Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Musings on Safety and the BRS

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Musings on Safety and the BRS

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

jindoguy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:35 am Post subject: Musings on Safety and the BRS

Unless the statistics have changed very recently, and I don't think they have, the big three killers of pilots are:

1) Continued flight into deteriorating weather

2) Failure to fly the aircraft in an emergency

   3) Failure to manage the fuel supply

As a quality control engineer I learned the Pareto Principle, which says in essence, for the greatest improvement, attack the biggest problem first. So let's look at number one.  

If you fly into deteriorating weather, will a BRS save you. Unlikely. Why? Who is most likely to have a problem in this situation? Answer, the pilot who isn't sufficiently trained to fly on instruments. In that situation the pilot has about 60 seconds to make all the right decisions to save his/her life and those of the unlucky who are in the aircraft, too. It isn't magic. It's just that spatial disorientation will overtake his lack of ability, he/she will most likely put the aircraft into a graveyard spiral and the rest is inevitable. 

Would a BRS save him/her? Unlikely. Why? He/She has insufficient training to be in that environment in the first place and doesn't recognize the danger. Remember that 60 seconds? He/She would have to surrender control almost immediately and pull the handle. Again, unlikely. Deteriorating weather isn't a mugger who grabs you from behind, shoves a gun or knife in your side and demands your money or your life. It happens, at the very worst, over many minutes or even hours, but the pilot either forces himself to continue, getthereitis, lulls himself, well this wasn't in the forecast so it can't be, or started out knowing the weather was bad, scud running. The pilot who lives to tell the tale is the pilot who recognizes the gathering danger and reverses course or lands and waits it out. None of these are absolutes, of course, but good rules of thumb, backed by grim statistics. So to believe a BRS would help in this situation, you have to posit that a pilot who has been making bad decisions for many minutes or hours will miraculously make a good one. Again, I assert it's unlikely. 

Let's look at number two. What does failure to fly the airplane mean, anyway? It means simply that when a new situation, a fire, a rough running or dead engine, or anything that the pilot was unprepared to handle happened, he/she forgot the first rule of flying, Fly the airplane. Would a BRS help? Probably not. To say it would is to defy logic. You have to believe that a pilot who has been trained to fly the airplane, and who has forgotten that training, will remember to do something for which he/she has NO training. Again, unlikely. 

Let's look at number three, failure to manage the fuel supply. The pilot miscalculated how far he was going, failed to take into account changing winds, didn't check the tanks before taking off, or failed to switch the fuel valve to a tank containing fuel. Would a BRS help. Maybe. You again have to assume that a pilot who was trained not to do all the things he/she did to get into a fuel exhaustion situation, even as simple as checking to see if there is fuel in another tank, has forgotten all this and decides to not fly the plane but become a victim of fate. Maybe is the best I'm going to give you an this one. 

Now let's look at the 201 saves claimed by BRS Inc. First, BRS counts lives saved, not deployments. If you count the actual deployments, there have been 158. Of these three are, to my mind, extremely suspect. Same model, Buccaneer, same day, June 16, 1995 (my correction here, the list actually says 1905), same cause, Classified Military Info (!!!!) Since there is an ultralight called a Buccaneer and a report in the Ultralight News has an article listing so many designed in deficiencies (you'll really appreciate a Kolb of any model if you read about the problems with this POS, editorial aside, sorry), I'm taking the liberty of reducing BRS's list of deployments by two. Now, we're down to 156. 

Applying the Pareto Principle again:

60 Loss of Control. You can find a few further explanations like weather, aerobatics, violent air, control jams (one listed "kneeboard jammed controls"), and one husband and wife listed "high altitude upset" at 16,000 feet (that must have been a heck of a ride), and one flying wing listed "out of CG". It should be noted that 9 were hang gliders or paragliders. 

44 Structural or Component Failure. Most have no details, but of these 16 list things like broken bolts, "joining bolt that held the spring", "failure during aerobatics", lost propeller, "installation of wrong propeller" and corrosion.  

22 Engine out (21 listed unlandable terrain, the other was "inexperienced pilot")

So we have 126 of 156 in these three categories. 

I thought it was interesting that only 2 listed fuel problems, 2 were for mid airs, one of which was a hang glider, and only 1 was for medical incapacitation.  

