Aircraft Parachutes Saving Lives

[Dave Homewood]

An interesting report seen on Prime News and TV3 News tonight showed the reult of one of those emergency parachute systems being deployed by the pilot of a stricken aircraft.

The German pilot had to use the system when his aircraft became tangled in it's own glider tow wire. He cut the engine, and deployed the parachute. Footage from a camera mounted inside the plane showed how it gently floated down to earth, rather than the nasty crash that could have resulted.

The report said the emergency parachute for aircraft, invented 20 years ago, is only just starting to become widespread, with the US-based Cirrus company fitting it as standard to their aircraft. But already, they say, the system has saved around 2000 lives.

I wonder, are any aircraft fitted with the system here in NZ? If so, who supports the chutes in terms of maintenance, packing and care of the rocket that fires them?

Has the RNZAF ever considered using such a system on its aircraft I wonder?

[DragonflyDH90]

If Cirrus are saying it has already saved 2000 lives does that mean that 2000 Cirrus aircraft would have crashed otherwise?? Dont think I'll buy a Cirrus.................I think if there were 2000 deaths from light aircraft someone would be asking some questions.

The emergency chute is starting to become a bit of a cop out, people are getting themselves into situations they wouldnt normally get themselves (icing, caught in cloud or on top, just plain poor handling) into knowing they have an get out of jail free card.

A friend of mine that has flown the Cirrus extensively (international ferry pilot) has heard of some horror stories about people using these chutes, the big one has been flying in icing conditions as the aircraft doesnt like it much.

There have also been a couple of cases of people deploying the chutes and drifting down into water, where the undercarriage would normally collapse and absorbe some of the vertical impact the wheels have just pierced the water the aircraft them pancakes in with quite a reasonable rate of descent and the unfortunate person leaves the incident with some quite nasty back injuries. The descent is not as gentle as it looks on tape, the arrival is still fairly firm to say the least.

Having said all that there most definately is a time and a place for these things, but really are aeroplanes that dangerous???

There are very few (very, very, very few) mechanical failures, the vast majority of prangs are controlled flight into terrain, people being stupid low down, running out of gas. The last one is the only one that a chute is really going to help with.

[Dave Homewood]

Thanks Ryan, an interesting perspective. I didn't get the impression that all 2000 lives saved were all Cirrus incidents, I assumed many other types had had the system fitted, though Cirrus is the only one to do it on the production line.

But I see your point about people getting themselves into more trouble than they would without the chute.

I wondered if these systems may be a good idea for flight schools where inexperienced pilots might use them as a back-up last resort if they got themselves into trouble. But then reading your comments maybe it's tempting fate a little for them to push the envelope too far.

[Bruce]

there are quite a number of sport Aircraft in NZ fitted with BRS (ballistic recovery System) Parachutes, currently no Cirrus's yet. A friend of mine installed one on his own design homebuilt. I considered one on mine but apart from the expense there are other things to consider in terms of the enigineering. The chutes, rockets and Kevlar straps that attach them to the aircraft a quite heavy, and also fairly bulky. They need to be attached close to the c of G and provision needs to be made not only for a blow out panel for the rocket, but also the exhaust gases - it cant be near a fuel line for instance otherwise you'll simply convert your aircraft to a parachute flare!. Personally I chose not to fit one as I would rather maintain control of the aircraft and actually fly the aircraft to a safe landing. The only exception would be structural failure, and I'd prefer to avoid that in the first place by building a strong, reliable aircraft and flying it in such a way that the aircraft isnt overstressed. (besides, if the structure has failed, who knows what the chute attachments would be connected to - if anything!) the number of reported deployments is extremely high, and although there have been cases where it was entirely justified, a lot of those incidents could have been resolved just as well with a properly executed forced landing, or better still avoiding the situation in the first place. Its sort of like the people in the early 1990s when GPS first came out - yes it was an amazing tool, but you got sprog pilots flying into thunderstorms etc, knowing exactly where they were but coming out as "planecicles".
In terms of maintenance, most of the chutes have to be sent back to the manufacturer for servicing - travelling by surface freight of course as they are to dangerous to send by air(!). I can imagine some idiot somewhere trying to repack one though... Which wouldnt be easy as they are vacuum packed.
Basically, I'm not fussed by them....
Incidentally, Cirrus are not the only manufacturer installing chutes as standard on the production line. A lot of the new european microlight / light sport aircraft such as the Sting also have factory fitted chutes. Cirrus is the only certified aircraft with them as standard.

[Dave Homewood]

I guess with your aircraft Bruce the high wing and large wing surface compared to some would make it good for gliding down deadstick anyway, wouldn't it?

Th plane in the video with the German pilot was highwing. It looked a bit like that lovely homebuilt blue and white floatplane we saw at tauranga, only with wheels. It landed in an orchard but looks rebuildable.

