Cessna and BRS Parachute

[VWGhiaBob]

For a lot of reasons (mainly flying over LA Airspace where emergency landing options aren't good), I am flying Cirrus with parachute. Now I hear they can be retrofitted on Cessna's.

Anyone have experience with this? Anyone flying 172 or 182 with parachute have insights?

 

[Skylane81E]

In the cargo compartment and deploys through the rear window.

 

[dukeblue219]

For a lot of reasons (mainly flying over LA Airspace where emergency landing options aren't good), I am flying Cirrus with parachute.

Honestly curious, and not trying to start a 'chute war -- has there ever been a CAPS deployment over a heavily-developed urban area? I'm curious what would happen coming down under the chute in a major downtown. That's not to say you'd have a lot of options for a landing, either, but I wonder if the odds of hitting a building and collapsing the chute, or dropping onto a powerline, are worse. Thoughts?

 

[bnt83]

Honestly curious, and not trying to start a 'chute war -- has there ever been a CAPS deployment over a heavily-developed urban area? I'm curious what would happen coming down under the chute in a major downtown. That's not to say you'd have a lot of options for a landing, either, but I wonder if the odds of hitting a building and collapsing the chute, or dropping onto a powerline, are worse. Thoughts?

It seems like a big bamle to me either way. What if it's windy and you blow into a building, powerline etc etc etc.

I can see it now, my first ride in BRS equipped plane end with chute deployment of a huge city like DEN, we blow into a tall building and then freefall into:

 

[jpower]

If you're at any reasonable altitude, I would assume that you would probably be able to glide away from the downtown area before deploying the chute, especially if you glide downwind so that when you do pop the chute, you float even farther away from the city.

 

[bnt83]

If you're at any reasonable altitude, I would assume that you would probably be able to glide away from the downtown area before deploying the chute, especially if you glide downwind so that when you do pop the chute, you float even farther away from the city.

Right, because at 7500 MLS (2,300 AGL) flying over Denver, you can't even see the end of the city lights at night.

 

[Mike5250]

Our club bought a 172sp with a brs. They removed it right away because of the weight, and didn't want to retrain everyone on when/how to use it. We had 50+ active members at the time.

 

[DJTorrente]

I wouldn't presume that the failure leading to a need to pop the chute was going to happen in a particular place relative to populated area such that descending under canopy would take me out of the populated area and not into it.

To a zero order approximation, there are fewer densely populated areas than others. So all things being random, you're less likely to come down into a densely populated area. I suspect this risk profile is modified by the fact that more people, more pilots, tend to live and fly near densely populated areas. It still wouldn't affect my ability to pick and choose where the failure occurs. If I had my druthers, I'll take my engine failure at 50' over the fence on final, thanks. No chute necessary.

I think the 230kV switchyard is kind of like the apocryphal schoolyard full of nuns and orphans -- yes it could happen; probably a worst case scenario; but not likely enough compared to other outcomes that it needs to be fixated upon. Unless your talking about one of the handful of major metropoli with densely packed tall structures that might collapse the canopy, will bouncing off the second story side of a building at prevailing windspeed be that much worse than the final 26g landing?

 

[Sailer]

With a Cessna I might be less inclined to worry about it. Any aircraft with a relatively low stall speed has a better chance of getting it down in a pretty small area.

With a Cirrus no matter how you slice it the horizontal speed is going to be in the 70Kt range. That is a lot of energy to dissipate. Horizontally that could be 50 times the impact area of the plane under a chute. Add in the plane breaking up with the possibility of fire and the chute sure seems like a better option for those on the ground.

While the chute is not perfect, the potential impacted area to those on the ground is essentially the wingspan of the plane. Add in the sound of the rocket and the slow descent and most people will be able to get out of the way (everyone has seen the pictures and videos of Cirrus planes coming down). The law of averages says someday someone in the chute is going to come down in a bad place. But just take a look at Google earth and we find a LOT of open area. I think the concern about where it lands is overblown compared to the potential damage of landing at 70kts horizontally.

 

[DJTorrente]

As a point of reference, BRS puts this in their FAQs:

Q. What is the descent rate?
A. Once under canopy and descending in a stable condition, the rate of descent will be about 15 - 28 feet per second (fps) at 5,000 feet density altitude under rated weight capacity of canopy.