My personal favorite is a German fellow flying the same model trike, BOTH TIMES, who made the two major causes, the earliest, in 1997 is listed as loss of control/spiral, the later, in 2005, structural failure "after three tuck tumbles". Hmmmmm. 

Kolbs, listed directly as such or by model, Ultrastar, Firestar, Firestar II, Firefly (this one could be a hang glider as the date was listed as 1995 and UP had a model called the Firefly, but it was sold in 1978/79. I don't know if the Kolb Firefly was in the field in 1995) appears 8 times. 5 were for loss of control (including the Firefly), 2 were for structural failure ( 1 listed aerobatics, the other a component ) and 1 was for engine out / unlandable terrain.  

The only comment I would make about this "data" is that the reporting is less than NTSB quality. I'd like to know about those engine outs, such as engine make and model, what  loss of control means, the amount of flight training and experience the pilots had, or didn't have. We do know that a BRS won't help if you fly into an apartment building. 

In closing, the need for a BRS seems to be a very personal need. With these statistics you can see why.

The one other statistic you can apply is this: BRS claims , " More than 23,000 parachute systems have been installed" . With only 156 recorded deployments that's equals a .00678% of actually needing it. Personally, I stand by my assertion that the money is better spent on maintenance and training. Those of you reading this will, of course, do as you (or your wife) wishes.  



Rick





   [quote][b]

John Hauck

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 4639
Location: Titus, Alabama (hauck's holler)

Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:53 pm Post subject: Musings on Safety and the BRS

Personally, I

| stand by my assertion that the money is better spent on maintenance 

and

| training. Those of you reading this will, of course, do as you (or 

your

| wife) wishes. 

|

| Rick



Rick:



Hope you remember that if you ever get into a situation where a 

parachute might save your life.



My flying career would have been over in 1985, if I had not had a 

parachute.



Again in 1990, if I had not had the same parachute, my flying career 

would also have been over.



I have been hauling a Second Chantz, then a BRS around the North 

American Continent since 1992.  I used the Second Chantz during 

initial test phase of my mkIII, but by the time I got through the big 

Red Oak tree, the canopy snagged and fouled on the tree limbs.  I was 

also too low for a good save but I pulled the handle anyhow because I 

was already through flying.



There are many situations when a parachute can and will save your life 

if you train yourself to use it immediately when the time comes.  I do 

that and I am still alive.



Should one find himself in an IFR situation with no horizon, a 

recovery parachute would be an excellent method of survival.



If I have a second to throw the chute or pull the handle, I will if 

the need arises.  If I have a minute to make the decision, I have a 

life time.



I do not agree with your long disertation of why one should not have a 

recovery parachute.  I do agree in good maintenance and training 

though.



Take care,



john h

Survivor of two fatal accidents.

_________________
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler
Titus, Alabama

jindoguy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:05 pm Post subject: Musings on Safety and the BRS

John, My point was, even taking just the raw data the chances are slim

that you will deploy it. We also have no negative data on the

aftermath of a deployment. My friend Steve deployed his chest pack

over Douglas Firs He slid over 100' through the tree canopy sustaining

numerous puncture and abrasion wounds. He broke a leg when he hit the

forest floor. An acquaintance, I only flew with him once, landed in

power lines, got accidentally grounded and was electrocuted. Don't be

so sure a deployment is a good thing. Next we have to figure the type

of flying done. You can certainly avoid aerobatics and better your

chances, avoid using engines that have a high mortality rates. Many of

the engine failures were Eagles and Eagle XT aircraft. They were

almost all West Bend gokart engine powered. I don't fly that engine or

know anyone who does. I did four times 30 years ago, but I am no

longer in shape to foot launch my powered aircraft, although I can my

hang glider. Many of the aircraft involved in loss of control

accidents were two axis control, weight shift or a combination. Throw

them out of the sample and the chances of a deployment decline

further. If the data were better you could better calculate the

specific risk and the chances would get smaller still. I have done

dozens of simulated engine outs and never missed the approach to the

field I chose. I practice engine out landings when just shooting touch

and goes. All these go to lessen the chance, too. I get recurrent

training as I advance in ratings.

Notice all the dire predictions. Other than what I have just now told

you, you know nothing else about my flying habits, my skill level,

what risks I take,other than that flying in itself is a risk, after

all. I'm just not buying the idea that BRS is essential for safety.