[Peter Lewis]

dragonflydh90 said:

If Cirrus are saying it has already saved 2000 lives does that mean that 2000 Cirrus aircraft would have crashed otherwise??

For starters, I don't think we can assume that all the aircraft involved were being flown solo.

[corsair67]

The emergency chute is starting to become a bit of a cop out, people are getting themselves into situations they wouldnt normally get themselves (icing, caught in cloud or on top, just plain poor handling) into knowing they have an get out of jail free card.

Nearly as good as rebooting when things get hairy during Flight Sim games! ;D

[flyjoe180]

The system in the Cirrus SR20 and SR22 is known as Cirrus Aircraft Parachute System (CAPS). The system can, and has been, retro-fitted to other types of light aircraft.

I don't think that you can point at a particular type of aircraft and say "it must be unsafe because it's got a recovery 'chute". It's true the system has saved many lives, and you have to remember the reason it makes the news is because the deployment of a CAPS is a spectacular thing. How many Beeches, Cessnas and Pipers go down each day in the US? Have a look at the FAA accident pages, you may be shocked.

Also, the Cirrus is a new generation of light aircraft. I recently did a Cirrus course, and was impressed with the development and training that Cirrus provides all pilots who purchase or wish to fly these aircraft. They also run refresher courses but again, it still remains the responsibility of any pilot to take the time to attend these and not, as has been pointed out, to get themselves into situations that are beyond their, or the aircraft's, limitations. That includes icing. People will always inadvertently find new and sometimes remarkable ways to injure or kill themselves, there is just no way of stopping that short of offering education and instilling a sense of airmanship, self disciplne, and responsibility.

The recent New York SR20 accident is a case in point. Running up a narrow VFR lane in less than desirable visibility for VFR, the instructor and pilot (owner) realised they were running out of room as there was a major airport ahead of them up the Hudson River. There was a strong wind blowing from the right, with tall buildings to the left. They turned left. The consequences are obvious to us sitting here reading this. The aircraft, in low vis, avoided a few buildings before their luck ran out. That could have ben any aircraft type, and the result would have been similar.

Aircraft parachute systems are a safety device, and a good development if it means it will save a few lives.

[flyjoe180]

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Aircraft_Parachute_System :

CAPS Deployments
As of 2006, the CAPS has been deployed ten times (some still under investigation):

October 2002, Texas: detached aileron (NTSB report)

April 2003, British Columbia: loss of control in turbulence (aircraft C-GEMC), 4 uninjured

April 2004, Florida: instrument failure in IFR conditions, 1 uninjured (NTSB report)

September 2004, California: loss of control in high-altitude climb above clouds, 2 uninjured (NTSB report)

January 2005, California: parachute deployed above design limits, pilot fatality (unknown if intentionally activated) (NTSB Preliminary Report)

June 2005, New York: pilot incapacitated from undiagnosed brain tumor, 1 injured (NTSB report)

January 2006, Alabama: loss of control after pilot flew into icing, 3 uninjured (NTSB report)

February 2006, South Dakota: pilot reported disorientation, 2 uninjured

August 2006, Indiana: parachute deployed three miles from departure end of runway, aircraft landed in retention pond, parachute was deployed by a passenger because the pilot had fainted, pilot fatality, 3 passengers injured NSTB Preliminary Report, [1]

September 2006, Jamaica: pilot activated parachute under unknown circumstances, 4 uninjured NTSB Preliminary report

September 2006, Colorado: Plane destroyed with 2 fatalities after reports of icing problems at 14,000 feet. A preliminary report from the NTSB contains the sentence "A witness in the area observed a portion of the fuselage being drug by the deployed aircraft recovery parachute." NTSB Preliminary report


www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/safety/

[Dave Homewood]

"Have a look at the FAA accident pages, you may be shocked."

I did once, and I certainly was shocked. Masses of crashes per day. I think I'll take the train if I ever go to the USA.

Only ten deployments?? I don't know where the figure of saving two thousand lives came from then. Either it was a misreport or i misheard it. If the latter, sorry.

As for the incident in New York, my instinct would be to pull up to an altitude above the buildings before turning left. Seems like common sense to me. Hitting another plane in those conditions is a lot less likely.

[flyjoe180]

Turning into wind probvides a much smaller turn radius, and if you need to climb, gives a better angle of climb to clear any obstacles. Therefore a turn right would have been the solution. Would be easier not to get into that situation in the first place though.

[flyjoe180]

Dave, you may be right about the few thousand lives saved. Cirrus aren't the only manufacturers to use a parachute system for emergency recovery, so this figure must include a number of different types of aircraft over a long period of time.

