C172/182 BRS-Parachute AD

HPNPilot1200

En-Route
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
2,662
Location
Huntington Beach, CA
Display Name

Display name:
Jason
You mean the BRS-equipped 172SP at the flight school I avoid flying at all costs now has an AD? Good thing I'd never pull the handle anyway. :)

Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2007-29317; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-079-AD; Amendment 39-15348;
AD 2008-02-18]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company 172 and 182 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Cessna Aircraft Company 172 series airplanes with the BRS-172 Parachute System installed via Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) No. SA01679CH and Cessna Aircraft Company 182 series airplanes that are equipped with the BRS-182 Parachute System installed via STC No. SA01999CH. This AD requires you to replace the pick-up collar support and nylon screws for the BRS-172 and BRS-182 Parachute System. This AD results from notification by Ballistic Recovery Systems, Inc. (BRS) that the pick-up collar assembly may prematurely move off the launch tube and adversely affect rocket trajectory during deployment. We are issuing this AD to prevent premature separation of the collar, which could result in the parachut failing to successfully deploy.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on February 28, 2008. On February 28, 2008, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Ballistic Recovery Systems, Inc., 300 Airport Road, South Saint Paul, MN 55075-3551; telephone: (651) 457-7491; fax: (651) 457-8651. To view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. The docket number is FAA-2007-29317;

Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-079-AD.
 
Is anyone else wondering this... where exactly would nylon screws be used in this system?
 
oh jason, if you ever had a situation where you needed it, you would wish you had that handle to pull...
 
oh jason, if you ever had a situation where you needed it, you would wish you had that handle to pull...

I hope to never allow myself to enter a situation where the pull of a handle would save my life and the lives of my passengers. Perhaps if a wing fell off, but that's all I can think of.

I would feel more comfortable landing engine out due to some sort of failure or fire by hand, than to pull the chute and hope it will take me some nice daisy field where the sun shines bright and warm. At least I have control of the aircraft flying it by hand. My two cents.
 
mid air collision is a very real risk where it could come in handy, especially in uber busy airspace land out where you fly :)
 
mid air collision is a very real risk where it could come in handy, especially in uber busy airspace land out where you fly :)

I think I'll take my chances and put my life in the hands of the N90 controllers and the see-and-avoid principle. You do have a point though. :)
 
mid air collision is a very real risk where it could come in handy, especially in uber busy airspace land out where you fly :)

In fact, isn't that the reason why Alan Klapmeier designed the Cirrus with an airframe airchute? He had a mid-air?
 
In fact, isn't that the reason why Alan Klapmeier designed the Cirrus with an airframe airchute? He had a mid-air?

yes, he survived a mid air back in the 80's. the other airplane's pilot, however, did not.
 
I'm looking forward to a chute being standard on the airplanes I rent. More options are always good. Let's see....

Engine failure over water - chute is probably better than ditching in a fixed gear airplane, as your energy should be less.
Flight control failure.
Engine failure resulting in separation of the engine from the airplane rendering the airplane completely uncontrollable due to CG issues.
Ice.
Pilot incapacitation.
Mountainous terrain at night.
Loss of control in IMC.

Obviously, maintaining control of the aircraft is job 1. But isn't it nice to have options?

And for the record, getting hit by the sabot that yanks the parachute out would kill you. That thing is rocket powered in the full sense of the word, and it moooooves on out. I took the EMS safety course on it and I forget what the velocity was, but it was thousands of feet per second, perhaps more. It doesn't burn for long, of course, but you don't want to be in the way.
 
I'm looking forward to a chute being standard on the airplanes I rent. More options are always good. Let's see....

Engine failure over water - chute is probably better than ditching in a fixed gear airplane, as your energy should be less.

That is one situation that I would probably prefer to ditch, maybe pulling the chute at the very last second. Vertical into the water would not be a good thing as you don't have the gears ability to absorb some of the impact, and that big wide belly will stop quickly. It won't be nearly as gentle as on land. Remember the guy who went into the Hudson? The impact broke a vertabrae or two on him.
 
"Engine failure over water - chute is probably better than ditching in a fixed gear airplane, as your energy should be less.
Flight control failure.
Engine failure resulting in separation of the engine from the airplane rendering the airplane completely uncontrollable due to CG issues.
Ice.
Pilot incapacitation.
Mountainous terrain at night.
Loss of control in IMC."



Single engine failure at night over ANY terrain with the exception of maybe over the interstate, near an airport, or full moon over open country.

Why people fly single engine night and IFR without a parachute is beyond me.

There are a hell of a lot of obstructions lurking in the shadows in open country. It only takes one little fence post or sapling or creek bed to turn your machine into a cartwheeling flaming candelabra. There is serious truth to the oldtimers saying about "turning on the landing light when you get near the ground and if you don't like what you see, turn it off."
 
That is one situation that I would probably prefer to ditch, maybe pulling the chute at the very last second. Vertical into the water would not be a good thing as you don't have the gears ability to absorb some of the impact, and that big wide belly will stop quickly. It won't be nearly as gentle as on land. Remember the guy who went into the Hudson? The impact broke a vertabrae or two on him.

I didn't think he had the chute... did he? I thought he just stalled it above the water.
 
I didn't think he had the chute... did he? I thought he just stalled it above the water.

Nope, he regained consciousness, recovered from the dive and decided to pull the chute in case he seized again and went in under canopy. The thing is, the actual amount of energy is not as critical as the amount of time you can disperse the energy absorption out over. Better to have twice the energy and five times the decelleration. That said, there are definitely times I would use the chute.
 
Back
Top