----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----
Bob,
The Ercoupe would be done
on a one-by-one basis using a “one time STC” – a form 337. That’s one FAA wienie’s approval of one
plane’s installation.
Once one has been
approved on a form 337, more FAA guys get brave and will sign off on the
change.
However, the FAA a few
years ago got much tougher on major changes and alterations (form 337) and
require very good justification and plan, according to mechanics who’ve been
heard complaining in my presence.
Here are some thoughts
about parachutes for planes. We’ve
discussed them ad nauseum on the ultralight lists. The consensus was that they can be nice to have in that very
unlikely condition you’re heading for the ground in an uncontrollable aircraft.
It is unlikely. Still, in a few seconds I could
remember several instances in the last 25 years when a Coupe owner was headed
for the ground in an uncontrollable aircraft. It would probably have saved most (all) of them if they’d
had a BRS handle to pull (with attached rocket and parachute). These include two VFR into IFR
conditions and three aerobatics in a Coupe (we think) – if you’re going to do
dumb stuff, getting a chute might be a good idea.
But, in Coupes as in fat
ultralights / light sport aircraft, if the plane is controllable and the
surface is tolerable, it’s probably safer to ride it down. If you’re over water or a sea of trees
or a field of boulders, the parachute could be good even for a controllable
plane. You guys over Connecticut
and forests like it – you might want to have one of these (made me very nervous
flying there).
Here in the Central
States, I couldn’t justify the cost for my Coupe but I can justify the far
lower cost for my homebuilt.
Ed
Burkhead
http://edburkhead.com/
ed -at- edburkheadQQQ.com (change -at- and remove the QQQ)
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Branch
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004
6:42 PM
To: Ed Burkhead
Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] RE:
BRS
I looked at several sport pilot planes at
Oshkosh that were equipped with BRS'. The majority send the rocket out a window
behind the wing. Virtually all the planes were composite glass or carbon fiber
construction. No one made any bones about it. Upon depoloyment the plane would
be a total write off never the be anything but crushed. And as has already been
noted the do carry a pretty hefty weight penalty. The imc situation mentioned
in a previous post is not an illogical deal. If from the pic's seat its all
gone to h... in a handbasket and there are not in his mind, a substantial basis
for other options, it can make sense. Cyrus' thread which we all gladly
followed down the yellow brick road of a forced landing is probably for me the
only viable reason vfr to use one. Though loosing a control surface would be
right up there with it. Problem comes down to two issues though I think. First
is what are the likelihoods of the situation. IFR training is all about solving
those problems. How often does a plane really get to the total all systems
failure in imc conditions? How often does a control surface leave an airplane?
Second is the certification of the system to a plane. Its not just throwing a
sock on a string out the open ercoupe canopy. The certification process which
obviously is going to wind up sending at least one aircraft of each type to the
rubble pile, is paid for by companies trying to decrease their liability
exposure. That's the reason it was on every one of the sport pilot planes I
looked at. Its the manufacturer with a financial risk to bear that is willing
to pay for the development and deployment. None of the companies I spoke with
would deliver an airplane without them installed. Don't think that's there for
the ercoupe.
Just a few more thoughts,
bob branch
99891
============================================================================== To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm Search the archives on http://escribe.com/aviation/coupers/