Too much of the data is like yours, anecdotal and unquantified. I find

it akin to the assertion that keeping the porch light on keeps the

bogey man at bay. If I leave the light on for my convenience and the

bogey man never comes, did the light keep me safer. Better to ask the

question, is there a bogey man, first, don't you think. As for

previous assertions about seat belts and airbags. I wear a much better

set of seat belt and shoulder harness in my aircraft than came in my

2006 truck. Air bags are passive safety systems, a computer makes all

the decisions to activate them, BRS parachutes are active safety

systems, the pilot has to make the decision to utilize it. If the

computer system was available to make the BRS a passive system, would

you trust the computer to make the decision for you? Would that be

safer, too?



Rick

On Nov 11, 2007 7:38 PM, John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

  Personally, I

 | stand by my assertion that the money is better spent on maintenance

 and

 | training. Those of you reading this will, of course, do as you (or

 your

 | wife) wishes. 

 |

 | Rick



 Rick:



 Hope you remember that if you ever get into a situation where a

 parachute might save your life.



 My flying career would have been over in 1985, if I had not had a

 parachute.



 Again in 1990, if I had not had the same parachute, my flying career

 would also have been over.



 I have been hauling a Second Chantz, then a BRS around the North

 American Continent since 1992.  I used the Second Chantz during

 initial test phase of my mkIII, but by the time I got through the big

 Red Oak tree, the canopy snagged and fouled on the tree limbs.  I was

 also too low for a good save but I pulled the handle anyhow because I

 was already through flying.



 There are many situations when a parachute can and will save your life

 if you train yourself to use it immediately when the time comes.  I do

 that and I am still alive.



 Should one find himself in an IFR situation with no horizon, a

 recovery parachute would be an excellent method of survival.



 If I have a second to throw the chute or pull the handle, I will if

 the need arises.  If I have a minute to make the decision, I have a

 life time.



 I do not agree with your long disertation of why one should not have a

 recovery parachute.  I do agree in good maintenance and training

 though.



 Take care,



 john h

 Survivor of two fatal accidents.

John Hauck

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 4639
Location: Titus, Alabama (hauck's holler)

Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:51 pm Post subject: Musings on Safety and the BRS

|

| John, My point was, even taking just the raw data the chances are 

slim

| that you will deploy it.

 |

| Rick:



My point is, if you need it and do not have it, you gonna wish you 

did.



Slim chances of needing it are not good enough for me.  I may be the 

one in a million that need it.



Your friend would probably have been dead had he not had a parachute, 

the one that slid more than 100' through a tree.  He probably was not 

flying a Kolb aircraft.  Also seems strange that one could fall 

through a tree, get torn apart by limbs and not have the parachute 

snag and hold.  I don't remember anyone, during my Army career, 

including me, that made a tree landing and did not snap the parachute.



Was unfortunate your other friend hit a powerline and died.  What kind 

of airplane was he flying?  Try to remember this is the Kolb List and 

most of us are flying Kolbs.  Parachute deployments should be 

addressed that direction rather than hang gliders, powered parachutes, 

powered paragliders, etc.  I personally am not familiar with those 

type aircraft and how they react and survive emergency parachute 

deployment.



No matter how it happens or why it happens, there may be situations 

that are not survivable any other way except a parachute recovery 

system.  I don't care how many studies you do and how many numbers you 

have.  When the time comes and you ain't ready, put your head between 

your legs and kiss your butt goodbye.



john h

mkIII - firm believer and user of parachute recovery systems.

_________________
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler
Titus, Alabama

John Hauck

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 4639
Location: Titus, Alabama (hauck's holler)

Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:52 pm Post subject: Musings on Safety and the BRS

|

| John, My point was, even taking just the raw data the chances are 

slim

| that you will deploy it.

 |

| Rick:



My point is, if you need it and do not have it, you gonna wish you 

did.



Slim chances of needing it are not good enough for me.  I may be the 

one in a million that need it.



Your friend would probably have been dead had he not had a parachute, 

the one that slid more than 100' through a tree.  He probably was not 

flying a Kolb aircraft.  Also seems strange that one could fall 

through a tree, get torn apart by limbs and not have the parachute 

snag and hold.  I don't remember anyone, during my Army career, 

including me, that made a tree landing and did not snap the parachute.