That's 9-17 kts vertical; I'm assuming up to 20 kts horizontal (just like a balloon, under canopy you move laterally at the prevailing windspeed over the ground, essentially zero lateral airspeed). That's about 26 kts combined speed on impact if you hit something vertical, like the side of a building. That would be 85% less energy (square of speed) than hitting something at 70 kts. stall speed.

 

[Swampfox201]

Question: If emergency that results in a parachute deployment is not engine related. Could the pilot use the engine and the rudder to steer the plane away from obstacles?

It seems like a big bamle to me either way. What if it's windy and you blow into a building, powerline etc etc etc.

I can see it now, my first ride in BRS equipped plane end with chute deployment of a huge city like DEN, we blow into a tall building and then freefall into:

 

[bnt83]

As a point of reference, BRS puts this in their FAQs:

That's 9-17 kts vertical

911 feet per minute to 1721 feet per minute


15.8 feet per second to 28.8 feet per socond

 

[docmirror]

As a point of reference, BRS puts this in their FAQs:

That's 9-17 kts vertical; I'm assuming up to 20 kts horizontal (just like a balloon, under canopy you move laterally at the prevailing windspeed over the ground, essentially zero lateral airspeed). That's about 26 kts combined speed on impact if you hit something vertical, like the side of a building. That would be 85% less energy (square of speed) than hitting something at 70 kts. stall speed.

^^ Yup, this. Anything you can do, be it a BRS, or flaps, or less weight to remove energy from the system(plane, and meat sacks) improves your chances.

The downside is of course loss of controlability. With the point-source exception of downtown Manhattan, or Chicago, or central LA I would think that your chances are far better with the chute. If you have a catastrophic failure, the chute is always going to be better because when the air surfaces aren't producing lift, or control it's just a large set of keys tumbling to the Earth anyway.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

Thanks all for the interesting thoughts. The facts, though, speak for themselves. 100% of the Cirrus deployments that were done properly (<130knts, >500AGL) have resulted in successful landings (I believe there have been around 80, but would have to look that up).

So while there's a chance, yes, that you could hit a house or a powerplant or some other horrible scenario, all pilots so far have been successful. Just yesterday one came down near a house with 4 hefty 54 year old guys. No one was even injured.

I'll take those odds any day.

But again, this probably matters more to people like me who fly in areas that have few options for landings, Cessna or Cirrus. I'd use the BRS 'chute unless I was assured of a good landing, wouldn't you?

 

[docmirror]

Another data point vis-a-vis Cirrus is that many of the times when the pilot has been hesitant, or refused the pull the handle, the results have gone horribly wrong.

 

[\__[Ô]__/]

Question: If emergency that results in a parachute deployment is not engine related. Could the pilot use the engine and the rudder to steer the plane away from obstacles?

The procedures for activating the chute involve shutting down the engine. Not sure what would happen if you didn't do that. I think there have been mixed reports of whether it does anything to leave it on.

 

[Turningfinal]

The procedures for activating the chute involve shutting down the engine. Not sure what would happen if you didn't do that. I think there have been mixed reports of whether it does anything to leave it on.

I'm surprised that deployment of the chute does not activate a fuel shutoff.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

I'm guessing the reason the 'chute doesn't shut down the engine automatically is that if the parachute doesn't deploy, the pilot would have to take time to re-start (assuming the engine is working at that point). For the deployment, the actions are 1) airspeed (<130), 2) diagnose and attempt to fix the issue if appropriate (only if >2000 AGL), 3) Sit up straight fold hands, 4) deploy, 5) shut down engine, fuel pump, masters, etc.

 

[Skylane81E]

There are reports of a guy who steered his cirrus under canopy using the engine.

 

[gismo]

The procedures for activating the chute involve shutting down the engine. Not sure what would happen if you didn't do that. I think there have been mixed reports of whether it does anything to leave it on.

Even if a running engine somehow interferes with deployment you could always shut down, pull the handle, then fire back up to maneuver if necessary. I believe that this has been done successfully at least once. A potential downside is that if you're running with power near the ground the airplane is going to swing pendulum like backwards (it will probably yaw as it swings) if you kill the power and this could result in increased impact forces.

 

[Brad Z]

If we were talking a 182, I'd suggest spending the money for a Wren or Katmai STOL conversion with Canard. 27-31kt stall speed, so your steering into the wind it's slower than being under canopy, with a controllable descent rate. You'll end up with a much more usable (and resellable) airplane when it's all said and done, without the worries of a BRS repack or malfunction.

Downside is it's hard to explain to non-pilots why it's better than a chute.