[Simonjg]

Fantastic interesting thread,
Wish I had the money to have one in the TM (until then I am with Ryan and Bruce) but boy oh boy would things have to go pear shaped before it would be deployed.
There is a single seat Pitts with one in NZ

[Bruce]

Probably not a bad idea on a high performance or aerobatic machine, when something goes wrong in these flight regimes popping the chute would be entirely justified. The only thing is that aircraft in this category tend to have less space to install the hardware, and sometimes weight critical. Do any of the overseas Thunder Mustangs have them Simon?

[Simonjg]

No Thunder Mustangs have a chute, as you pointed weight and no room.

Spoke last night with the Steve Maltby (Australasia Cirrus agent), there have only been I think he said 9 or 11 deployments all resulting in safe outcomes other than one chap who had a heart attack and was dead before they hit the ground, his 14 year old son pulled the chute and walked away.

Last year I had the pleasure of flying a Cirrus for an hour, I can recomend it.

Check it out:

www.cirrusaustralasia.com

[Dave Homewood]

Thanks Simon. That figure of over 2000 I heard may have been items fitted, not used.

I just put Cirrus and Parachute into Google News and found this item - it's mostly business gobbledeggok but it shows these parachutes are a growing trend and a big business:



Ballistic Recovery Systems (BRS) Releases Fiscal Year 2006 Results
(2007-01-02)
By: Copyright Business Wire 2006 , Business Wire

Ballistic Recovery Systems, Inc. (OTCBB:BRSI)(BRSparachutes.com), a manufacturer of whole-airplane parachute recovery systems for general aviation and recreational aircraft, announced today a total of $9,191,729 in sales for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2006. This total represents an increase of 13.3% over the $8,115,544 in sales reported for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2005. The Company reported income before taxes of $45,577 for the year ended September 30, 2006 compared to a loss before taxes of ($1,762,764) for the year ended September 20, 2005.

Commenting on the results, Larry E. Williams, Chief Executive Officer said, "We are pleased with our fourth quarter and full year performance as well as our ability to achieve consistent growth in revenue and a return to profitability. We continued to benefit from ongoing market expansion efforts as reflected by the increase in sales over FY05, especially in the recreation/Light Sport Aircraft area where we saw 47 percent growth over last year. We are seeing unprecedented success in market acceptance of whole airplane emergency recovery parachutes. With the addition of new applications such as the Diamond D-Jet, we have undertaken a significant investment in operations and engineering to respond to market demand. Labor and operating expenses reflected continuing improvement and the early payment of debt associated with last year's legal settlement will result in lower overall interest expense over the $132,249 we experienced in FY06."

The Company also reported receiving notice of save number 199. "Our most important achievement is the result of the use of our products," commented BRS Chairman, Robert L. Nelson. He continued, "The Board earlier this year committed additional funding to research and development with the goal to increase applications and get our product on more airplanes. As we see the growing use of BRS systems, more and more lives will be saved."

Chief Financial Officer Donald Hedquist said, "We had great improvement in earnings notwithstanding the fact that we had increased insurance costs associated with the Cirrus product liability coverage, had increased debt payments, completed integration of the Mexican acquisition and met operational goals we set at the beginning of the year. The experienced management team, the strength of our international distribution network and certainly our successful renegotiation of the Cirrus contract, all contributed greatly to our improvement in FY06."

Some Highlighted Results of Operations for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2006:
Sales and G&A expenses improved from 29.4% of sales in FY05 to 27.9% in FY06

R&D Investment increased from 4.4% of sales in FY05 to 5.1% of sales in FY06

Payroll as a percent of sales reduced by 0.4% reflecting better labor utilization

Interest expense increased to $132,249 in FY06 from $24,630 in FY05.
BRS is a South St. Paul, Minnesota, based company that designs, manufactures and distributes whole-plane emergency parachute systems for use on general aviation and recreational aircraft. Since 1981, BRS has delivered more than 25,000 parachute systems to aircraft owners around the world including over 3,000 systems on certified aircraft like the Cirrus Design aircraft manufactured in Duluth, Minnesota. To date, BRS parachute recovery systems have been credited with saving the lives of 199 pilots and passengers.

The forward looking matters discussed here should be considered subject to risks and uncertainties, including market fluctuations, pricing, procurement, manufacturing efficiencies, and other risks that could cause the actual results to differ materially from those projected. For more information, review the company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, particularly the Company's annual report on Form 10-KSB.

For more information on BRS contact: Larry E. Williams; BRS, Inc: Fleming Field, 300 Airport Road; South St. Paul MN 55075; USA ([e-mail]) TEL [phone]; FAX [phone]



Ballistic Recovery Systems, Inc. John Gilmore, 651-457-7491 [e-mail] or Larry E. Williams, 651-457-7491 [e-mail]

(c)2006 Business Wire. All of the news releases contained herein are protected by copyright and other applicable laws, treaties and conventions. Information contained in the releases is furnished by Business Wire's members, who warrant that they are solely responsible for the content, accuracy and originality of the information contained therein. All reproduction, other than for an individual user's personal reference, is prohibited without prior written permission.