What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Another BRS thread...

SwimmingDragonfly96

Well Known Member
Hey everyone,

I'm on my way to purchasing an RV7A, and am seriously contemplating installing a BRS parachute or flying with parachutes (night flying in remote areas, rough terrain). First off, do any of you have the BRS, and if so, can I pick your brain?

Next question, how would a BRS affect the resale value of the plane? I chatted with an A&P today who would be willing to do the install, but he said if I ever sold it, nobody would want it and it would actually hurt the resale value. How would you all feel about purchasing an RV7A with a BRS installed? Would you pay a bit more, the same, or less?
 
If I wanted a BRS and I found an aircraft with one that was good, I'd buy it, fly it, and not worry about the resale value.

I'm guessing BRS are like swimming pools with a house - if the buyer wants one, it will increase the value to them. If they don't want one, it will decrease it.

The major issues I hear about BRS in general is that it is "heavy", some installations look a bit "ugly", and they have a required "costly" maintenance schedule.

If someone actually needs a BRS then they will quickly forget the negatives.
 
I would not buy an RV with a ballistic chute for all the reasons that Mickey just outlined above, mainly the weight and just another replacement expense every few years.

That' just me.

If you're really interested in this, there's poll feature you can create which would get you some very subjective and data.
 
With full fuel and two occupants, I can take about 80 lbs of baggage. For my flatland flying, a BRS would be a negative selling point from that standpoint alone. Juice definitely not worth the squeeze to me but other pilots in other types of flying may feel different.
 
(night flying in remote areas, rough terrain).

I am not going to fly at night in remote terrain unless I have more redundancies in my experimental. Phase1 flight testing can only test the basic flying characteristics. I now know a few pilots did not test everything, include testing for various failure scenarios.


How would you all feel about purchasing an RV7A with a BRS installed? Would you pay a bit more, the same, or less?

Every installation of the BRS on a RV is a one-off installation, as opposed to the certified system on the Cirrus where it was tested to ensure high reliability on all Cirrus aircraft. Even when you trust installation by your A/P, the next buyer doesn't know anything about the reliability of the installation. The installed BRS on a RV is not going to be tested unless you are willing to destroy a brand new BRS for testing purpose, which I don't know it has been done before. Therefore, the first time the BRS system is deployed is during an actual emergency, just like your emergency parachute.

I had considered installing the BRS on my RV8 during the build but decided against it based on the high cost, the complexity involved, and most importantly, the reliability of self-installation. I decide to use an emergency parachute instead.
 
i once worked for an company that created software simulations and testing for the aerospace/defense industry. i remember one project was about an parachute application in a smart weapon smarter than the average adult. my colleagues worked on a simulation to find out if a parachute would do the job in that thing or not.

i don't want to go into details here but that specific application was less complex than an small aircraft. what i wanna say is that the whole topic is so extremely dynamic in theory (let alone in real life) that nobody can say for sure if a BRS system would work in an specific airframe, if not extensively tested (Cirrus went through all that).

any untested parachute system in an RV, even if the installation looks very sound and well thought through, will tell you nothing. be careful.
 
Last edited:
BRS weight and complexity

any untested parachute system in an RV, even if the installation looks very sound and well thought through, will tell you nothing. be careful.

One of the goals of building our own airplanes is to build in LIGHTNESS! We could put in numerous systems that may seem like they improve the safety of the aircraft but building them straight, light and on sound, well-known construction practices and principles will go a long way to making an airplane safe.

I have many hours in The Mountains of Colorado and Montana and I have never considered how safe it would be to have a BRS system in either aircraft. Knowing and understanding Mountain flying and having an "out" is more how I fly. Could something happen? Of course. But, as Mr, Merriweather (movie Little Big Man) would say: "Life involves a modicum of risk....!"
 
I can understand and support the idea of flying with a parachute if you're doing a lot of mountainous flying at night and don't trust your plane to be reliable, but I hate the BRS and Cirrus because of what they did to the industry. It would be cheaper, easier, and probably safer to have a tested chute strapped to your back then to have an untested one strapped to your plane. Just make sure to keep a PLB on your shoulder harness as well since you won't be co-located with the plane if anything happens.
 
