Anybody ever see any kind of study or stats on the percent of mid airs involving side by side seating versus tandem? Pointing out the obvious maybe, but the situational awareness in a skinny tandem is a hell of a lot better then a side by side. Every time (rare) I fly in a side by side, I am astounded by the lack of viz as compared to what I have been flying for the last 20 years, a skinny tandem. When I recently got to fly the new Rans S-20, this point was driven home again to me.

mtv wrote:
Another problem with ANY of these kinds of systems is that they only see aircraft equipped with some sort of emitter, such as a transponder. There are still a fair number of airplanes without transponders.

MTV

Well, maybe. If the no transponder aircraft has been identified and tagged on the controllers scope(much more likely in a terminal environment) then that data will be sent out with the ADS-B data stream.

C130Jake makes excellent points. You need to train yourself to SEE, as opposed to just "looking". I worked for many years looking for stuff on the ground, and more often than not, I'd see animals well before my observers did, simply because i did this stuff all the time, and I'd learned to See. Every once in a while, I'd draw an observer that would be pointing out targets to me as often as I pointed them out.

These were always folks who'd spent a lot of time in the woods, hunting, hiking, mushing, they were truly observers of their world.

The same folks were always a great help in finding traffic.

It's not just a genetically transferred gift, it's an acquired skill, which can be enhanced with training and/or practice.

MTV

Back seat is the problem in the tandem, where the blind instructor sits.

svanarts wrote:I remember seeing the YouTube video referenced in this new story when it first came out. The airplane involved in the mid-air is a Rans S6 just like mine (well, tricycle gear version). I remember electing not to put the parachute in my plane because the chance of the wings coming off were negligible, and I would never be involved in a mid-air. I'm rethinking that now.

So his engine was lost, but wings and control surfaces look intact. Why not glide the plane down to a landing?

Also, looking at the BRS website, a chute for a C172 is $13499, and for a C182 is $14999. Add the install cost and you could almost buy a nice straight tail version of either...

A1Skinner wrote:So his engine was lost, but wings and control surfaces look intact. Why not glide the plane down to a landing?

Recent data from Cirrus suggests that the answer to this question is: "To double your chance of survival"

Cirrus used to have a fatal rate equal to that of the GA fleet. Since stepping up their training and convincing people to pull the chute instead of, in this case - trying to glide down from 1000 feet until perhaps it's too late to pull the chute by the time you figure out the plane isn't controllable enough to survive - that rate has been cut in half.

I know nothing about Cirrus aircraft. Never sat in one, and wouldn't recognize one if I saw it sitting on the ramp. But from reading about them, they seem to be portrayed as a replacement for the "V-tailed doctor killers" that the poor old Bonanzas got unfairly labeled as.

http://airfactsjournal.com/2012/05/dick ... us-pilots/

Gump

If Cirrus wanted a true "safety airplane," they should have bought the Ercoupe Certificate and upgraded it. I had two coupes because they were dirt cheap, $1340 and $2400. They were dirt cheap because pilots want adventure not safety. I was young then and also wanted adventure not safety. Flew them all over the Rockies, including the high passes. Turns out they were a pretty fine aircraft.

"always join the circuit on a 45....". Of course, that's the regulatory guidance in the US where you fly. I don't think anywhere else in the world joins on a 45 and they don't seem to lock horns any more often. In fact outside the US joining on the 45 is either just tolerated or frowned on (like Zzz getting his butt kicked in Kamloops). Just be conventional and do whatever most people would expect you to do in your location to give them a better chance of seeing you.

And at airports with mixed circuits (helicopters/gliders/jets), you just can't have too many eyeballs out the window (maybe do all your looking inside before you join the circuit).

Fresno wrote:

Cary wrote:?....First, it's not in the STC--too old, I guess; second, it's really, REALLY expensive; and third, it would take up just about half of the baggage area on the right side, not to mention the extra weight. .....

Cary, where are you getting this information?

1. What airplane? They have many STCs for several planes and many field approvals.

2. REALLY expensive?! Less that 5k is cheap. Bushwheels cost more than a chute.

3. 29 lbs. I believe that ounces grow into pounds. That said, show me something that will save me after I have been hit mid air - at any weight.

Most of the info is on the BRS website.

