How to survive a plane crash.

[MADem]

Be riding in a plane equipped like this:

Article on the topic: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/05/heres-how-a-small-plane-looks-when-it-descends-via-parachute-instead-of-crashing/362105/

The YouTube video also dramatizes why, during the ~1200 flying hours I have spent in Cirruses since buying a very early-model SR20 in 2000, it has been a back-of-the-mind reassurance to know the parachute is there, even though I've never come remotely close to circumstances where I felt I should consider using it. Also you will see why for non-pilot passengers, starting with my wife, its presence makes such a difference in peace of mind. In many small airplanes, there really is no reassuring answer to the question: OK, what if the pilot passes out? I've never come remotely close to passing out, either, but that's not a fully convincing answer. The parachute creates a very important Plan B option.

[mn9driver]

1. CAPS isn't cheap.

I've seen a very few Cirrus for less than $200k on Trade a Plane, but most go for considerably more. $360k+++ seems to be the floor for most of them. I think I'll build an RV someday ...(sigh)... and use the money I save to buy flying lessons for my wife and rent a decent hangar. She won't fly with me when I'm planning on aerobatics, anyway.

Cool video, though!

[MADem]

2. I think they need to find ways to make this kind of thing more affordable for

a wide variety of aircraft!

[Jenoch]

3. The founders of Cirrus sold their company to a Chinese firm a few years ago.

I sure hope they keep the manufacturing in Duluth.

[MADem]

7. Well that sucks.

I wonder how long the technology will remain proprietary....?

[pinboy3niner]

4. When I worked at NTSB years ago, Chairman Jim King used to say to sit in the rear of the plane

Then he'd give the punchline: "Did you ever hear of a plane BACKING into a mountain?"

[Major Nikon]

5. I have well over 3,000 hours in single engine piston aircraft

Zero of those hours have been with a BRS equipped aircraft and I've never come close to any situation in which I thought I might need one. I can certainly understand the desire that some pilots may have in wanting such a system, but personally I have never had any desire for it. Cirus are nice aircraft, but the BRS just isn't a selling point for me. If you look at the BRS deployments, virtually all of them are a result of the plane and/or pilot being in a place where they never should have been like icing or disorientation in IMC conditions or a loss of fuel. There have also been some very serious injuries as a result of BRS deployment, and not everyone survives them. There have also been BRS deployments which resulted in fatalities that arguably were survivable had the BRS not been deployed. In fact, one guy lost it in the clouds, activated his BRS but it failed to deploy, he recovered and landed the aircraft.

[MADem]

6. If you could get it for cheap, though, wouldn't you like it? nt

[Major Nikon]

8. I'd rather carry an extra hour of fuel

That's what the weight of the device amounts to in my plane. The fuel issue alone negates any safety benefit given the way I use my plane. I always carry the maximum amount of fuel that I can and I already often face situations where I can't carry maximum fuel, or if I can there isn't any load carrying capability left. 79 extra pounds means that in all of these situations I'm going to have to carry 1 hour less fuel which is a safety detriment and reduces the utility of my aircraft. It would also take up valuable room in my baggage compartment which I routinely use to capacity and would present CG challenges that I wouldn't otherwise have.

So if you gave one to me and offered to install it for free, I'd still decline it. I can see why people might want something like this, but in my situation I just don't.

[MADem]

9. What if they created a device that was light, cheap, and reliable? That didn't involve significant

trade off?

As a passenger, I would LIKE to see something like that on a plane--be great if they had 'em on the big 'uns too--but I suppose that's probably too much to ask, at least in this century.

Is your POV typical of most pilots, do you think, or is it a mixed bag of opinion?

[Major Nikon]

10. It already is quite light for what it is

You're talking about a parachute that has to support 3,000 lbs along with a deployment rocket. I don't really see it getting much lighter, if any.

Retrofitting an existing aircraft is a bit different than having one of these on a new aircraft. In the case of the Cirrus, those planes were certified with the BRS installed. Anyone who buys a Cirrus already knows what the utility of the aircraft is with the BRS installed and removing it is not an option. In my case, I selected the aircraft I bought given the parameters of how far it can go and how much it can carry. Installing a BRS into it changes that dynamic, reduces the utility of my aircraft, and arguably makes it less safe. I'm already flying one of the safest aircraft in general aviation. I don't have the numbers on this, but I'm pretty sure if you compare the number of miles flown vs accidents, my aircraft is going to come out on top vs any BRS equipped aircraft. It wouldn't surprise me if it isn't even close. My aircraft has over 8,000 hours on the airframe(equivalent to about 1 year in the air) and has never been in an accident or incident. This is very typical for the make and model. So if you give me a choice between a BRS equipped airplane and mine with safety as the only consideration, guess which one is the obvious choice?

I don't know what the POV of most pilots is. I'm sure there are discussion forums where the topic of BRS is discussed ad nauseum, but I just don't participate in any of those. I suspect most pilots just don't think about it all that much. Most of the stuff that can happen in the air with a small single engine aircraft is highly survivable provided the pilot doesn't give up. Due the simple and redundant design of aircraft engines, engine failures are quite rare, but even when they do happen are quite survivable given that you can stuff the plane in a parking lot or any other flat place if you have to. Most of them happen because the pilot ran the plane out of fuel. Other mechanical failures are even more rare.

The biggest reason why airline travel is the safest mode of transportation is not because the aircraft are inherently more safe. It's because the airlines have learned how to operate them safely. Although I am a commercial rated pilot, I don't fly commercially, however I do operate my ship in a professional manner. I maintain my airplane to a high standard. I keep my instrument skills sharp (I'm going up with an instructor today for that very reason). I don't operate my airplane beyond its design limitations, and I thoroughly plan every flight I make. None of these things insure bad things will never happen, but they do substantially reduce my risk. If you look at all the BRS deployments, virtually all of them(if not all) were the result of not doing these things.

Driving a car is not really all that much different. The thing that's most likely to save your life is not some new safety gadget, it's operating what you have safely.

[CanSocDem]

11. Good points.

"The thing that's most likely to save your life is not some new safety gadget, it's operating what you have safely."


Not counting that your attitude is admirably anti-consumerist in its resist the hype sensibility I like how it is applicable to every life threatening aspect of American life.

The FEAR of not being protected, as you point out, at some point becomes not only counter-productive but downright irrational. It is why I never wore a seatbelt in many years of driving a tractor-trailer.


.

[MADem]

12. From a passenger perspective, I think those things would be a winner...

If they could find a way to make big-ass giant ones for large aircraft, they'd be a selling point. The big fear always used to be that the pilot would die while flying the plane. Now the big fear is that some asshole will take over the plane and kill the pilot(s).

I think it's only a matter of time before planes become more like drones, anyway, and a lot of the flying happens away from the cockpit. They'll do it with cargo planes first, and eventually transition. I know pilots don't like to hear this, but I argued that drones were going to be doing most of the major recon many decades ago in a military war college environment and got a shitload of pushback for even daring to suggest it. I also argued SMARTSHIPS up the yingyang and didn't get a lot of love for that, either. Some things, even when they push those easy paradigms, just seem obvious, at least to me. As I always repeat, personnel costs, from recruitment to retirement and beyond take the biggest bite out of a military budget, and they are the one thing that are hard to shed.

That's why, if they could invent one of these beauties that would allow a large passenger a/c to float gently to earth, it would do away with a lot of the agita that might come from not having a pilot at the controls IN the aircraft. I probably won't live to see it, but I think it will happen, one day.