I can understand and support the idea of flying with a parachute if you're doing a lot of mountainous flying at night and don't trust your plane to be reliable, but I hate the BRS and Cirrus because of what they did to the industry. It would be cheaper, easier, and probably safer to have a tested chute strapped to your back then to have an untested one strapped to your plane. Just make sure to keep a PLB on your shoulder harness as well since you won't be co-located with the plane if anything happens.

+1, except, I’m not sure a personal chute helps much either.
In the first few years of Cirrus’ flying, they wracked up a horrible accident record. The general consensus was that the parachute gave pilots a false sense of confidence, leading them to do risky things-things the parachute couldn’t save them from. It’s true, that the night fatal accident rate is not good. But it’s also true, that actual mechanical engine failure leading to a fatal accident, is rare (but not zero). Running out of gas is more common. You would actually be better off, statistically, by investing the parachute money in good risk analysis and behavior modification, if such things existed. But no one wants to believe that the real problem is the PIC.
 
+1, except, I’m not sure a personal chute helps much either.
In the first few years of Cirrus’ flying, they wracked up a horrible accident record. The general consensus was that the parachute gave pilots a false sense of confidence, leading them to do risky things-things the parachute couldn’t save them from. It’s true, that the night fatal accident rate is not good. But it’s also true, that actual mechanical engine failure leading to a fatal accident, is rare (but not zero). Running out of gas is more common. You would actually be better off, statistically, by investing the parachute money in good risk analysis and behavior modification, if such things existed. But no one wants to believe that the real problem is the PIC.

A false sense of confidence, and Cirrus not being forthcoming about WHY they put a parachute on the plane. The marketing department did a tremendous job of making up for engineering shortfalls. Cirrus knew it wouldn't pass the certification spin testing, so they got the FAA to accept the BRS in lieu of spin testing, then the marketing department took over and made everyone without a BRS seem like an unsafe design. Now all the new designs are putting in a BRS even though they don't have the same issues Cirrus does. It's increasing cost, complexity, and maintenance requirements on airframes that wouldn't have ever considered it if Cirrus didn't push the narrative.
 
BRS vs personal parachute.....

+1, except, I’m not sure a personal chute helps much either.
In the first few years of Cirrus’ flying, they wracked up a horrible accident record. The general consensus was that the parachute gave pilots a false sense of confidence, leading them to do risky things-things the parachute couldn’t save them from. It’s true, that the night fatal accident rate is not good. But it’s also true, that actual mechanical engine failure leading to a fatal accident, is rare (but not zero). Running out of gas is more common. You would actually be better off, statistically, by investing the parachute money in good risk analysis and behavior modification, if such things existed. But no one wants to believe that the real problem is the PIC.

It is against our nature to leave the comfort of an airplane cockpit while it is still in the air. It's kind of akin to not shutting fuel, master and mags off on the final approach to a dead-stick landing. There is always that hope the engine will start again. Jumping out of your pride and joy is at another level altogether. And suddenly you are doing something you have NEVER done before and perhaps with a passenger doing the same thing!:eek::eek::eek: If your passenger has a parachute on, what has the briefing been on the possible use of said parachute?:(:confused:

That said, if you have never done it, it needs to be done. Anyone who has a parachute strapped on needs to have exited a flying airplane at least once. That is, heading over to the nearest Jump Class and going under canopy a few times so the first time you do it is not an emergency situation. If it is more or less familiar, you will be more inclined to actually do it in a situation that demands leaving the airplane.

Is there anyone on this forum who has actually exited an RV? Or any flying airplane in an emergency? What is the best procedure? How close is that horizontal tail? How did the aircraft canopy separation work?

Leaving an airplane over the mountains at night gives me the willies just to think about. A survival skill class would also be a worthwhile expenditure.

Meanwhile, back to making sure my airplanes are maintained as best as they can be maintained......:cool:
 
How did the aircraft canopy separation work?

This is the key issue. Some of us, including myself created something based on the past inputs in VAF but the design was never tested and I pray it will work when needed.

I am flying the Decathlon and its door can be jettisoned but to egress out of this airplane is even more challenging than getting out of the clean low-wing RV design. But if you have to jump, you have to jump. The alternative can be more deadly
 
Last edited:
Every installation of the BRS on a RV is a one-off installation, as opposed to the certified system on the Cirrus where it was tested to ensure high reliability on all Cirrus aircraft.

