What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Saved by Ballistic Chute - any RV's with one?

danielhv

Well Known Member
I know its not RV related, but I am beginning to think these Ballistic Recovery Systems are worth their weight in gold! I saw an RV at Oshkosh that actually had one, but it had some funky looking skin work done... Has anyone else considered putting one of these on their aircraft?

Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnHuIET4P2s&feature=player_embedded

Fast forward to the 1:45 mark and watch for the separation... scary! :eek:
 
The link to this video appeared here yesterday. Someone replied that a warning was needed, and in a few minutes, the thread was gone.

Watching the first video, I couldn't see the outcome. But I was very happy to learn of another ballistic chute recovery. Turns out, the pilot only burned his toe.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
whole airplane chutes

That would have ended much differently had he not had a chute of some type. I doubt he could have gotten out and deployed a normal chute in time since he was so close to the ground.

I'm sure that when Van's offers this options on RVs, there will be a lot sold, no matter what the price or weight penalty.
 
Hi Dan...

..I don't have a pic but it is an RV-10 and the cables from the 'chute ran externally, under a cover of some sort...probably fiberglass, to the firewall area...kinda funky but hey, we all saw first hand what a 'chute can do!

Best,
 
At OSH 2010:

IMG_0591.JPG


IMG_0623.JPG


IMG_0622.JPG
 
BRS safety chute

I posted this link and it was taken down for some reason. There is a lot to learn from this video. It is not graphic and does not need a warning. I have considered BRS for my aircraft. Thanks for reposting this.
 
It appears that the chute fire out the right side through a very light materiel panel (plastic?) with at least two hard points toward the firewall. Not sure if there are 2 other cable attachments in the baggage area. The hardest part about the design would be those attachments - being able to withstand high tensile forces as the chute opened. The Rans, whether by design or not, supported the plane in a straight nose down attitude. This would be easier to design without the aesthetic issues in the RV-7A above - multiple attachments along the longeron with a cable or strap going all the way to the firewall. The chute would blow out through a sacrificial panel back and to one side, or out the bottom tail cone (though would add strain to the first attachment point along the longeron). Interesting mental exercise for the engineers out there, but in looking at all the RV accidents out there, it seems like hardly anyone would have benefited (there was an RV-8 that lost a wing - don't know how low he was). How much insurance does one buy for a tiny probability?
 
but in looking at all the RV accidents out there, it seems like hardly anyone would have benefited (there was an RV-8 that lost a wing - don't know how low he was). How much insurance does one buy for a tiny probability?

I agree, the engineering side of it intrigues me, but how many accidents would a BRS actually be helpful? 'Low and slow' tends to dominate fatal accidents, and that is no flight regime for a parachute of any kind to do its job. A wing seperating in normal flight (ie, within the design limits of the aircraft)? I have a better chance of winning the lottery or getting struck by lightning. Just my take.
 
I think it's a cool building exercise, but personally I wouldn't bother unless my "hobby" was thunderstorm penetration. Now if I could come up with a giant catchers mitt for runway excursions.....hmm.
 
If it was a relatively simple installation in the -9A, I'd have no hesitation in installing a BRS. My concern would only be weakening the existing structure in trying to install something that the RV isn't really designed to take at this stage, but this can be averted by proper engineering.

It isn't just structural failure when it can save your hide, but also engine failure over rough terrain, pilot incapacitation, a ditching, or if you really screwup a landing and look like going off the end of the runway, a BRS makes for some terrific brakes...
 
Let's think about this.....

...The reality of the situation is that there have been very few RV wing failures.

The early -3 models had wing failures that Van quickly addressed, and there was an -8 that came apart but after testing by a very qualified lab, revealed that the pilot/pilots had exceeded 9 G's, well past the 50% limit that was designed into the airplane.

Cirrus drivers have now had around 12 "pulls" of the red handle, some of them blatantly pilot error, such as icing up and going out of control.

I'm afraid of the "bandaid" syndrome that leads pilots to do stupid things because of the "I can always pull the handle" mentality, instead of steering clear of cumulo-nimbus or icing conditions, or not running out of fuel over the oceans or mountains.

The Sportsman aerobatic routine has been flown in many an RV and they just don't come unglued....I personally have demonstrated 4 point rolls on numerous occasions, and rolled and looped and danced on silver wings and all that.

Responsible flying and flight planning is still the best solution to safety and knowing when not to pursue further flight into IMC conditions, as one of my ag pilots did on Friday, and parked the plane at an outer airport 'til Monday.

Best,
 
The Rans, whether by design or not, supported the plane in a straight nose down attitude.

