5 ms·

I think where BRS shines is that it helps flight in situations where the risks were otherwise too great. Flying day VFR over prairie is pretty survivable if you

I think where BRS shines is that it helps flight in situations where the risks were otherwise too great. Flying day VFR over prairie is pretty survivable if you have an engine out, but the chances of getting through a situation like that while flying at night, in IFR, over mountains, VFR OTT, through known icing, etc., is much lower. Light multi-engine aircraft were born for those situations but, ironically, they're not much better than single engine aircraft for survivability. There's a saying that a twin just gets you to the scene of the accident faster. So, yeah, it's not a panacea, but improving the odds of living through the other 44% of flight accidents is still a good thing.

justin66 13y ago
> Flying day VFR over prairie is pretty survivable if you have an engine out, but the chances of getting through a situation like that while flying at night, in IFR, over mountains, VFR OTT, through known icing, etc., is much lower. Not trying to put words in your mouth but interestingly, this comment highlights one of the hazards of this system. It can give people the confidence to do things they should absolutely avoid doing and KNOW they should avoid doing. Things like a new and more effective wing deicer sometimes have a similar effect.
- maximilianburke 13y ago
  Yeah, pilots should know what they're getting into and be aware if it exceeds their experience. I didn't mean it to be an endorsement of unsafe behavior. If the capabilities of the airframe and the pilots skill are sufficient for the conditions, like if your plane is certified for flight into known icing conditions and you have experience doing so, then it's not a huge risk to fly into these situations. But if your plane has pneumatic deicing boots that require engine power and your engine quits, you may be in over your head in a hurry if ice starts building up while you're trying to perform an emergency landing. In that situation it would be nice to be able to just pop the chute.
  - justin66 13y ago
    > like if your plane is certified for flight into known icing conditions and you have experience doing so, then it's not a huge risk to fly into these situations. But it's not a binary condition such that you can make a really clear distinction like that, right? That seems like the big risk to me. If it were as easy as "those are icing conditions but we have to equipment to deal with icing conditions," okay, no problem. I expect the risk assessment process involves more variables and is more along the lines of: "sure, that weather system is more dangerous than we'd ordinarily fly into but we've got a better deicer this time, we're in a hurry, we're experienced pilots so... let's do it." (admittedly, I have no idea how specifically a weather system's risk and a deicer's performance can be quantified beforehand... maybe it's a piece of cake)
- Involute 13y ago
  > It can give people the confidence to do things they should absolutely avoid doing This is a popular criticism of the system for which supporting evidence is never provided. I'm not saying it doesn't have this effect, but I see no reason to assume it does, any more than having seatbelts in a car makes you a more reckless driver.
  - justin66 13y ago
    > This is a popular criticism of the system for which supporting evidence is never provided. You'd have to have read all the criticism of the system to be able to make this claim. The Cirrus SR22 is worthy of study if you're actually interested in this. For a while at least, it had a somewhat poor safety record in spite of being in quantifiable terms an amazingly safe plane. I'm pretty sure human behavior is involved. Anyway, here's a place you could start, although I can't vouch for the quality of an article I haven't read: http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVWebInsider_CirrusSafety_206016-1.html http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVWebInsider_CirrusSafety...
    - Involute 13y ago
      > You'd have to have read all the criticism of the system to be able to make this claim. Fair enough: This is a popular criticism of the system for which I've never seen any supporting evidence provided, including in this thread. Hunches and suspicions don't qualify.
      - justin66 13y ago
        A counterexample is welcome. The Cirrus SR22 has a somewhat mediocre safety record, in spite of its absolutely cutting-edge safety features, because... Seriously. Insert content here. I see from your other comments that you've got one of these, so seriously, you must have some actual thoughts on this.
mikeash 13y ago
If you can't safely land in the event of an engine failure, shouldn't you not make the flight, even with a BRS? It's always good to have more options available, but you shouldn't necessarily base your decision making on them. If the risks were too great for such a flight without a BRS, they really should be considered too great with it.

justin66 13y ago

> Flying day VFR over prairie is pretty survivable if you have an engine out, but the chances of getting through a situation like that while flying at night, in IFR, over mountains, VFR OTT, through known icing, etc., is much lower. Not trying to put words in your mouth but interestingly, this comment highlights one of the hazards of this system. It can give people the confidence to do things they should absolutely avoid doing and KNOW they should avoid doing. Things like a new and more effective wing deicer sometimes have a similar effect.

maximilianburke 13y ago
Yeah, pilots should know what they're getting into and be aware if it exceeds their experience. I didn't mean it to be an endorsement of unsafe behavior. If the capabilities of the airframe and the pilots skill are sufficient for the conditions, like if your plane is certified for flight into known icing conditions and you have experience doing so, then it's not a huge risk to fly into these situations. But if your plane has pneumatic deicing boots that require engine power and your engine quits, you may be in over your head in a hurry if ice starts building up while you're trying to perform an emergency landing. In that situation it would be nice to be able to just pop the chute.
- justin66 13y ago
  > like if your plane is certified for flight into known icing conditions and you have experience doing so, then it's not a huge risk to fly into these situations. But it's not a binary condition such that you can make a really clear distinction like that, right? That seems like the big risk to me. If it were as easy as "those are icing conditions but we have to equipment to deal with icing conditions," okay, no problem. I expect the risk assessment process involves more variables and is more along the lines of: "sure, that weather system is more dangerous than we'd ordinarily fly into but we've got a better deicer this time, we're in a hurry, we're experienced pilots so... let's do it." (admittedly, I have no idea how specifically a weather system's risk and a deicer's performance can be quantified beforehand... maybe it's a piece of cake)
Involute 13y ago
> It can give people the confidence to do things they should absolutely avoid doing This is a popular criticism of the system for which supporting evidence is never provided. I'm not saying it doesn't have this effect, but I see no reason to assume it does, any more than having seatbelts in a car makes you a more reckless driver.
- justin66 13y ago
  > This is a popular criticism of the system for which supporting evidence is never provided. You'd have to have read all the criticism of the system to be able to make this claim. The Cirrus SR22 is worthy of study if you're actually interested in this. For a while at least, it had a somewhat poor safety record in spite of being in quantifiable terms an amazingly safe plane. I'm pretty sure human behavior is involved. Anyway, here's a place you could start, although I can't vouch for the quality of an article I haven't read: http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVWebInsider_CirrusSafety_206016-1.html http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVWebInsider_CirrusSafety...
  - Involute 13y ago
    > You'd have to have read all the criticism of the system to be able to make this claim. Fair enough: This is a popular criticism of the system for which I've never seen any supporting evidence provided, including in this thread. Hunches and suspicions don't qualify.
    - justin66 13y ago
      A counterexample is welcome. The Cirrus SR22 has a somewhat mediocre safety record, in spite of its absolutely cutting-edge safety features, because... Seriously. Insert content here. I see from your other comments that you've got one of these, so seriously, you must have some actual thoughts on this.

mikeash 13y ago

If you can't safely land in the event of an engine failure, shouldn't you not make the flight, even with a BRS? It's always good to have more options available, but you shouldn't necessarily base your decision making on them. If the risks were too great for such a flight without a BRS, they really should be considered too great with it.