinking and so on, but for every one of
those, there are hundreds of pilots that treat it like a tool and get
added safety out of it.

Myself, I don't feel a compelling need for a BRS, but maybe 10 years
from now I'll have one, who knows? Time will tell, and I'll just work
to avoid being 'that guy' that uses it as something other then a last
resort.

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

In article ,
Cub Driver wrote:

************
The whole-airplane
parachute company, Ballistic Recovery Systems, Inc., has now saved
179 pilot and passenger lives. The latest dramatic save happened
when New Yorker Ilan Reich deployed the BRS System last Thursday,
June 30th, while he was flying his Cirrus SR22 at 3,000 feet near
Haverstraw, NY.

"The system worked as advertised and I'm alive today because it
did," said Reich.
************

Wouldn't it be fairer to say that BRS has led to the loss of a hundred
or so aircraft? Surely many or most of those aircraft could have been
flown to a safe landing.

Most of those hundred or so aircraft are ultralights, so the aircraft
was likely lost before the BRS deployment. Video of ultralight/hang
gliders with folded wings and parachute deployments show up on
RealTV and other similar shows regularly. I know the first Cirrus
deployment was repaired and flew again, so the BRS deployment does
not always cause a complete write-off of the plane.

In this case, from the limited information that has come out, it
seems like the pilot just panicked because of whatever medical
condition he had. It would be interesting to hear if the condition
was disclosed on his last medical.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

John Clear wrote:

In this case, from the limited information that has come out, it
seems like the pilot just panicked because of whatever medical
condition he had. It would be interesting to hear if the condition
was disclosed on his last medical.

John
This was discussed in another Rec.av. forum. He had a transient loss of
consciousness. He awoke in an unusual attitude. He had no warning of
this blackout, and had no idea if it was about to recur.. and he had
some new numbness to one leg (he was probably thinking - I am having a
stroke and I'm prolly gonna black out again).

On exam at the hospital, he was diagnosed with a previously undiscovered
brain tumor. You cant report something on a medical if you dont know
about it.

Dave

Cub Driver wrote
When it landed, the women balled
out the pilot for taking so long.

I do believe that the correct word is "bawled"...:-)

Bob Moore

Perhaps Cub Driver was suggesting that they enthusiastically thanked
the pilot.

In article ,
Bob Moore wrote:

Cub Driver wrote
When it landed, the women balled
out the pilot for taking so long.

I do believe that the correct word is "bawled"...:-)

Bob Moore

Maybe after they looked at the possible cost of the operation, they
"balled" the pilot out. ;)

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

Beat me to it...

But then....... just maybe.....

Dave


On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 14:57:47 GMT, Bob Moore
wrote:

Cub Driver wrote
When it landed, the women balled
out the pilot for taking so long.

I do believe that the correct word is "bawled"...:-)

Bob Moore

I too raised an eyebrow, after he trashed an airplane, at the statement
that he had been treated in the EMR and then released - assuming
that word again that the news report was accurate... My next thought
mirrors some of those commenting, I wonder if his condition, if
pre-existing, was known to his AME... If concealed and if I were the
insurance broker who is getting hosed financially then his medical
certificate was not valid, which means the insurance on the aircraft
was null and void at the time of the loss... Could get interesting if
the FSDO and the insurer begin asking awkward questions...

I noted with interest the statement that one of the deployed aircraft
had been repaired and is flying... It has been my impression that
deploying the chute causes irrepairable damage to the hull..

Give him a break. It turned out that he had a brain tumor that he was
unaware of. Becoming unconscious under IFR conditions seems a
perfectly legitimate use of the chute. He left the engine running and
used it to avoid coming down in a tank farm.

EMR turned him loose because he was functional.

One of the other Cirrus cases was an aileron malfunction (missing hinge
or something). I'd hate to try a recovery in my arrow with an aileron
flapping in the wind.