If you look at the slow motion part of the video you can see that the airplane does one full roll after the BRS is deployed. It looks to me like the parachute got caught on the empennage giving it the nose down attitude. I believe these systems have four attach points (2 fwd & 2 aft of the CG) so the aircraft lands flat and face up.

As long as there are guys cutting lightning holes in .030" aluminum and doing aerobatics without parachutes, I doubt BRS's are going to catch on in the RV community at large.
 
Engine out over mountains

I agree that any RV is unlikely to have an in-flight structural failure unless pushed hard by a senseless pilot. That being said, having known someone who lost their life in a plane crash in the mountains, I can see the safety factor of having a BRS if you fly over rugged terrain. An engine out over the plains is one thing, but an engine out over the vast majority of land West of Colorado is extremely bad news. The pilot who died in the crash (years ago) would likely have been fine had he had something like a BRS parachute. He lost power, and regardless how well he flew the plane to the ground, because of the terrain there was no hope for survival. A BRS parachute is not just for structural failure or for dumb pilots who fly into thunderstorms, icing conditions, etc. I don't know that I'll install one, but I wouldn't fault anyone who did if they fly over this kind of unforgiving terrain.
 
Brandon, as a RV pilot who flies over unforgiving terrain, I would not have a BRS. I spend minimal time over rugged mountains. Even the non-mountainous terrain in this region (like southern Utah), is not conducive to smooth, uneventful landings.

So I fly high to give myself a chance of reaching a road should I need it.

There are risks and ways to minimize them.

Besides, there are other hazardous area such as vast forests. Seems like people can die landing in a forest as well.
 
BRS is great for ultralights that can fall apart, or airplanes that can't recover from spins... airplanes like RV's would really have no reason for the extra weight, lost useful load, lost baggage capacity, extra engineering & expense, hazard of having a rocket behind your butt, ugly installations, etc etc... I don't believe they've saved very many Cirrus drivers who got into thunderstorms or IMC either, because in a death spiral or turbulence great enough to tear apart the airplane, the airspeeds involved simply tear the chute out of the airframe.

I agree with the idea that a pilot might be tempted to take unnecessary risks because (s)he "can always pull the red handle." No chute can take the place of proper flight planning and risk management.

Just my 2 cents.

Somebody posted something about "when" Van's comes out with a BRS for RV's-- is this something they are working on?
 
For acrobatic pilots it makes sense, but the likelihood of a midair or engine failure over mountains is too small to justify a BRS. Chain mail makes sense when swimming with sharks, but it's not something you want to wear on a popular beach.

John
 
...The Rans, whether by design or not, supported the plane in a straight nose down attitude...
As stated earlier, the plane wrapped around the chute lines. The guy was really lucky the canopy opened completely.

pierre smith;460439...I'm afraid of the "bandaid" syndrome that leads pilots to do stupid things because of the "I can always pull the handle" mentality said:
The same thing happened when cars started sporting air bombs and anti-lock brakes. The NHTSA found that people tend to drive more recklessly, tailgating, speeding, etc., because they feel safer.

There have been a number of Cirrus accidents where the pilot got into to trouble to low to pull the chute. Mostly during approach to land. It seems that the safety numbers on this "safe" plane are coming under question. Unfortunately, I couldn't locate a good article on the possible reasons why so many SR20 and SR22s are going down.

As for me, I don't want any pyrotechnic device in my plane. Heck, I don't even want an air bomb in my car!
 
PS. I found this article comparing an SR20/22 to Cessna?s. While completely different performance envelopes, the different in fatality rates is eye opening. Assuming that most of the accidents are due to loss of control, I wonder if the cleaner Cirrus is the reason.

Keep in mind, this was written by an attorney who might be looking to build a case for a lawsuit.
 
. Heck, I don't even want an air bomb in my car!

I've often thought about "explosive devices" such as BSR chutes, and airbags............and if they were to go off prematurely. Just imagine an airbag in an airplane doing it's thing, when it isn't supposed too!

But five weeks ago, yesterday, I slammed straight into a good sized deer at 60 mph on my motorcycle, in the middle of the day. D##n, I sure would have liked some kind of a handle bar airbag!!!!!!!!!!! It's no fun as the mind races through a thought pattern in a split of a second, and wondering if this is your last second of mortality. And my mind did just that! After impact, the world & time did appear to slow down, as we often hear in accidents. It seemed like forever, to decelerate as I scraped along the highway for 50 yards. Thankfully, I had a full face helmet, but no leathers.

I read the NTSB reports as they come out three times a week, and all the followups which can be six to twelve months later. Without doubt, there are many cases, in which a ballistic chute could be a save. You can go to great lengths to minimize risk, but the best way is just to stay on the ground. However, I prefer the beauty of mountain landscapes from a higher viewpoint; and fly single engine, knowing the statistics are favorable for the prop to keep turning.

