BRS Aerospace has documented the 400th and 401st life saved as a result of deploying the company’s whole aircraft parachute rescue system.
“This milestone and all of the lives saved is a testament to Boris Popov, who conceived the idea and whose vision for the company he founded overcame initial resistance to the very idea of aircraft parachutes from some naysayers,” said BRS President/Director Enrique Dillon. “The concept’s legacy are the pilots and passengers who survived to continue to live fruitful lives and the thousands of families who have enjoyed added peace of mind when their loved ones fly.”
The milestone 400th and 401st lives were saved March 5, 2019, when the pilot of a Cirrus aircraft with the engine out deployed the whole aircraft rescue system over water more than 20 miles from Grand Turk Island in the Turks and Caicos. Neither the pilot or passenger were injured. They were picked up by a cruise ship.
The BRS parachute system is deployed in life-threatening situations by a rocket to slow the aircraft in the airstream and then lower it and its occupants to the ground in a measured descent, company officials explain. The parachute and solid propellant ballistic rocket assembly are enclosed in a canister mounted inside the fuselage that is activated manually or automatically.
With more than 30,000 systems installed during the past 35 years on aircraft ranging from experimental aircraft, sport aircraft, certified aircraft, and military trainers, approximately one of every 120 systems has been activated as a last resort for pilot and passenger safety in lethal situations, company officials report.
“While we hope pilots never encounter a troubling situation, we salute BRS Aerospace for the 400 lives its parachute system has saved when something did go awry in the air,” said General Aviation Manufacturers Association President and CEO Pete Bunce. “I fly routinely with two different types of aircraft equipped with parachutes and I am a true believer in the safety benefit of these systems.”
“In the chronicle of aircraft safety developments, the very idea of saving an entire aircraft through a deployable parachute system is an ingenious invention that deserves its place in the history of safer flight,” said Richard McSpadden, Executive Director of Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association’s Air Safety Institute. “BRS pioneered the concept in certified airplanes and deserves recognition for delivering on innovation proven to be a substantial milestone in the ongoing evolution of aviation safety.”
Numerous European and U.S. ultralight and experimental aircraft use the system, including Lancair, Carbon Cub, Kitfox, Glasair, Flight Design, Rans, Van’s RV 7/9/10, Kolb, Zenair, and Quicksilver. The BRS whole aircraft parachutes are available for light sport aircraft including CTSW, CTLS, Piper Sport Cruiser, Cessna Skycatcher, Bristell, FK-9 and Icon A5. Certified General Aviation aircraft that fly with the system include Cessna 150, 152, 172, 182, and Symphony. It is standard equipment on the Cirrus SR20 and SR22.
BRS officials report new systems are in the works, including those for vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, as well as remotely piloted aircraft. In addition, many new aircraft in development will use the BRS system, they note.
I don’t get the debate/argument/decrying someone else’s decision. I’m not a ‘chute guy. Many are. If you don’t believe in them, don’t get one. If you believe the arguments, get one. It’s no one else’s business. You aren’t arguing a certainty, it’s an argument of an opinion. Everyone has one. Yeeesh
Well my life is worth saving it, I use common sense
I guess I am very lucky to have a mechanic that keeps my plane in the air and thus I don’t need to use a parachute. I sometimes wonder if pilots with those systems don’t get themselves into where they have to use the parachute. Where if they didn’t have it, they would be more careful, and make better decisions.
Well, the actual saves data doesn’t seem to substantiate that (quite old) theory any very useful degree. There are some cases, where that was clearly the case, but then again there are still many more cases where careless pilots get themselves into situations they could have avoided due to over confidence in themselves, their aircraft, or other “safety” systems (a certain highly touted amphib LSA comes to mind, and not due to them having an airframe chute too). But the vast majority of airframe chute saves were in situations even a well maintained aircraft with experienced, safety minded pilots at the stick, found themselves in; situations you could still find yourself in, notwithstanding your mechanic, or your faith in your plane or in your skills. Despite all the naysayer theories against airframe chutes, that have remained somewhat unchanged since before they were introduced on GA planes, airframe chutes continue to clearly save lives and are like any other safety device – Easy to dismiss right up until you need it; Invaluable to have when you find you need it; Sucks when you need it and don’t have it.
Thank you. A parachute on a plane is a safety option like many others.
There is nothing as useless as runway behind you, fuel in the truck, and a parachute you didn’t install.
I hope I never have to use mine, but it’s nice to know it’s available.
Do you try to crash your car because you have air bags? If you think your plane is immune to mid-airs, engine failure, fuel exhaustion or you having a stroke while flying then you are committing the sin of “it won’t happen to me” itus. And that’s fine, until it happens and you don’t have any way out but down, hard.
How to thank and congratulate the parachute if we do not even know the circumstances of the crash?
Most all of the chute saves, and conditions, of the flights and respective saves are available. You just have to go looking a bit. Know that, regardless of what you find, in all cases of “saves”, it’s still just a theory if anyone argues the flight could have been saved without the chute. The chute still “saved” them no different than the landing gear saving your butt on every landing. What you can’t and never will be able to do is justify the idea that the save was not warranted; even if you have all the data you think you want. God only let’s us live one path when life presents a fork in the road. One way to look this is that if the pilot pulled the chute, knowing they will lose full control of the rest of the flight as well as destroy their precious aircraft, they most likely weren’t thinking they were going to be able to save themselves without it.
