BRS and Carbon Cub

[jalexbell]

I firmly believe that a BRS system should be offered as an option. I know the capabilities of the aircraft and how you can put them down just about anywhere. However, stuff happens. Take for instance the recent mid-air collision of a Cirrus with a Robinson helicopter. The chute saved 2 lives.
It would be a great thing to petition the FAA to allow a higher gross weight for LSA aircraft equipped with a BRS.

20141023+MidAirCrash.jpg

[Cubdriver2]

I've been the pilot of 2 aircraft that have had landings in the trees. One a Stearman and the other a pa11 Cub. I would still rather have control to the site of the crash then using a chute to drop me wherever the wind takes you. And I've been freefall skydiving many times. Fly the plane. If Cirrus is so safe why are they in the NTSB reports a couple times a month? I get a kick out of folks that want to take some of the most simple airplanes ever built and add things that detract from the original sheer joy of flying something light. Opinion.

Glenn

[Charles]

I've been the pilot of 2 aircraft that have had landings in the trees. One a Stearman and the other a pa11 Cub. I would still rather have control to the site of the crash then using a chute to drop me wherever the wind takes you. And I've been freefall skydiving many times. Fly the plane. If Cirrus is so safe why are they in the NTSB reports a couple times a month? I get a kick out of folks that want to take some of the most simple airplanes ever built and add things that detract from the original sheer joy of flying something light. Opinion.

I flew Cirrus for many years and was always happy to have the chute on board. Not many have accused Cirrus of being safe - it is a high performance aircraft and flown on missions that can get it into trouble lots of ways. Our cubs are a different matter - for example it is pretty unlikely a cub will lose control at high altitude in IMC and a load of ice (we just don't fly in those conditions). But keep in mind that the motivation of the Klapmeier brothers for the Cirrus chute was a mid-air collision, and that is just as likely in a cub as a Cirrus. So I can see the utility of a BRS option for the Carbon Cub and would consider it if it was available.

[jalexbell]

Glenn,
I realize this is not the place to argue the Cirri safety record, which I think is to partly blame on the marketing of the brand to people with thick wallets and not necessarily thick log books, if any. However, there are 49 people to date that were saved by CAPS(BRS). Of those 49, how many could have been saved by pilotage skills alone is arguable. Given a situation where there was a catastrophic failure of major component due to an incident or a structural failure (i.e. loss of tail feathers or a wing) I would rather be a passenger under a BRS than a pilot of a falling, uncontrollable object.
Should all CC-X be equipped with a BRS? No, nor should it be mandated. Would it be nice to be able choose as an option? I think so. I know this would require many many hours of an already over tasked engineering department at CC. Statistically, would it be worth the financial investment it would take to do this? That is the question. You don't need it until you need it. Financially, BRS Aerospace has the most to gain from this and should logically be the one to absorb the initial engineering cost, not CC. I know it would still require input from CC and again a burden.
Does the fact that my CC-11 does not have a BRS keep me from flying? Heck no. Does it keep my wife from flying with me? She says it does. I wonder if she would settle for one of these:

microsoftie.jpg

[Cubdriver2]

The beauty is that if your EX you can add what ever you want.

Glenn

[cityrancher]

I agree. If you are experimental, go for it if you think it is important. I guess I have flown in Alaska too long and accept certain aspects of flying. It is not an entirely a safe endeavor. That said, as I gain more time and age, I am more cautious than when I was young and invulnerable. I am more cautious about other pilots and expect the unexpected. Can I anticipate every possible problem, NO. If you add every thing possible to avoid an accident the airplane will not fly due to weight and I am relatively certain there is one more thing that will cause an accident. If you want CC to do the engineering and BRS to profit from the sale, I seriously doubt you will find that much support. As an experimental you can put it in if you wish, please don't burden the rest of us with the expense.

[Cubdriver2]

You said it better then I ever could. Thank You.

Glenn

[Fresno]

...If you want CC to do the engineering and BRS to profit from the sale, I seriously doubt you will find that much support. As an experimental you can put it in if you wish, please don't burden the rest of us with the expense.

Please refrain from referring to yourself and Glenn as "the rest of us". You're not. Speak for yourself, not the majority who have voiced their opinions for chutes. I spoke to Stan Franz in engineering at CC on Friday. On 10/28 they will be meeting to discuss the project.

..... I guess I have flown in Alaska too long and accept certain aspects of flying. It is not an entirely a safe endeavor. That said, as I gain more time and age, I am more cautious than when I was young and invulnerable. I am more cautious about other pilots and expect the unexpected......

Have you really become more cautious or have you become stubbornly resistant to new technology?
Sadly, your way of thinking is all too common.

Cubdriver2

I've been the pilot of 2 aircraft that have had landings in the trees. .........I get a kick out of folks that want to take some of the most simple airplanes ever built and add things that detract from the original sheer joy of flying something light. Opinion.

Glenn, how many planes "that have had landing in the trees"? I think those are "crashes" not "landings".

[Cubdriver2]

Glenn, how many planes "that have had landing in the trees"? I think those are "crashes" not "landings".

Myself and my passenger both time walked away from a totaled airplane literally without a scratch. A crash is something out of your control. You can choose to crash with your uncontrolled chute but I'm choosing to land. If you want to do something positive to save your life practice " total power off " landings. That's mags off, most of the ones I practiced were in a plane without a starter. Do some with the prop windmilling and some with it stopped. If you have a safe practice spot it's a lot of fun. How about survival gear, are you prepared to spend a -20 night after your chute drops you in the slush of a half frozen river. This list can go on forever. A BRS is just a pacifier for a pilot who has not spent enough seat time to be up to speed with what he's flying. The trees are your friend if you use them correctly.

Glenn

[cityrancher]

[QUOTE=Fresno;11166]Please refrain from referring to yourself and Glenn as "the rest of us". You're not. Speak for yourself, not the majority who have voiced their opinions for chutes.

I am curious as to where you have access to data that the majority want the chutes. I have already acknowledged you can have the chute if you wish. As a now labeled Luddite, I wish you all the best in your quest for safety for yourself.