 

[DJTorrente]

If we were talking a 182, I'd suggest spending the money for a Wren or Katmai STOL conversion with Canard. 27-31kt stall speed, so your steering into the wind it's slower than being under canopy, with a controllable descent rate. You'll end up with a much more usable (and resellable) airplane when it's all said and done, without the worries of a BRS repack or malfunction.

Downside is it's hard to explain to non-pilots why it's better than a chute.

That has its limitations. Would not help with pilot incapacitation, loss of control in IMC, or structural failure (which was the cause of one of the more recent BRS saves -- aileron separation, IIRC).

Counterpoint -- I don't think any Cirrus (the most common BRS model) lacks an autopilot, and newer ones even have the little blue "LVL" button, both making IMC loss of control less likely. I also know about the speed limits on the BRS, so it may not be effective to recover from a spiral dive, but hey -- it's something.

 

[DavidWhite]

Thanks all for the interesting thoughts. The facts, though, speak for themselves. 100% of the Cirrus deployments that were done properly (<130knts, >500AGL) have resulted in successful landings (I believe there have been around 80, but would have to look that up).

So while there's a chance, yes, that you could hit a house or a powerplant or some other horrible scenario, all pilots so far have been successful. Just yesterday one came down near a house with 4 hefty 54 year old guys. No one was even injured.

I'll take those odds any day.

But again, this probably matters more to people like me who fly in areas that have few options for landings, Cessna or Cirrus. I'd use the BRS 'chute unless I was assured of a good landing, wouldn't you?

The Cirrus is still significantly more dangerous and prone to catch fire than a mooney. My odds are better, without a chute.

 

[peppy]

The Cirrus is still significantly more dangerous and prone to catch fire than a mooney. My odds are better, without a chute.

Really? Based on what data? Have fun searching with the term "thermal injuries."

 

[peppy]

One Cirrus chute deployment used power to try to steer. However, some (BRS?) say the result may have been nothing more than a faster descent from spilling air from the canopy.

 

[Brad Z]

That has its limitations. Would not help with pilot incapacitation, loss of control in IMC, or structural failure (which was the cause of one of the more recent BRS saves -- aileron separation, IIRC).

Counterpoint -- I don't think any Cirrus (the most common BRS model) lacks an autopilot, and newer ones even have the little blue "LVL" button, both making IMC loss of control less likely. I also know about the speed limits on the BRS, so it may not be effective to recover from a spiral dive, but hey -- it's something.

Yep, a parachute has limitations as well. No control after deployment, speed limits on deployment, not good for ditching, etc.

You can always add an autopilot to a 182. Loosing control in IMC is a training issue...just like knowing when to pull the chute handle. Wings generally don't just fall off without a reason. A generally very avoidable reason.

For a lot of reasons (mainly flying over LA Airspace where emergency landing options aren't good), I am flying Cirrus with parachute.

Whether you're under a chute or in a STOL Cessna, if the engine won't turn, you're coming down. If you don't stall it on the way down, chances are you'll have a survivable landing, STOL or not. Slow the stall speed, as a STOL kit does, and your chances only get better.

 

[N2124v]

A chute is just another tool in the tool box.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

Brad...the one issue I have is the statement, "If you don't stall it on the way down, chances are you'll have a survivable landing." I think that's true for 95% of the country. But 'round these parts (LA) the sectional is pure yellow. Even if you can find a road or field, it's likely you'll encounter people (not cool to endanger others), wires, or jammed traffic. Non-yellow areas on the sectional are generally steep hills and mountains with lots of rocks. Sometimes I yearn for a country airport where I could just get in a plane and fly without worry. But I love where I live, so I'm stuck with "no place to land" syndrome, and constant conversations with ATC re traffic.

 

[docmirror]

I learned over a well populated area as well. One of the weirdest but in retrospect smartest pieces of advice I have ever heard was if the engine quits over densely populated areas is look for a school. I know, it sounds horrible but schools have playgrounds or fields and they are not in use as much as you would think. They also have tall chain link fences which are perfect for catching and slowing a GA plane. Also void in most cases of high tension lines overhead.

Particularly on a weekend, there is almost never anyone at the field in a school. If it's open, and fenced, use it. If there are people there, use your best judgement. The alternatives are houses, condos, streets, comm parking lots. None of them sound good to me.

I know, it sounds crazy but next time you're up flying over a city and you don't see a golf course, look at a HS or MS.