Light Aircraft Association

Hi,

serious engineering sometimes can look like fun! In case you missed it on the LAA news items take a look at this:

http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co. ... rwood.html

I note with interest that Paul Hendry-Smith elected not to sit in the cockpit himself - I've always thought he was a sensible chap, and that confirms it!

regards,

Colin

I've always had a soft spot for the Sherwood Ranger , and seeing one in bare-bones format like that just shows what a brilliant little machine it is .
I would be interested to know if Paul attaches much value to the fitment of ballistic chutes , or whether it is just to satisfy potential clients ? Being one of the Forums plain speakers , I'm sure he will enlighten us .
The CAA have shown a guarded reticence to these things over the years , and quite rightly so in my opinion. If one is to fly a so-equipped aircraft , then one needs to seriously self brief as to what kind of degree of adversity needs to be present before it gets fired off .
I definitely don't subscribe to the notion that if it goes a bit pear shaped up there then you pull the handle and then flutter gently to the ground , as you could end up being dumped on the middle of the M25 , or on top of Didcot Power Station ,or wherever the prevailing conditions put you.
A friend has just had one fitted to his C42 and his justification was that in the event of a 'mid-air' and his tail coming off, he could then blow his chute.
Statistically, the chance of a midair collision is pretty minute , and the chance of surviving it even less . So it's a bit like insuring yourself from being hit by an asteroid .
Not to mention what the arresting forces might do to the airframe , hopefully Paul will conduct further tests with the wings attached .
Great bit of footage though , especially the,,,,,'ckin 'ell emanating from the background .

Interesting test. I believe (I may be wrong) that firing the chute is pretty much the coup de grace for the aircraft. The forces involved in returning to earth via that method are the end for the airframe, and I would suspect at least a hospital visit for the pilot/pax (shock, check up, monitoring) etc.
Video footage of the early systems show that the aircraft hits the ground with quite a hefty but hopefully survivable wallop.
This was certainly the case for the first devices, and tests on composite or metal airframes. However this may have changed, or might involve more repairable damage for wooden airframes? (Depends where it lands)....

It should be remembered that in the (probably) most well known BRS system, the Cirrus, the 'chute is only part of the system - the seats have memory foam for proper impact absorbtion, the floor is designed to collapse/compress in a controlled way, and the undercarriage is designed to collapse in a predictable manner too. I would guess that harnesses and other aspects of the aircraft are designed to work as part of the BRS too.

Chris Martyr wrote:A friend has just had one fitted to his C42 and his justification was that in the event of a 'mid-air' and his tail coming off, he could then blow his chute.

In a mid air who's to say that just the tail will come off, or just a wing? There are recorded cases where the occupants of at least one of the aircraft are deemed to have been 'incapacitated' in the initial impact.
What if the BRS is damaged inthe impact? Could deploying the 'chute after that actually seal your fate by the rocket just exploding?

Just playing devils advocate here, really.

A BRS is almost certainly a good thing,and I would deploy one in the event of an engine failure over inhospitable terrain with scarcely a second thought!

Hi Rob,
I don't think you're being devils advocate at all mate . Certainly no more than I was , considering that Colin's original posting was a fairly light hearted look at a day of jolly japes at Little Snoring .
The 'devils advocacy' is almost inevitable really considering that there are so many "What If's" involved in the fitment and use of these devices . It's actually not that easy to find any proper, collated data on which to base any justification for the fairly considerable financial outlay on these things.
I read a survey a couple of years back commisioned by the FAA wherein it was said that the deployment of these things below 1,500ft AGL was definitely not recommended , which is fairly significant when one considers that most mid-air collisions occur in the circuit .
As far as losing an engine is concerned , have a look through your old 'PFs' as there was an article some years back about an LAAer flying an Aeronca Champ on holiday in Italy whose engine quit whilst over The Alps . Luckily there was no ballistic chute in the equation to distract his decision making and by his incredible skill and judgement managed to dead-stick her onto a grassy mountainside clearing leaving both himself and the aeroplane unscathed .
Had a ballistic chute been deployed, the aeroplane would have almost definitely been a write-off and possibly its pilot as well.
There was a post recently from a chap who wanted to build in a complicated, heavy piece of apparatus to his aircraft , which was accompanied by several "What If" type justifications.
Wasn't it Burt Rutan who once said "Before you bolt anything to your plane , toss it into the air - If it comes down again don't fit it ".
Bolt enough "What-If's" to your aeroplane and it'll never get off the ground !

I'm sure gents of a certain vintage will recall those weekend newspaper ads for really useful things like:
The Pifco battery driven face fan . Chesty cough linctus for over 60s . Hernia pants .....
Who says there's no place for the ballistic chute ?
Must get back to my christmas list now. Let me see :
Monogrammed handkerchiefs.
Diamond patterned socks.
Soap on a rope.
Ballistic Chu,,,,,,,,,No don't be ridiculous man , at least you can use the other items.

There was a study / article done about the accident / injury / fatality rates of BRS equipped Cirruses.

Statistically speaking, they are no more or less safe than other aircraft without 'chutes.

I think the conclusion reached was that people who fly BRS equipped planes consider the aircraft to be so much safer than anything else flying it encourages them to fly the thing in far more marginal conditions.

I just think it is funny that when I went to leave Blackpool airport after a visit I had to go through security, and if I'd had a bottle of something I wouldn't have been allowed to take it onto my own aircraft, but the fact that my aircraft could be fitted with a rocket, fitted by myself, is perfectly acceptable!

Anyone seen the news lately ?

Yes it will be interesting to discover in due course what fault or problem prompted it to be deployed and what other options (if any) were available.

Steve