4 ms·

Am I correct in saying after one usage, the parachute system generally needs replaced? I think I read this about Cirrus planes anyway

bbojan 5y ago
I believe the whole airplane needs to be replaced after BRS use.
- ahartmetz 5y ago
  It may sound pointless unless you consider that the pilot will not need to be replaced.
  - Leherenn 5y ago
    There's the issue that in many cases people tried to save the airframe rather than activate the parachute, knowing the aircraft was likely to be written off, and died doing so. It the same when the pilot is equipped with a parachute.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      This is indeed the early experience with BRS, which has been substantially addressed via training which started with some complex scenario-based messaging and later evolved to a more simplified “pull early, pull often” which has resulted in a bias in a better direction for human safety.
      - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
        What's the risk to the people below? I'm reminded of a 2011 airshow crash of a Red Arrows T1 jet which, at least according to this account, [0] may have involved the pilot heroically making the decision not to personally eject, but to crash the aircraft away from crowded areas, perishing as a result. Of course, the aircraft itself had no parachute, unlike a Cirrus. (Also, I'm uncertain if that account of the incident is consistent with later investigation. The relevant quote is not from any investigation, but from a politician.) [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-14838982 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-14838982
        cameldrv 5y ago
        There’s a huge difference in the danger to those on the ground between an 15000 lb fighter jet going hundreds of mph and a small 3000 lb airplane descending at about 15 mph (plus the wind speed). It’s possible that the Cirrus could hurt or kill someone but I don’t think it’s happened in the about 100 parachute activations so far.
        MaxBarraclough 5y ago
        > There’s a huge difference Of course there is, that's the reason I emphasised it. > I don’t think it’s happened in the about 100 parachute activations so far That's good, although there could be a selection effect there: pilots might be more hesitant to deploy it if they think the falling aircraft could do harm.
        EricE 5y ago
        >What's the risk to the people below? A lot less than from a plane traveling at terminal velocity!
        agloeregrets 5y ago
        I mean, would you rather the plane crash at 30mph at a chosen point or at 200mph wherever it leads?
        sokoloff 5y ago
        Once you’re under chute, the airplane is picking the arrival spot.
        agloeregrets 5y ago
        Yes, but you get to choose when you pull the chute, whereas if you lose say, your elevator control, You don't get any choices here.
    - karlkatzke 5y ago
      At the point a pilot is considering declaring an emergency, they should do so. Once they have declared an emergency, the insurance company owns the airplane, and the pilot should be focused on preserving as many lives as possible. This is as true for a mechanical emergency like a gear up landing as it is for every other kind of emergency.
      - thesh4d0w 5y ago
        That's assuming you have in motion insurance on your aircraft. I don't on my 152, the plane is worth so little we'd cover the airframe cost in 7 years of insurance payments.
    - toss1 5y ago
      Yes, and this happens also in many other arenas. I've only done a bit of flying, but in my experience in speed sports such as Downhill ski racing and auto racing, you must be mentally able to switch your goals in a fraction of a second, from [win the race] to [save the run] to [save your life], without hesitation. Sometimes you succeed in [save your life] and are still on-track / on-piste pointing in the right direction and are back to [win the race] in the space of a few seconds. Other times, you are on the sidelines, and hopefully not on the way to the field clinic. But the switch in perspective must fully committed and absolutely not include [save the equipment], which is replaceable, even custom one-off gear. Anything else is over-constraining the problem and inviting disaster.
      - toss1 5y ago
        Beyond that, sometimes the [save your life] mode should include [sacrifice the equipment to save your life]. I remember an incident from one of my auto racing instructors. In a race, coming into a downhill turn (Diving turn at Lime Rock) at triple-digit mph, he found that he had no brakes. So he very rapidly pushed in the clutch, redlined the engine, grabbed 2nd gear, and popped the clutch with some steering input. The result was that he spun the car with enough control to crash into the barriers with the back end first. It was the end of that Porsche, but it would have been anyway, and he walked away. Or, another guy I knew who was at logging school, 150' up pruning in a pine tree, realized that it was getting way out of balance and was about to get violent. He cut to just the right point, then threw the multi-$1000 chainsaw as far as he could away from him, and hung on for life to his harness and tree strap as the tree whipped back and forth until the oscillations dampened. He got kind of beat up, but climbed down and walked away. It's key to be ready to completely change your mindset in a flash.
  - nopzor 5y ago
    yes, i think the way i’ve heard it pitched is that deploying the parachute will result in “a bad day for the insurance company, and a great day for the pilots and passengers”
- miked85 5y ago
  > Cirrus originally thought that the airframe would be damaged beyond repair on ground-impact, but the first aircraft to deploy (N1223S) landed in mesquite and was not badly damaged. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Airframe_Parachute_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Airframe_Parachute_Syst...
  - stevehawk 5y ago
    they're almost always totaled by the insurance company. Easier than risking that they missed a hairline fracture somewhere and have the plane go down again.
- mc32 5y ago
  Not necessarily. Frames can be repaired. Frame repairs and overhauls are common. If the damage is too extensive and expensive then you use it for parts.
jaywalk 5y ago
The parachute system will need to be completely replaced after usage no matter what. Activating the parachute involves firing a small rocket motor to pull it out quickly.
AdrianB1 5y ago
Yes. The parachute has a pyrotechnic deployment mechanism that is consumed; I never saw a BRS sold in separate components, so you need to replace the entire package. The 10 year shelf life is coming from the pyrotechnic charge and the parachute material, they both age.
- fnordfnordfnord 5y ago
  You can buy the components separately but they won't usually be certified so that's only useful for EAA types and people like Mike Patey.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

bbojan 5y ago

I believe the whole airplane needs to be replaced after BRS use.