But there is always going to be that chance of a once in a lifetime event, where odds are not in your favor. Therefore, I believe that it will always be better to have a ballistic chute than not. Same goes for airbags & other protective devices. That second of life might come along in which your mind say's "jeeze I wish I had this !". You just never know..........until your turn comes up.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
Assuming that most of the accidents are due to loss of control, I wonder if the cleaner Cirrus is the reason.

Keep in mind, this was written by an attorney who might be looking to build a case for a lawsuit.

The cirrus was designed, and then they did spin testing and said, oh #!#@, the rudder is too small! They corrected this by adding a parachute

The marketing guys put their spin on it, and bam, a bug becomes a feature- the RV has sufficient rudder authority to recover from a spin, the parachute is overkill
 
The cirrus was designed, and then they did spin testing and said, oh #!#@, the rudder is too small! They corrected this by adding a parachute

The marketing guys put their spin on it, and bam, a bug becomes a feature- the RV has sufficient rudder authority to recover from a spin, the parachute is overkill

Actually. one of Cirrus founders, Alan Klapmeier, was in a mid-air in 1985. The other plane crashed, and the pilot was killed. The chute for the SR20 was planned to begin with.

Personally, I don't care what the naysayers on this forum say. Although I have no plans to install a chute on my RV, I still think it's a worthwhile safety device. There is no way that we can look at every aircraft accident that involves fatalities, and believe that a BRS type chute has no place in everyday aircraft transportation.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
The cirrus was designed, and then they did spin testing and said, oh #!#@, the rudder is too small! They corrected this by adding a parachute

The marketing guys put their spin on it, and bam, a bug becomes a feature- (snip)l

I'm sorry, but although this is a common misconception, it is simply untrue. The Cirrus has excellent rudder authority, and pretty conventional handling. I base this in 1100+ hours in an SR22 over the last 7 years.

The chute as an "alternative" method of spin certification was the quickest and cheapest route to obtain initial FAA certification, but the European authorities did not accept this. The airplane had to demonstrate spin recovery for certification in Europe and much of the rest of the world. It has very conventional spin recovery techniques.

I have stalled our SR22 probably a hundred times, and cumulatively spent hours in slow flight over the years. It isn't a 172, but the stall characteristics are better than most similar sized retracts I have much experience in (Bonanzas, Navion, Comanche 250 )
 
Heck, I don't even want an air bomb in my car!

I didn't either....until I got into the first major collision that fired one in my face, and I walked away without a scratch.

It's along those lines, that I'm still working on such tough decisions of what safety equipment to build into the RV. What is useless weight? What might add more risk than remove? And, what will save my life?

Just as soon as I think something I think would never be helpful, a case comes up. But...we can't add the kitchen sink either.

...sorry...rambling while working on the plane planning... :eek:
 
Chute

This reminds me years ago of the debate over
motorcycle helmets, ?I would never wear a
stupid helmet because I can?t hear the cars
around me!? Or the ?I would never wear a seat belt
because you could be trapped in the car and couldn?t
get out? myself I would put in a chute if
it was a little more economical and structurally
viable. I have been to the cirrus ground school
and seen the results of some of the handle pulls.
Makes you think a bit. Biggest problem is pulling
at to high of a speed or pulling to low.
 
BRS does save lives

This was all very interesting. I also don't believe you need a BRS in your RV unless you plan on some serious Acro or competition. That's where Safety chutes are fine.
However as a BRS save myself (Number 30). When it happens there's really no warning and the first word out of your mouth is "****"! Thank God I have a Chute ( my words) Or "****"! Wish I had a Chute.
 
The cirrus was designed, and then they did spin testing and said, oh #!#@, the rudder is too small! They corrected this by adding a parachute

The marketing guys put their spin on it, and bam, a bug becomes a feature- the RV has sufficient rudder authority to recover from a spin, the parachute is overkill

I thought I heard someplace that Cirrus was required by the FAA to include a parachute because they originally weren't satisfied with the longevity of composite material airframes. The parachute was required to be included because the people certifying the airframe were worried about structural failure.

Then, like the car companies that turned the required airbags they originally resisted into a selling point, Cirrus did the same thing with the parachute.

It isn't a bug, it's a feature!
 
...as a BRS save myself...

Would you care to share the scenario that required you to use your chute?

I don't see structural failure to be the predominate threat. My biggest concerns are engine failures at night, IFR, or over rough country.
 