I have no opinion one way or the other on BRS for the RV series, but for what it's worth, a long-time friend of mine had a catastrophic engine failure of his IO-550N powered SR22 in 2021. Plan B was to glide to the nearest airport, but ATC noted numerous sailplanes in the vicinity, so he elected to proceed on to Plan C: the CAPS (aka BRS) system. When he pulled the handle, nothing happened. He pulled again, harder. Nothing. So on to Plan D: he selected a dirt road and landed on it.

The final report has still not been published. The aircraft's chute had been serviced at the 10 year mark and the mechanical igniter was replaced with the newer electronic version.

My point is simply that regardless of Cirrus' testing to ensure high reliability, the BRS system is like every other component of an aircraft: it can fail. After a couple thousand hours of Cirrus time, I've come to think that it's actually more likely to fail than other components because once it is installed, it is never tested or checked. You can't preflight the igniter, rocket, or any other component of the system beyond ensuring that the small portion of the cable and deployment handle that are visible in the ceiling are intact.

The system requires servicing/repacking every 10 years, but that's about all. And there have been several other CAPS deployment anomalies in the fleet as well. I'm aware of at least one that is not included in the stats because the pilot landed on an airport without any damage beyond the engine failure.

I'm not anti-BRS. Like many other things in our aircraft, it is a tool and can serve a very important role if needed. But it does worry me when Cirrus pilots say they'll pull the handle and have no answer when I ask them what they'll do if it fails to deploy. Part of this because Cirrus doesn't address CAPS failure, and neither does their training. It is assumed it will work properly every single time.

--Ron
 
I can understand and support the idea of flying with a parachute if you're doing a lot of mountainous flying at night and don't trust your plane to be reliable,

If someone is going to do it, sure...they could wear a parachute. However, flying over mountains at night in a single engine airplane is something that can be avoided 100% of the time. Outside of flying someone to medical care for a lifesaving procedure, I can see absolutely no reason to fly any RV over the mountains at night.

I loved flying at night when I lived in Minnesota. Lots of places to put down, especially in the winter. But around Denver the risks of night flights far outweigh any benefits.

but I hate the BRS and Cirrus because of what they did to the industry. It would be cheaper, easier, and probably safer to have a tested chute strapped to your back then to have an untested one strapped to your plane. Just make sure to keep a PLB on your shoulder harness as well since you won't be co-located with the plane if anything happens.

It has been decades since I checked out in and flew an SR20, but my recollection was that in addition to the chute, the design of the landing gear and seats were both integral to the survival of the occupants, and that even after deploying the chute, the "landing" wasn't exactly gentle. A BRS is an experimental is, as you say, completely untested.

Maybe the OP could do it because the process of designing and installing it will be cool to see and talk about. Expecting it to save lives in an emergency seems like an optimistic assumption.
 
There are aircraft where a BRS makes sense, but in my view an RV-any is not one.
I look at the rationale for installation,
- loss of control - train and practice so you don't
- structural failure, very unlikley in an RV
- mid-air collision, very unlikely and can be mitigated with traffic info
- maintenance error - do your own
- engine failure - select engine components that are reliable, maintain the engine yourself and ensure your skills are sufficient to prevent failure.
None of which persuades me a parachute is necessary.

Then I look at the drawbacks,
- expensive
- heavy (80lb in a Cirrus installation) in the wrong place
- unknown parachute deployment dynamics
- What is the max deployment speed compared with usual cruise? (I believe cruise is significantly above max recommended deployment speed but can't find any data on BRS website)
- difficulty of attaching the parachute to the airframe, attach cables rip the airframe to pieces
- difficulty of firing the parachute, the drawing I saw had the cute going out the side of the rear fuselage
- maintenance expense - repack every 6 years (around $1000) and new rocket every 12 years (very difficult to get hold of in some countries).

I can't see a case that says BRS installation makes sense.

Pete
 
Is there anyone on this forum who has actually exited an RV? Or any flying airplane in an emergency? What is the best procedure? How close is that horizontal tail? How did the aircraft canopy separation work?

Not on the forum but ...

