BRS

"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote in message
m...
Jim Logajan wrote:
"Peter Dohm" wrote:
"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote in message
news 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.

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
"Peter Dohm" wrote:
"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote in message
news 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.

Jim Logajan wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
"Peter Dohm" wrote:
"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote in message
news 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
"Peter Dohm" wrote:
"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote in message
news 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.

"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.

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 he
http://www.spacepda.net/featuredcomp...compid=8&arc=1

Also noted on these web pages where Avemco isn't named:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...2002127568.pdf
http://nasatechbriefs.com/Spinoff/spinoff2002/ps_2.html