Ballistic Recovery System

On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:53:54 -0700, Dan Marotta wrote:

At Moriarty, NM, we always see power pilots flying what we charitably
call "bomber patterns" (circuits for you Limeys). When I fly the tow
plane, I'm always within gliding distance of the runway - there's just
no reason to be that far away unless you're trying to build flight time.
Plus, those big patterns really disrupt glider flying.

I think the most elegant solution to that problem I've seen was the
concentric traffic arrangement used at Boulder Municipal. The GA pilots
used their regular large pattern. Gliders entered the circuit from the
south over the airport buildings and flew a smaller pattern inside the
GA people, landing on a second parallel runway north of the main (GA)
one, while the tugs flew a similar pattern to gliders, but smaller and
inside them, landing on a narrow runway between the other two. It worked
well and showed no apparent traffic conflicts. That was in 2001, but I
assume the patterns are still the same, though as of last year (Google
Earth imagery from Oct 2013) the middle runway looks like it hasn't been
used for a long time.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:53:54 PM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
At Moriarty, NM, we always see power pilots flying what we charitably call

"bomber patterns" (circuits for you Limeys). When I fly the tow plane, I'm

always within gliding distance of the runway - there's just no reason to be

that far away unless you're trying to build flight time. Plus, those big

patterns really disrupt glider flying.



I think the BRS system is a great invention but it does need some thought in

its use. We're considering a Pipistrel Sinus (used) which had a BRS system

installed. I think it's great, though I was somewhat taken aback by the

repack cost. But, since it's over a much longer period than a personal

chute, the cost is about the same as all the six-month repacks.



And finally, did you all see the video of the Cirrus (I think it was), that

collided with the tow line at Boulder, CO several years back? He deployed

his BRS system and then burned to death as the flaming plane settled slowly

to the ground. Not pretty.





wrote in message

...

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:53:15 AM UTC-8, JJ Sinclair wrote:

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



400' and the first reaction of the pilot is to "pop the chute"? What kind

of training do these Cirrus Pilots get on the BRS? How 'bout "lower the

nose, watch your airspeed and take what you got" and land in the golf course

(they surround most general aviation airports.

the parachute will deploy most of the time when the structural integrity of the cabin is compromised. relative motion between the location of the handle and the location of the parachute is all that matters, whether the handle moves or the airframe moves. a lot of landing accidents in cirri result in fireballs. it seems that they are a result of the wings breaking open which spews fuel everywhere, just looking for an ignition source, right around the time that the rocket gets deployed and kablooie. i remember seeing the video of the fireball under parachute from the boulder accident and wondered if the deployment was intentional or not. either way what an awful way to die.

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)

AJM wrote, On 1/29/2014 2:49 PM:
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.

And even if he was 400 agl to the airport, that's 15480'/400' = 39.6
glide ratio required. That's totally unacceptable in my ASH 26 E,
nominally 50:1, and impossible in a Cirrus airplane. And you probably
don't want to find out you aren't making it when you are 200' high, as
that may be too low to guarantee a safe deployment.

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

Agreed, when I was checked out on the Cirrus SR22 I noted a glide ratio of
8-9:1. Very similar to a Cessna 210, another perfectly glidable aeroplane
with poor glide performance. Following engine failures, pilots have a
mental model of their glide range from previous types, wind up short, try
raising the nose to stretch the glide and...well you know how that ends


Eric Greenwell wrote:
AJM wrote, On 1/29/2014 2:49 PM:
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.

And even if he was 400 agl to the airport, that's 15480'/400' = 39.6
glide ratio required. That's totally unacceptable in my ASH 26 E,
nominally 50:1, and impossible in a Cirrus airplane. And you probably
don't want to find out you aren't making it when you are 200' high, as
that may be too low to guarantee a safe deployment.

In article CJ writes:
Agreed, when I was checked out on the Cirrus SR22 I noted a glide ratio of
8-9:1. Very similar to a Cessna 210, another perfectly glidable aeroplane
with poor glide performance. Following engine failures, pilots have a
mental model of their glide range from previous types, wind up short, try
raising the nose to stretch the glide and...well you know how that ends

From previous types? The glide ratio of most common light aircraft is in
the 8:1 to 10:1 range. I doubt that their previous types much exceed the
SR22's glide ratio.