1. My airplane, a 63 P172D. It's not on their AML.The activating handle in the Cessna versions is between and slightly forward of the front seats, and because my airplane has manual flaps, a field approval would be very difficult, because significant changes would have to be made to accommodate moving the activating handle. Quoting the email I received: "We appreciate your interest in BRS! Unfortunately the P172D is not listed on our AML for our STC. I do not believe our STC will be legal to install on a P172D."

2. "Really" is about $11,000 for a certified airplane, plus 40-45 hours installation--exact price of the chute is available from BRS, your IA would have to tell you his labor charges, but I think we're talking about a total of about $14,000 or so.

3. It weighs 85 lbs for a 182 (64 and newer), 79 lbs. for a 172 (74 and newer), not 29 lbs.--and as I said, it takes up half the baggage area, unless the airplane has an extended baggage--mine doesn't, and it's already pretty small. A 79 lb. weight penalty is significant in an airplane with a useful cabin load of less than 700 lbs.

If you're curious, here's the installation manual: http://www.brsaerospace.com/files/brspa ... 0paper.pdf

Not trying to argue, just pointing out that for my airplane, it's not a possible or practical installation.

Cary

Cary, I understand your situation. I have the same problem with my T206. Clearly, my Carbon Cub is lighter and this a smaller package and less cost.

I do not doubt they can make ballistic chutes (with STCs) for 182s and 206s -if there was a larger market for them.

You do what you can. My first move is the chute for the Cub. At the same time this discussion raised some issues for me. The training to improve visual traffic scanning is very interesting. Also, upgrading to the ADS-B is on my short list for both planes.

Fresno wrote:I had the misfortune to witness the mid air.

I have been haunted by what anyone could have done in the moments AFTER the impact.

We lost two good men that could have been (in my opinion) saved by a ballistic parachute. I think I can spare the 40lbs of useful load to protect myself and my passenger.

Chutes were the norm on ultra lights a decade ago. As the UL became more reliable we saw a decline ballistic chutes. But, the chutes are lighter and more effective than ever.

My project to add the chute to my Carbon Cub begins tomorrow. Any technical advice is welcome.

Is your Carbon Cub an Experimental/Amateur built? If not, you cannot install anything in it that's not approved for installation by The manufacturer (Cub Crafters). That's assuming the plane is in the E/LSA category.

You've essentially got a legal single seat airplane as it is, so I guess adding 29 pounds might not be too bad, but that's still a lot of weight on a very limited useful load airplane.

MTV

Yeah so…………BRS is not an option for most of us………but there are these “things” that you can strap onto your back…….and due to unforeseen circumstances, if you find you need to step out of your aircraft, you just pull this thing called a rip cord and voila…..you’re floating out of the sky………just like a Cirrus. I believe these “things” are FAA approved but you don’t have to STC yourself to wear one. The cost is around 1AU..............

Passengers kinda look at you funny though when you open the door in-flight and step out.

Though..... There were a few daydream flights involving ex-wives that ended like that.

Gump

Guy's, with all this BRS and parachute talk, keep in mind, you have to survive or at least not get knocked out in the initial collision in order to activate a BRS…


G44

macica wrote:Yeah so…………BRS is not an option for most of us………but there are these “things” that you can strap onto your back…….and due to unforeseen circumstances, if you find you need to step out of your aircraft, you just pull this thing called a rip cord and voila…..you’re floating out of the sky………just like a Cirrus. I believe these “things” are FAA approved but you don’t have to STC yourself to wear one. The cost is around 1AU..............

And, you'd best have your plane equipped with quick release doors......you aren't getting out of standard doors on most of these planes.

I presume you're also advocating equipping your passengers with chutes as well? Or you just gonna let them figure it out? Kinda hard to explain why they need a parachute, but even harder to explain why YOU need one, but they don't....

MTV

G44 wrote:Guy's, with all this BRS and parachute talk, keep in mind, you have to survive or at least not get knocked out in the initial collision in order to activate a BRS…


G44

Which gets us back to learn how to look, get your eyes outside your airplane when VFR, and not in IMC IFR, and visually clear your path when you're in the air or on the ground.

And.... Use your electronics to help show you where to look.

Gump

mtv wrote:I presume you're also advocating equipping your passengers with chutes as well? Or you just gonna let them figure it out? Kinda hard to explain why they need a parachute, but even harder to explain why YOU need one, but they don't....

MTV

"I just like to keep my backpack on..."

Wait! Does training trump technology here too?