Re: Getting out. In 1999 there was an RV-8 that caught fire in flight. The pilot did get out, but unfortunately he was not wearing a chute. The NTSB said that the fire may have been so intense in the cockpit to be intolerable (the WWI scenario before chutes were widely used). Here is the NTSB Final Report.


On my first RV-8, I replaced the bolts that attach the canopy to the rollers with pip pins (as many have done). I'm sure I could open the canopy enough to just clear the windscreen fairing, pull the pip pins, and then push up and let the airstream rip the canopy off. The catch is that the canopy may strike the pilot's head even if pilot leans forward, rendering the pilot unconscious/dazed/injured, if the pilot is not wearing a helmet.

Years ago Sean Tucker was practicing for Sun 'n Fun 2006 when he had an elevator disconnect. He was able to fly with elevator trim and climb to an altitude that allowed a bailout. He said that even though he had time to think through what he was going to do, when he released the canopy, it hit his helmet even though he leaned as far forward as he could. He said that the hit was hard enough that he thinks that it may have rendered him unconscious had he not had the helmet. He mentions this in this video at about 3:55 (although the whole story is quite good). Also, starting at about 5:15 he mentions that when he left the airplane the stab and bracing wires were there and he gently pushed away from them with one hand.

 
I monitor this forum because it has generally adult conversations about airplanes. I have a Flight Design CTSW with a BRS and a Rans S-7S in which I installed a BRS. Flight Designs has had a number of BRS deployments. I have not heard of a Rans S-7S deployment.

The discussion on the pros and cons of BRS installation in an RV is interesting and useful.

My primary reason for BRS is that I am an older pilot in good health but sometimes fly with people who would not be able to fly an airplane if I were incapacitated. The BRS is there for their benefit, not mine, and aircraft survivability is obviously not an issue.

My perspective probably applies to very few of you; I offer it only as one view.
 
Not on the forum but ...

Re: Getting out. In 1999 there was an RV-8 that caught fire in flight. The pilot did get out, but unfortunately he was not wearing a chute. The NTSB said that the fire may have been so intense in the cockpit to be intolerable (the WWI scenario before chutes were widely used). Here is the NTSB Final Report.


On my first RV-8, I replaced the bolts that attach the canopy to the rollers with pip pins (as many have done). I'm sure I could open the canopy enough to just clear the windscreen fairing, pull the pip pins, and then push up and let the airstream rip the canopy off. The catch is that the canopy may strike the pilot's head even if pilot leans forward, rendering the pilot unconscious/dazed/injured, if the pilot is not wearing a helmet.

Years ago Sean Tucker was practicing for Sun 'n Fun 2006 when he had an elevator disconnect. He was able to fly with elevator trim and climb to an altitude that allowed a bailout. He said that even though he had time to think through what he was going to do, when he released the canopy, it hit his helmet even though he leaned as far forward as he could. He said that the hit was hard enough that he thinks that it may have rendered him unconscious had he not had the helmet. He mentions this in this video at about 3:55 (although the whole story is quite good). Also, starting at about 5:15 he mentions that when he left the airplane the stab and bracing wires were there and he gently pushed away from them with one hand.


I always thought this was an interesting video. I'm going to pull a number out of thin air and say that it might not apply to 50% of the RVs out there. Any plane built with a fixed windscreen (RV6/7/8/9 slider and most tip-ups) shouldn't have the same risk of hitting your head with the canopy during jettison. I'm not saying the risk is zero, just lower than what was presented in the video. Anything with the one piece canopy that takes the front "windshield" part with it during departure definitely carries some risk of getting decapitated on jettison. This is all just theory though, and hopefully no one else has to find out how well our canopy's eject in flight.
 
Last edited:
Sean D Tucker and exiting an airplane...