Not having any speed to fly information other than "engine out xx ktas"
might limit their getting optimal glide performance, but a real engine
failure is not the best time to be trying to calculate best glide speed
for existing weight and speed to fly for current winds to their target.

I expect that most readers of this group know how weight affects their
minimum sink airspeed and best glide airspeeds; as well as how winds and
rising or sinking air affect the best speed for them to be flying.

I hope they won't be experimenting with the effects if the engine quits
in a light airplane, in conditions where they probably do not know the air
motion particularly accurately.

( Does anyone here know the V min sink and V best glide for a Cessna 172N
at 2300 lbs weight; does anyone have a reasonably good polar plot for it?
I got curious, looked online, didn't find the info. It would not surprise
me if the 65 ktas in the POH is padded a bit to ensure that the suddenly
unpowered pilot is less likely to run out of speed on approach, but I do not
know this. )

Alan

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.

If you use a modern 2-seat trainer such as a DA20 (11:1) and then jump in a
Cirrus (8.5:1) it's a a 22% difference in glide range. Hardly
inconsequential. With a 15kt difference in best glide air speeds, it also
requires an attitude far lower than they are used to and are very hesitant
to set (it takes training and proficiency for a powered pilot to overcome
the urge to raise the nose after an engine failure. Not unlike a glider
pilot trying to force the nose round with rudder in an overshot final turn;
instinct trumps logic). Powered manufacturers don't publish min sink
speeds as they are irrelevant. They want you to get to a landable field,
period. There is no need for them to pad the speeds as approach is flown
with flaps with the resultant greater stall margin and best L/D occurs far
enough away from the back of the drag curve for this to not be a
consideration, I like your lateral thinking though.

CJ

Alan wrote:
In article
CJ
writes:
Agreed, when I was checked out on the Cirrus SR22 I noted a glide ratio of
8-9:1. Very similar to a Cessna 210, another perfectly glidable aeroplane
with poor glide performance. Following engine failures, pilots have a
mental model of their glide range from previous types, wind up short, try
raising the nose to stretch the glide and...well you know how that ends

From previous types? The glide ratio of most common light aircraft is in
the 8:1 to 10:1 range. I doubt that their previous types much exceed the
SR22's glide ratio.

Not having any speed to fly information other than "engine out xx ktas"
might limit their getting optimal glide performance, but a real engine
failure is not the best time to be trying to calculate best glide speed
for existing weight and speed to fly for current winds to their target.

I expect that most readers of this group know how weight affects their
minimum sink airspeed and best glide airspeeds; as well as how winds and
rising or sinking air affect the best speed for them to be flying.

I hope they won't be experimenting with the effects if the engine quits
in a light airplane, in conditions where they probably do not know the air
motion particularly accurately.

( Does anyone here know the V min sink and V best glide for a Cessna 172N
at 2300 lbs weight; does anyone have a reasonably good polar plot for it?
I got curious, looked online, didn't find the info. It would not surprise
me if the 65 ktas in the POH is padded a bit to ensure that the suddenly
unpowered pilot is less likely to run out of speed on approach, but I do not
know this. )

Alan

That's true, but my experience and training is that most engine failures
occur with power changes so why not be closer in before reducing power for
final?


"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
Steve Leonard wrote, On 1/29/2014 8:44 AM:
snip

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)

At 800' AGL with the numbers passing under my leading edge, I reduce power
and begin my 180 decending turn to final. I roll out on final at 200' over
the numbers. Pretty much the same pattern in my glider. Straight-ins are
for jets.


"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
AJM wrote, On 1/29/2014 2:49 PM:
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.

And even if he was 400 agl to the airport, that's 15480'/400' = 39.6 glide
ratio required. That's totally unacceptable in my ASH 26 E, nominally
50:1, and impossible in a Cirrus airplane. And you probably don't want to
find out you aren't making it when you are 200' high, as that may be too
low to guarantee a safe deployment.

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