Was unfortunate your other friend hit a powerline and died.  What kind 

of airplane was he flying?  Try to remember this is the Kolb List and 

most of us are flying Kolbs.  Parachute deployments should be 

addressed that direction rather than hang gliders, powered parachutes, 

powered paragliders, etc.  I personally am not familiar with those 

type aircraft and how they react and survive emergency parachute 

deployment.



No matter how it happens or why it happens, there may be situations 

that are not survivable any other way except a parachute recovery 

system.  I don't care how many studies you do and how many numbers you 

have.  When the time comes and you ain't ready, put your head between 

your legs and kiss your butt goodbye.



john h

mkIII - firm believer and user of parachute recovery systems.

_________________
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler
Titus, Alabama

John Hauck

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 4639
Location: Titus, Alabama (hauck's holler)

Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:00 pm Post subject: Musings on Safety and the BRS

I don't remember anyone, during my Army career,

| including me, that made a tree landing and did not snap the 

parachute.

|

Gang:



Need to correct a typo above.  "snap" should read "snag".



Thanks,



john h

mkIII

_________________
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler
Titus, Alabama

jindoguy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:50 pm Post subject: Musings on Safety and the BRS

Okay, I agree, let's just talk about Kolbs since this is the Kolb

list. We have 8 deployments. One was for aerobatic induced failure.

Don't do aerobatics. The other structural issue was a component

failure, do good maintenance and preflights and eliminate that one.

One was for engine failure over unlandable terrain. What engine? What

maintenance? How much time on the engine? All stock parts or not? What

caused the engine failure? Was it engine components, or support

equipment like throttle cables, kill switches, or master switches?

Ignition failure? Many questions we need to know to assess the risk,

and we just don't. The last 5 are loss of control. What's the

definition of loss of control? What were the meteorological

conditions? The total experience of the pilot? Time in type? Currency

of experience of the pilot? Only one loss of control statistic gives

us a clue. Spin. Was the pilot trained for spins? Doesn't seem like

it, but we don't know. Did the spin go flat? if so what was the CG

location? Did it actually spin, or did the pilot just fear it would?

Did he regularly practice stall recovery? More questions for which we

have no answers? Without answers to these questions, in the least, and

we can make no meaningful risk assessment.

Insisting that if I need it I'll wish I had it seems more like a

religious evaluation than a risk / value assessment.

Another area we haven't touched upon is the effect of incorrect BRS

installation. I have three aircraft with a BRS installed. I did not do

the original installation on any of them. Two out of three directly

ignored the installation manual warning that the rocket will not

penetrate polyester fabric. How many of those 23,000 installations are

improperly installed. My personal statistical sample says that 2/3,

ie. 15,333 are done wrong and will not work if the attempt is made. Is

that reasonable? How does that affect the safety aspect of the BRS?

How does it skew the statistics?

I don't care whether anyone wants a BRS for whatever reason, just say

I believe it makes me safer. It's your belief, you have a right to it.

Don't make claims that you can somehow prove it, within any reasonable

examination of the vague and unquantifed "data", you can't.

As for my friend Steve, he died in a motorcycle last July and I can't

get that info.

I know I keep pushing the point, but how many of your tree landings

were done form a low altitude deployment? Was the canopy fully

inflated? Was it a streamer? Steve's reserve was a hand deploy model

with a deployment bag, It was not a primary. How many of your tree

landings were with a hand deployed reserve? More questions, less

quantifiable data.



Rick



Rick

On Nov 11, 2007 9:49 PM, John Hauck <jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

  |

 | John, My point was, even taking just the raw data the chances are

 slim

 | that you will deploy it.

  |

 | Rick:



 My point is, if you need it and do not have it, you gonna wish you

 did.



 Slim chances of needing it are not good enough for me.  I may be the

 one in a million that need it.



 Your friend would probably have been dead had he not had a parachute,

 the one that slid more than 100' through a tree.  He probably was not

 flying a Kolb aircraft.  Also seems strange that one could fall

 through a tree, get torn apart by limbs and not have the parachute

 snag and hold.  I don't remember anyone, during my Army career,

 including me, that made a tree landing and did not snap the parachute.