Well, to the naysayers or non believers, I’m number 401! I’m a pilot, but not PIC that day. We landed in the ocean 23+ miles offshore. 8-10 ft swells. It was highly doubtful we could have landed a plane without a parachute safely. Probably would have flipped the plane or hit nose down and drowned. The parachute allowed us to land flat in the water, not disoriented. We deployed the life raft, crawled onto the wing and hopped aboard. I’m certain God and the parachute allowed us to live that day!
There is absolutly no better insurance than having the BRS on my CTSW,,when s…..hits the fan,nomatter where i am,bam…..And they said airbags cost too much!
Love being alive! No worrys!!
Marc Rodstein says “This is a lie and a ridiculous exaggeration…” – I say, well maybe an exaggeration and maybe not. Just as you suggest they can’t know this, you also can’t know the opposite – Sorry, that’s just the way logic works. Nevertheless, the word “ridiculous” is hardly warranted. You may have a debatable argument that it may be an exaggeration, but I doubt you could argue with any certainty that actual saves (without exaggeration) are so small that this exaggeration is “ridiculous”.
The naysayers of the airframe chutes opinions/rationalizations haven’t changed much, or at all, since before they became commonplace. And yet none of the reasons cited against them, such as “no need”, you should be able to land, or its existence causes people to take risks, have proven themselves out to any significance. They are still just theories. Nor do the naysayers offer anything that rationally, much less statistically, is better. But there are indeed hundreds of “saves” even if some of those could be argued as not necessary or were unnatural risks taken due to the chute being there (yeah Mr Cirrus Hawaii bound ferry pilot, we’re talking about you). And even in these relatively few cases of “chute abuse”, or “chute mis-use”, the chute still saved their lives. There are very few cases where the chute was deployed and a life was lost nevertheless, and even fewer where the chute deployment arguably caused a death.
But, if these naysayers would actually spend some time reading a number of the deployment stories rather than just wanting to be a naysayer and looking for like-kinds to grumble with, you can’t help but conclude that many (not all of course, but many/most) were legitimate saves with no other recourse given time and no hindsight advantage. Most deployments were situations that any normal, safe-minded pilot could find themselves in someday, and wish they had an airframe chute.
My point – these things have saved many lives, legitimately, without exaggeration. How many exactly? At least 1 for sure, which is really counts. But to anyone that spends some mental energy looking into it a bit, will conclude it is now in the hundreds, and honestly, that really counts.
This is lie and a ridiculous exaggeration. The only way that you can say that these 402 lives were saved is to assume that all 402 people would have died without the parachute. Many many crippled aircraft land safely without parachutes, or crash but their occupants are not killed. So to say that all these lives were saved is preposterous and untrue.
I couldnt agree more. I was thinking this as I was reading this article as well.
The chute option is a personal choice and the cost is no concern to anyone but the owner. If such an option is available then it is only resonable to make use of it, or not. I know a man that bought a new aircraft not equipped with a chute as was in his old plane. Long story short, new plane failed and the first then he grabbed for was the actuator for his salvation. Not there. Didn’t die but destroyed his aircraft and suffered minor injuries. His next craft came equipped.
You will now find the chute in Cirrus, RV, Evolution, Lanciar Mako, Flight Designs and others. Better to have one and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
If 402 people were in an aircraft and came down with a chute then their lives were saved. Period.
Amen! Why do people argue that the chute DIDN’T SAVE them because they have a theory that the flight could have been SAVED by another means!! (especially when they weren’t there) That’s simply stated “stupid logic”. The chute saved ALL of these folks. It may be true (but no one knows) that for any given save, that the vestigial airframe in the hands of a willing pilot or passenger, flying it into a crash, or even just a forced landing, or whatever, MIGHT have ended with lives not lost too. BUT that is a “MAYBE”. These are ACTUAL SAVES dingbats! Not theories; not might have been, or could have been. What about that do you not understand?
I’m not anti-chute, but I agree. When Paraphenalia or Strong parachutes make a saves claims on each deployment, it’s because people can’t flap their arms hard enough to save even one. It appears more than 50% of the Cirrus “Saves” are from engine failures, and a normal engine-out is not a high fatality event, even over less than perfect terrain. They should just call them deployments and avoid the self-aggrandizing.
If there was any doubt about the advisability of the BRS system there are now 402 people to testify on it’s behalf. I am planning on building an Experimental Aircraft (Glasair Sportsmen) and you can be sure that their system will be on my plane. There is a proper time to save money and there is a proper time to spend it to insure that you will be breathing tomorrow. My money or my life (?) not a hard decision for me.
Oh, it’s a nice system. But it’s also heavy, and expensive, with ongoing costs that often times exceed the value of many of the planes I have owned. For me, I can fly without this safety system, or I can not fly. Simply put, it’s too costly for my budget. The consequence is that I will continue to fly without this system.
People said that about seat belts and airbags before they became standard issue.