ahartmetz 5y ago
It may sound pointless unless you consider that the pilot will not need to be replaced.
- Leherenn 5y ago
  There's the issue that in many cases people tried to save the airframe rather than activate the parachute, knowing the aircraft was likely to be written off, and died doing so. It the same when the pilot is equipped with a parachute.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    This is indeed the early experience with BRS, which has been substantially addressed via training which started with some complex scenario-based messaging and later evolved to a more simplified “pull early, pull often” which has resulted in a bias in a better direction for human safety.
    - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
      What's the risk to the people below? I'm reminded of a 2011 airshow crash of a Red Arrows T1 jet which, at least according to this account, [0] may have involved the pilot heroically making the decision not to personally eject, but to crash the aircraft away from crowded areas, perishing as a result. Of course, the aircraft itself had no parachute, unlike a Cirrus. (Also, I'm uncertain if that account of the incident is consistent with later investigation. The relevant quote is not from any investigation, but from a politician.) [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-14838982 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-14838982
      - cameldrv 5y ago
        There’s a huge difference in the danger to those on the ground between an 15000 lb fighter jet going hundreds of mph and a small 3000 lb airplane descending at about 15 mph (plus the wind speed). It’s possible that the Cirrus could hurt or kill someone but I don’t think it’s happened in the about 100 parachute activations so far.
        MaxBarraclough 5y ago
        > There’s a huge difference Of course there is, that's the reason I emphasised it. > I don’t think it’s happened in the about 100 parachute activations so far That's good, although there could be a selection effect there: pilots might be more hesitant to deploy it if they think the falling aircraft could do harm.
      - EricE 5y ago
        >What's the risk to the people below? A lot less than from a plane traveling at terminal velocity!
      - agloeregrets 5y ago
        I mean, would you rather the plane crash at 30mph at a chosen point or at 200mph wherever it leads?
        sokoloff 5y ago
        Once you’re under chute, the airplane is picking the arrival spot.
        agloeregrets 5y ago
        Yes, but you get to choose when you pull the chute, whereas if you lose say, your elevator control, You don't get any choices here.
  - karlkatzke 5y ago
    At the point a pilot is considering declaring an emergency, they should do so. Once they have declared an emergency, the insurance company owns the airplane, and the pilot should be focused on preserving as many lives as possible. This is as true for a mechanical emergency like a gear up landing as it is for every other kind of emergency.
    - thesh4d0w 5y ago
      That's assuming you have in motion insurance on your aircraft. I don't on my 152, the plane is worth so little we'd cover the airframe cost in 7 years of insurance payments.
  - toss1 5y ago
    Yes, and this happens also in many other arenas. I've only done a bit of flying, but in my experience in speed sports such as Downhill ski racing and auto racing, you must be mentally able to switch your goals in a fraction of a second, from [win the race] to [save the run] to [save your life], without hesitation. Sometimes you succeed in [save your life] and are still on-track / on-piste pointing in the right direction and are back to [win the race] in the space of a few seconds. Other times, you are on the sidelines, and hopefully not on the way to the field clinic. But the switch in perspective must fully committed and absolutely not include [save the equipment], which is replaceable, even custom one-off gear. Anything else is over-constraining the problem and inviting disaster.
    - toss1 5y ago
      Beyond that, sometimes the [save your life] mode should include [sacrifice the equipment to save your life]. I remember an incident from one of my auto racing instructors. In a race, coming into a downhill turn (Diving turn at Lime Rock) at triple-digit mph, he found that he had no brakes. So he very rapidly pushed in the clutch, redlined the engine, grabbed 2nd gear, and popped the clutch with some steering input. The result was that he spun the car with enough control to crash into the barriers with the back end first. It was the end of that Porsche, but it would have been anyway, and he walked away. Or, another guy I knew who was at logging school, 150' up pruning in a pine tree, realized that it was getting way out of balance and was about to get violent. He cut to just the right point, then threw the multi-$1000 chainsaw as far as he could away from him, and hung on for life to his harness and tree strap as the tree whipped back and forth until the oscillations dampened. He got kind of beat up, but climbed down and walked away. It's key to be ready to completely change your mindset in a flash.
- nopzor 5y ago
  yes, i think the way i’ve heard it pitched is that deploying the parachute will result in “a bad day for the insurance company, and a great day for the pilots and passengers”
miked85 5y ago
> Cirrus originally thought that the airframe would be damaged beyond repair on ground-impact, but the first aircraft to deploy (N1223S) landed in mesquite and was not badly damaged. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Airframe_Parachute_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Airframe_Parachute_Syst...
- stevehawk 5y ago
  they're almost always totaled by the insurance company. Easier than risking that they missed a hairline fracture somewhere and have the plane go down again.
mc32 5y ago
Not necessarily. Frames can be repaired. Frame repairs and overhauls are common. If the damage is too extensive and expensive then you use it for parts.

jaywalk 5y ago

The parachute system will need to be completely replaced after usage no matter what. Activating the parachute involves firing a small rocket motor to pull it out quickly.

AdrianB1 5y ago

Yes. The parachute has a pyrotechnic deployment mechanism that is consumed; I never saw a BRS sold in separate components, so you need to replace the entire package. The 10 year shelf life is coming from the pyrotechnic charge and the parachute material, they both age.

fnordfnordfnord 5y ago
You can buy the components separately but they won't usually be certified so that's only useful for EAA types and people like Mike Patey.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]