I met Sean back in 1990, and in those days he was not well known on the airshow circuit. He was touring with his black Pitts S2A and his scant ground crew of one. This was at Front Range airport near Denver (Now "Spaceport".....:rolleyes:) and, I don't remember the circumstances, but he needed volunteers to be pole-holders for his ribbon cut. He did this triple cut at the time that was a little more complicated than his subsequent sequences. I was at ribbon #2 and got a grand view of his amazing talents as an airshow performer. After, he gave me an IPU certificate (International Poleholders Union) "member and still standing":D signed by him and his crew of one, Tom Dygert, who he met giving rides years before. We got to talking after about his flying and his airplane. You can talk to people like that when they are a "nobody". No, he said: this was his third airplane. Back in 1979 he said he "pulled the wings off" of his Pitts S2 A and had to bail out. If you Google that, not much comes up except that he had to exit the airplane. There was another "mechanical incident" in 1984 and he lost another airplane. He thought it would end his aerobatic career with two crashes in 5 years, so took up competition aerobatics and, in 1988, won the U.S. National Advanced Aerobatic Champion. To overcome his fear of parachuting, he did over 150 jumps in a Skydiving School.

OK: That said, if you watch the video of his 2006 jump, he had ALL KINDS OF TIME to figure out what to do to get out of his crippled airplane. He is an airshow performer and wears a parachute with the slim but expected possibility that he is going to have to use it. Otherwise, he doesn't need to wear one. SO: he expects that eventually he may be getting out of the airplane. That is his mind set.

With all the time he had to think, he was still hit in the head by the single-piece canopy as it ejected. (And people wonder why I wear a helmet!) He still got tangled in his shoulder harness and still got jammed up in the flying wire on the tail. And survived.

Thoughts: If you don't have the experience of Sean D Tucker with getting out of airplanes and EXPECT that you are going to have to, wearing a parachute may be good for your piece of mind, but may not be a practical thing to have. And decreases your useful load.... And that's not considering a BRS.....

If you have a passenger wearing one, they need to be briefed that if they hear you say EJECT! EJECT! EJECT! you are parting company with the airplane and here is what they can expect. Here is your ripcord. Once you have cleared the airplane, pull hard and long.:eek::eek::eek:

Seems like it is much better option to maintain your airplane to a high standard and practice.....PRACTICE.....(more than once every two years!) engine out procedures and off-airport approaches to landing..... And to maybe review the recent turn-back articles about departure power failures.

We fly well-designed, excellent-performing aircraft. Maintaining piloting skills to match our airplanes seems like an excellent idea.....
 
Last edited:
A false sense of confidence, and Cirrus not being forthcoming about WHY they put a parachute on the plane. The marketing department did a tremendous job of making up for engineering shortfalls. Cirrus knew it wouldn't pass the certification spin testing, so they got the FAA to accept the BRS in lieu of spin testing, then the marketing department took over and made everyone without a BRS seem like an unsafe design. Now all the new designs are putting in a BRS even though they don't have the same issues Cirrus does. It's increasing cost, complexity, and maintenance requirements on airframes that wouldn't have ever considered it if Cirrus didn't push the narrative.


The FAA approved the SR series with an abbreviated stall/spin program under a 'equivalent level of safety' concept. The ELOS determination was based on the presence of the chute and the use of it to recover from a spin. With the chute as the standard spin recovery method, cirrus did not have demonstrate that there are other ways to get out of it.

The European aviation safety authorities did not accept that concept and required Cirrus to demonstrate spin recoveries in a more extensive,(61 spin tests), testing program. Turns out, the plane recovers from spins with the same inputs that would get any other aircraft with the wing in the front a the tail in the back out of a spin. The test pilots noted that the Cirrus was rather difficult to spin….
 
Just a Couple o’ Thoughts

I like to do aerobatics. One day, I was sitting in a rented Decathlon and it occurred to me that if I needed to bail out, I’d be using a parachute for the first time, and not only that, trying to do a procedure under duress that the flight school did not train me for, or even discuss. So I wandered off to the local jump school and made a jump. It was a static line thing so not exactly like hopping out of a crippled airplane, but it was a giant confidence booster. Then I sat down in the Decathlon and rehearsed its very complex and time-consuming bail out procedure. Never had to use it, but…. Did the same rehearsal in our RV-6 when the time came. I even modified the gas struts on our flip-up canopy so they were already detached at the start of each planned aerobatic, parachute-wearing akro flight. About the Cirrus, well, as previously pointed out, the CAPS system was to save folks’ precious pink bodies in case of an accidental spin, in lieu of spin testing. Pretty iffy at low altitude, I think. Last I heard (admittedly not recently) the majority of CAPS deployments were not for spins, but loss of control in IMC, engine failure and even one control system failure. Not all deployments prevented crashes, injuries or fatalities. 80 lbs is more than our baggage allotment. An airframe parachute makes no sense in our RV-6 at all. No thanks.
 
