Jump to content

Talk:Ballistic Recovery Systems

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Merge

[edit]

Seems obvious this would be a good idea. --Guinnog 17:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-They are totaly diffrrent things. this is for a plane. 68.57.1.83 17:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by that? The Cirrus Aircraft Parachute System, which the merge suggestion is for, is most certainly for aircraft (and is a subset of BRS aircraft parachutes as a whole).

I don't have a strong opinion either way on a merge; CAPS is a notable feature of Cirrus aircraft. Georgewilliamherbert 00:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say that while CAPS is a BRS, it's notable in its own right and should be kept as a seperate article. So I'll have to say no merge. Gateman1997 06:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote to merge them. The CAPS system is just a BRS installation on a particular aircraft. If we keep them separate then it would seem logical to have a separate page on each BRS aircraft installation - for instance the BRS installation on the Symphony SA-160. BRS has installations on hundreds of different certified and non-certified aircraft so I think that would be too cumbersome. The installations are all generally similar until you get to a detail level that is beyond the scope of an an encyclopedia article and into the level of an installation manual or operator's handbook. Ahunt 11:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well in this case if I'm not mistaken the CAPS was the first production aircraft to include a BRS in it. And as such I'd say that qualifies as unique. Gateman1997 21:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite true it was the first installation on a certified aircraft - but the CAPS is not an aircraft - the SR20/22 was the aircraft, so maybe it would be better to include it as a section on the page for the aircraft? Ahunt 23:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That might be the be a better idea then putting it part and parcel into BRS. I'd support a merge of the CAPS into the aircraft type that first employed it. Gateman1997 01:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Along with a good ref to the Cirrus SR20/22 aircraft article and CAPS in the main BRS article? Sounds good to me. Georgewilliamherbert 00:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I think it is settled. someone with more knowledge from here should complete the merge of article information (that has been going on for 3 months) and remove the tags and redirect the appropriate pages. Radagast83 03:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since there doesn't seem to be an avalanche of volunteers for this task I will give it a try! I will be merging the Cirrus Aircraft Parachute System article into Ballistic Recovery Systems and creating a redirect from the former to the latter. I will also clean up the CAPS references in Cirrus Design, as well as Cirrus SR20, Cirrus SRV and Cirrus SR20 and post a note back here when I am done all that so anyone following this can have a look at what I may have accomplished. Ahunt 00:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay as described above the following articles were changed:
Upon review I didn't think that Cirrus SR20, Cirrus SRV or Cirrus SR20 needed any changes as they just make short mentions of the system, which then redirects to the BRS page, although perhaps others will disagree. Ahunt 01:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a couple of edits on the number of lives saved. BRS is a small company and Cirrus is their largest account. Cirrus ownes about 15% of the company which is traded on the OTC market. johng_pilot

Sea Recovery

[edit]

BRS is fine except being over the sea. Does anyone know whether some sort of ignition-inflated raft is developed for planes? I guess there would be a market for travellers to european islands --217.86.19.227 11:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting the decision to merge CAPS into BRS

[edit]

The Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) deserves its own page linked from both Cirrus Design and BRS. BRS is a supplier to Cirrus Design who did the engineering work to integrate it into the SR series of airplanes. It is not "just a BRS installation" but rather a complicated integrated engineering effort. CAPS is notable from other BRS products because it was certified with the airplane, it has its own operating guidelines published by Cirrus Design, and CAPS has been the subject of an airworthiness directive for the SR series of airplanes. Also, CAPS has a history associated with Cirrus Design airplanes and accidents. SDBeach 01:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I disagree. We have had that debate between July and October 2006 (see above) and decided to merge the articles. The situation has not materially changed since then. If we did split them then we would also need to have separate articles on the BRS installation in the Symphony SA-160, the Cessna 172 and Cessna 182 and any other aircraft that in future is certified with a parachute system. The articles would all be short and merely duplicate what is already in this article. The BRS installations on the Cirrus SR20 and Cirrus SR22 are integral to those aircraft and belong on the pages for those aircraft.
Ahunt 02:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position and reviewed the discussion of the debate. The situation has changed, in part because of publicity of the Cirrus fatal crash in New York, there has been a significant increase in awareness of the Cirrus safety features and, unfortunately, an attendant increase in the distribution of misinformation about CAPS, Cirrus accident histories, and aviation issues around safety innovations and their impact on pilot decision-making. My intention is to provide more information about these Cirrus issues and the location of CAPS details on the BRS page is not consistent with the locus of these issues. SDBeach 00:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is a growing body of evidence that the presence of the parachute is contributuing to things like poor pilot decision making, but as per the decision taken above that sort of information can be added to the pages for Cirrus or the individual aircraft types. If the issues affect all parachute installations beyond Cirrus, then they can be added to the BRS page. Finding suitable references for this sort of entry will be challenging! Ahunt 12:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a little enthusiastic for describing Cirrus' efforts here; yes, it's a certified part of the aircraft, but the engineering involved wasn't all that significant or different from what BRS does for any of the other aircraft they install ballistic parachutes on. CAPS is not notably different than other aircraft BRS chute installations. Georgewilliamherbert 02:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since BRS refuses to address customer issues with CAPS, referring owners to Cirrus Design, that indicates that the manufacturer considers it different enough. True, CAPS is not notably different in concept or execution. However, Cirrus Design appears to hold a trademark on the name. That alone makes it inappropriate for the BRS page to hold most of the information about it.SDBeach 00:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is an absolutely bog-standard OEM agreement term, whether you're buying a hard disk drive or a ballistic parachute system. OEM equipment shifts warranty terms almost always to the vendor doing retail sales... Georgewilliamherbert 07:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to unmerge CAPS from BRS to Cirrus Aircraft

[edit]

As part of my research into the history of CAPS deployments, I attended a presentation by Paul Johnston, Chief Engineer, Cirrus Aircraft. He described in great detail how the design was adapted from the BRS GARD system available by STC on the Cessna 150. There were significant design integration challenges that Cirrus innovated without significant participation by BRS. Notably, the parachute system was moved behind the baggage compartment bulkhead, the riser design was changed from a 3-point on the top of the Cessna wing to two attachment points on the firewall and the rear bulkhead, the risers were hidden under channels in the fuselage that ripped out when deployed, the rear-riser was folded to achieve a nose-low aerodynamic drag effect, pyrotechnic line cutters were added to release the folded rear-riser. I will endeavor to find a public source for these design details.

This convinces me that CAPS belongs associated with Cirrus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr22beach (talk • contribs) 20:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the company and shouldn't be in detail about their products, beyond basic descriptions. I agree that the CAPS text should be split, but I think it ought to be split into its own article, rather than merged into Cirrus Aircraft, Cirrus SR22 or Cirrus SR20. - Ahunt (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the movies

[edit]

A ballistic parachute is used in the very funny comedy movie The Gods Must Be Crazy II from 1988. They land the same ultralight aircraft twice with the parachute. And they do it in quite a funny way! I don't know if "ballistic parachute" is the proper term but the red button for it in the the aircraft is marked so and that term is also used by one of the actors. Anyway, I just wanted to mention that such parachute landings are shown in that movie.

The landings shown in the movie are probably a bit unrealistic since they use the same parachute twice, without reloading it with a new rocket. Unless they brought a spare rocket with them into the Kalahari Desert... Or perhaps there are systems that don't use a rocket? And the parachute in the movie looks slightly too small to land two persons and an ultralight aircraft softly.

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complicating factor

[edit]

Not sure how to reflect this. An SR22 crashed on 07/05/2010 near the Essex County, NJ airport (see [1]). News report on the incident noted:

The Cirrus Airframe Parachute System or CAPS uses a solid-fuel rocket to shoot a 55-foot parachute out of the top of the aircraft. ... Late Monday, the Essex County Bomb Squad, fearing an explosion that would deploy the parachute, was dispatched to the scene as a precaution if the system needed to be deactivated.

Has this been an issue in other crashes?--Klantry01 (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it has - a crash where the rocket is not used means it can go off, particularly if there is a fire. It is also a factor for shipping BRS rockets across borders, too, although there aren't a lot of refs on it. - Ahunt (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deployment

[edit]

Do we really need a list of deployments? MilborneOne (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. This was added by some fans and owners, but if this were a type article it wouldn't make WP:AIRCRASH. Perhaps it should be a separate list article? - Ahunt (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ballistic Recovery Systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ballistic Recovery Systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New address?

[edit]

On their website the address is now: 41383 US Highway 1 Pinebluff NC 28373-8330 38.13.74.147 (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ballistic_Recovery_Systems&oldid=1205672860"