I thought I heard someplace that Cirrus was required by the FAA to include a parachute because they originally weren't satisfied with the longevity of composite material airframes. The parachute was required to be included because the people certifying the airframe were worried about structural failure.

Then, like the car companies that turned the required airbags they originally resisted into a selling point, Cirrus did the same thing with the parachute.

It isn't a bug, it's a feature!

No

The only change in the certification process was because of the chute.

From the start they designed the airplane to have the chute. BRS consulted in the airplanes design so that it would be optimized for the chute installation.

Because it had the chute, they did not have to demonstrate that it met the spin recovery requirements of FAR23.
Instead, the standard procedure documented in the POH for any departure from controlled flight, was to activate the CAPS.
 
BRS in an RV-8

Going back to the question about fitting a BRS to an RV, I was at a GAMA air safety investigator workshop in Wichita 2 years ago, and met the BRS rep. He showed me photos of an installation they were doing in an RV-8. It was mounted in the nose locker, down the right side, and the rocket punches out vertically through the nose locker door.
I cannot remember where it is being done, but Brazil rings a bell(?). It is a heavy install I recall him saying.
 
I posted this link and it was taken down for some reason. There is a lot to learn from this video. It is not graphic and does not need a warning. I have considered BRS for my aircraft. Thanks for reposting this.
I am not sure why my post on page 1 was also deleted :confused: .... BUT there are kits to install BRS on RV's..... google it or youtube it.... I won't post the link to the video again.... I don't think mentioning or posting violates any ruleswhat e, ver. May be VAF moderators don't like BRS or don't want to give any free Ad's... Personally I am NOT for BRS on my RV (but do have a personal sport backpack chute for aerobatics). I am OK Cirrus has a BRS... but would not buy or fly one because of that. Clearly BRS has saved a few lives...
 
Last edited:
Glasair offers a BRS as an option on the Sportsman 2+2 - Two Weeks to Taxi or factory installs only, no homebuilder installs. Cost is about $35K and 60lbs lost useful load plus a fairly substantial aft shift in empty C of G. The BRS also kills the option to fold the wings.

The BRS sits in the composite tail section just aft of the aft baggage bulkhead with its risers mouled to the top of the fuselage under thin composite covers. The risers attach to the 4130 chromoly steel "cage" of the fuselage.

I applaud Glasair for offering this option, and for offering it only with factory installation as messing with the deployment rocket is not something the average Joe should think about trying.

Given the relative STOL nature of the Sportsman I'm not sure the 'chute is an option I'd tick on the order sheet. The Sportsman clearly isn't rated for any aerobatics and neither am I, and for good reason. I'm just the kind of ham-fisted idiot that would muff up a maneuver and need a parachute! LoL
 
Chute

You can order a cirrus without a chute,
so the debate about having it to be
certified is answered. Problem with
having a chute in your cirrus is that the
chute has a 10 year life. According to
the FAA after the ten year life, you must
have it serviced. New problem, can?t
ship a rocket motor out of certification.
(Age!) again we?re in Oklahoma and when
you ask guidance from the friendly FAA
they will not a answer in writing (FAX)
other than say you can get a ferry permit
to fly to a service center for them to
certify your chute. So when a cirrus
owner wantsan annual from us, our first
question is how old is the chute.
 
Chute

Ohh an P.S if you take your chute out
of your cirrus because it?s old (10years)
according to the FAA it?s like flying without
required equipment!!
 
Turkey Chute...

I spent twenty-five years and over 5000 hours of my life sitting on an explosive (ejection) seat while flying. Having the seat there never gave me the impression of invincibility nor did it change my idea of risk adversity as our missions were inherently risky every time we went out the door.
That said, a BRS in an ultralight, LSA or even an RV that performed aerobatics on a regular basis as a substitute for a personal parachute I think is a good call.
Why? Extrication.
Getting free of a spinning, damaged or disabled aircraft takes time and precious altitude. 100% of my friends who were saved by an ejection seat did so under duress at a very low altitude or after a catastrophic failure of some sort.
Even the best ejection seat in the world has limits and we all knew them by heart but didn't let it dissuade our decision making or inhibit mission adherence.

Cirrus, installed the Cirrus Aircraft Parachute System as a sales (and safety) tool well after BRS was installing them in ultralights. However it wasn't installed in the SR20 prototype and my fellow F16 bro, friend and Cirrus Chief Test Pilot Scott Anderson was killed during a test flight. He believed in the CAPS system and told me so,
I believe him as well.

https://www.flightglobal.com/cirrus-sr20-demonstrator-kills-test-pilot-in-prison-crash/25610.article

Nice to have options.
V/R
Smokey
 
Last edited:
Back
Top