 Was unfortunate your other friend hit a powerline and died.  What kind

 of airplane was he flying?  Try to remember this is the Kolb List and

 most of us are flying Kolbs.  Parachute deployments should be

 addressed that direction rather than hang gliders, powered parachutes,

 powered paragliders, etc.  I personally am not familiar with those

 type aircraft and how they react and survive emergency parachute

 deployment.



 No matter how it happens or why it happens, there may be situations

 that are not survivable any other way except a parachute recovery

 system.  I don't care how many studies you do and how many numbers you

 have.  When the time comes and you ain't ready, put your head between

 your legs and kiss your butt goodbye.



 john h

 mkIII - firm believer and user of parachute recovery systems.

JetPilot

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246

Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:56 pm Post subject: Re: Musings on Safety and the BRS

[quote="jindoguy(at)gmail.com"]Unless the statistics have changed very recently, and I don't think they have, the big three killers of pilots are:

1) Continued flight into deteriorating weather

2) Failure to fly the aircraft in an emergency

   3) Failure to manage the fuel supply





    	  Quote: 	
		  [b] 	




Your statistics are worthless, because they are for CERTIFIED airplanes, not experimentals.    In experimentals, the causes of accidents are totally different than in certified airplanes.  The fact that you got this very basic and important fact wrong is just the first reason why I would dismiss what you say.  You need to be credible and accurate before I would consider letting you advise me on a safety item.



Your thinking that you can preflight, and catch everything that might go wrong in something as complicated as experimental airplane is nothing short of fantasy.   Many very gifted, meticulous people have had structural failures in experimental airplanes.  It happens.   There are many critical components that cannot be tested for defects short of magnafluxing, and other advanced means.   Much of the wing structure is hidden in fabric never to be seen for years.   So again, when you say just do good preflight and good maintenance will negate the need for a BRS is nothing short of redicuous.    Too many people much smarter, and more talented than you have been saved by BRS chutes.  Sure some were stupid, but many saves were very talented builders and flyers



Mike

_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!

Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

lcottrell

Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 1494
Location: Jordan Valley, Or

Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:14 pm Post subject: Musings on Safety and the BRS

---

_________________
do not archive

olendorf

Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 140
Location: Schenectady, NY USA

Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:09 pm Post subject: Re: Musings on Safety and the BRS

 	  Quote: 	
		  With only 156 recorded deployments that's equals a .00678% of actually needing it.   	




How many of us have life insurance? I know 00% of us will be using that.

_________________
Scott Olendorf
Original Firestar, Rotax 447, Powerfin prop
Schenectady, NY
http://sites.google.com/site/kolbfirestar/

henry.voris

Joined: 02 Mar 2007
Posts: 116
Location: Pueo Field, Kula, Maui

Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:44 am Post subject: Re: Musings on Safety and the BRS

Rick,



"Statistics and damned lies..." or it's the way you look at the numbers.



You said, "With only 156 recorded deployments that's equals a .00678% of actually needing it." 



Are you complaining because these systems saved only 201 lives or because BRS advertising makes it appear that there were 201 deployments rather than 156? 



The need to deploy 6.76 chutes per 1000 installations is a significant number. I should think that 6.76 deployments per 5,000 or even 10,000 would be inducement enough to install such a system.



The proposition that a pilot can anticipate and avoid all problems that might occur during a flight, through proper pre-flight inspection and "maintenance and training" is a simple demonstration of hubris (modern usage of the word).



The argument that pilots who go through the effort and expense to install a chute, and then become sloppy about or eliminate pre-flight inspections, maintenance and/or training is a bit far fetched (a bit of an insult, too). In fact, it should add another item to your checklist...



I don't believe that your insinuation that pilots install chutes because they are hen-pecked ("...do as you (or your wife) wishes.") adds any value to your arguments.



Personally if I collide with an ewa or suffer a structural failure in flight, I want to have a full bag of tricks to deal with it... Like most on this list... I've missed my chance to "die young, stay pretty".

_________________
Henry
Firefly Five-Charlie-Bravo

Do Not Archive

rowedenny(at)windstream.n
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:05 pm Post subject: Musings on Safety and the BRS

Kolbers,

Even though I do not have a BRS or for that matter a 912 installed on my 

Mk-3, (both because of budget constaints). I always tell folks if you can 

afford either, put em on.

If the worst does happen, having the chute installed gives you something to 

do on the way down besides screaming.



Denny Rowe

Mk-3 N616DR

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum