BRS Wants Standard Terminology
In an interesting sidebar to a new Mission Statement, Ballistic
Recovery Systems (BRS), the makers of lifesaving emergency airframe
parachutes for certified, experimental, and ultralight aircraft,
want to "Standardize the Terminology." The St. Paul, Minnesota
company would like to see the following definitions used by
aviators and by the public.
Here are BRS's definitions, with only some punctuation
corrections. Our comments follow.
Deployment Environment
If a pilot elects to activate the BRS parachute "outside of the
deployment environment" (too fast, etc.), then he relinquishes any
guarantee of safety.
Deployment Landing
Successful use of product -- situation where an aircraft, pilot
or environmental failure occurred, but the parachute worked
successfully. People were not killed, no significant injuries
occurred, aircraft is damaged but probably repairable.
Impact Deployment
When the parachute is seen as having "deployed" because it is
outside of its housing and near the downed airplane. In reality, it
was never activated by airplane occupants, and never truly
deployed. Especially important, as the media that tends to
misrepresent that the parachute had been deployed at various
accidents/incidents.
Our Comments
BRS's definitions are aimed straight at hysterical and
uninformed reporting, which we've seen in several mishaps,
especially of BRS-equipped Cirrus aircraft. In at least one
accident, the chute appears to have been deployed at an extremely
high airspeed; in others, a postcrash deployment occurred.
The underlying concept is a good one -- standardize the terms so
that news media report these parachute deployments accurately, and
so that people in general understand what actually happened in each
case. But we're not so sure that the exact terms BRS has chosen are
as clear and accurate as possible, or necessary.
"Deployment
Environment" might better be "Deployment Envelope," which would
bring airframe parachute terminology into line with that used by
ejection seats. "Deployment Landing" appears to be a solution
without much of a problem. In fact, the aircraft has made a safe
touchdown in this case, but each one is a little different due to
the differing touchdown environments. The case may come wherein a
normal deployment results in a freak landing in unsurvivable
position (on cliffside, or a tall building, for example.
Finally, "Impact Deployment" has an unfortunate suggestion that
an incompletely-deployed chute was set off by impact. This raises
the question of how stable the BRS is (suggesting a good hard bump
can set it of, which isn't true), and also -- and more importantly
-- doesn't cover the gamut of reasons a chute gets deployed.
If the chute is out of the packing, it needs to be examined by
an expert to determine why and how it got that way. Even if much of
the airframe itself is consumed by postcrash fire, to the point
where the position of the deployment handle is unknown, the
condition of the rocket and the lines will tell the story to
knowledgeable eyes. Were the lines fully stretched? Where is the
slider? These answers let an expert judge whether the chute may
have been command-deployed outside its safe envelope (too late), or
whether the rocket cooked off due to post-crash fire, or even
whether the system was fired or the chute pulled out by rescue and
recovery personnel -- all can happen.
The point of this being, perhaps, a very fundamental that we're
sure BRS would agree with: reporters shouldn't make assumptions or
speculate about chute deployments without, at the barest of
minimums, properly identifying such assumptions or speculation.
Standard terminology may help, and it might be better to get behind
BRS's suggestions -- however imperfect -- than not to standardize
at all.
And everyone in aviation -- we reporters, and the flying public
as well, because you're all experts to your non-flying friends and
neighbors -- needs to bear in mind the many factors and parameters
involved in airframe parachute deployments.
It would be a pity if people decline to specify, order or use
such a proven life-saving technology because they had fallen victim
to incorrect information.