I thoughts current BRS was about 40 lbs

Articles about the chute say it weights 30 lbs. (https://www.wisconsinaviation.com/files/pdf/talewinds28_2.pdf) I think that is just the parachute, it doesn't include the rockets, line cutters, etc. The advertisement for retrofitting a chute onto an RV-10 from BRS claims the installed weight is 82 lbs (https://brsaerospace.com/rv-10/)



The FAA approved the SR series with an abbreviated stall/spin program under a 'equivalent level of safety' concept. The ELOS determination was based on the presence of the chute and the use of it to recover from a spin. With the chute as the standard spin recovery method, cirrus did not have demonstrate that there are other ways to get out of it.

The European aviation safety authorities did not accept that concept and required Cirrus to demonstrate spin recoveries in a more extensive,(61 spin tests), testing program. Turns out, the plane recovers from spins with the same inputs that would get any other aircraft with the wing in the front a the tail in the back out of a spin. The test pilots noted that the Cirrus was rather difficult to spin….

You're correct, they did have to do some spin testing for the JAA. The report though says it was still "limited" testing. The report admits that without doing the full FAA required testing, they have to assume they have unrecoverable spin characteristics. So while I agree that 61 spins is more extensive than 0, it was far from complete spin testing. They designed the plane to rely on the chute for spin recovery and that's fine from an engineering trade-off point of view. They designed in enough safety to meet the certification requirements. I still hold a grudge against their marketing team for making all the other airframes that have met the same certification standards seem "unsafe" because they don't incorporate a BRS.
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    130.1 KB · Views: 19
Last edited:
I thoughts current BRS was about 40 lbs
From BRS

I would of put one in if I built mine new.
Way too much negativity here on BRS IMO

Max
From BRS web site

TECHNICAL SPECS.

These are the basics specs for our system, in case you need more information please fill the form at the end of this page and we’ll send you the information you are looking for.



Weight = 37-41 pounds.

Placement = Mounts Behind Bulkhead A. No reduction for in-cabin storage volume

Size = Rocket and parachute
 
That's

That's the beauty of experimental aviation; you can build however you see fit.

There are many different perspectives on the chute; I would submit that unless the specific configuration is TESTED, it is a questionable assumption that it will work as advertised.

Are there reasons to install one? Possibly, however, it really depends on your mission. I would wager that most that install one are doing so for peace of mind while overlooking the lack of real world testing for their specific configuration.

Again, build what you want and want what you build...
 
This is a like a Ford v Chevy conversation over drinks. We each have our opinions and with EAB we can do as we each want. I don't have a BRS in my -6A, but I did on my previous LSA. I'll tell you there are 3 cases when Id pull the chute, no one has to agree, it's my personal opinion only.

1- Over mountains with no clear landing options
2- Over water - the only reason I'd pull here is the fear of a roll over and getting stuck inside the cockpit in the water in a sinking plane. The Cirrus that pulled his over the pacific landed gracefully in the water.
3- Loss of flight controls.

As far as testing goes. Agreed testing is GREAT, but the reality is that for options scenarios 1 and 3, I'll take un test over almost certain death.

I will not be fitting my 6 with a BRS, but the next plane will likely have one fitted.

my 2 cents.....
 
Statistically

Yep, few reasons to deploy. I would agree with mountains but would argue with flight control loss.

How many RVs have had a flight control failure that was NOT pilot induced, ie overspeed, over G, or heaven forbid shoddy maintenance? If you are playing around at those limits, the chute makes sense; for the average Joe, maybe not so much...my opinion, of course.
 
Yep, few reasons to deploy. I would agree with mountains but would argue with flight control loss.

How many RVs have had a flight control failure that was NOT pilot induced, ie overspeed, over G, or heaven forbid shoddy maintenance? If you are playing around at those limits, the chute makes sense; for the average Joe, maybe not so much...my opinion, of course.

Agreed! Just to clarify my comment wasn't RV specific, just the list of how I would use the chute.
 
Back
Top