The UK's Air Accidents Investigation Branch has recommended that all aircraft with whole airframe parachutes be emblazoned with clearly visible and emphatic placards warning first responders of the potential danger inside. The recommendation came out of an investigation of a stall/spin crash last year in England in which the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS) deployed in the crash. The accident investigation resulted in the recommendation that the pilot's inexperience and lack of recency likely contributed to the fatal accident, which resulted from a a bounced touch and go and go-around attempt in a flying club SR22. The pilot hadn't flown for 54 days before taking the Cirrus up for a few trips around the patch.
The one I like is that every homebuilt in the UK has to have at least on big notice on the passenger side saying “Warning, this is an experimental aircraft…”
Those elves (elf and safety) go a bit crazy.
CAPS obviously won’t help in a pattern altitude stall-spin, and the article doesn’t suggest that it would. It simply says the pilot’s lack of recency and proficiency in the Cirrus were likely contributing factors, and that seems obvious enough.
Well, if the recommended placard with huge lettering would be irrelevant to the cause or the survivability of this accident then it should not be mentioned in the accident report at all. Maybe there also needs to be training for members of the UK’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch?
The point of the recommendation is so that first responders, arriving at an accident site, do not inadvertently trigger the CAPS which might lead to additional injuries to the rescue crew. By making the placard more conspicuous it is hoped that it will be more apparent that this safety risk may be armed and dangerous.
Perhaps a warning placard should follow something akin to military markings, using a bold yellow triangle and lettering. The yellow triangle draws attention while lettering describes the hazard.
Hey, first responders, THESE ARE AIRPLANES.
That should be simple enough for them to know that they should NOT be sawing into aircraft from the outside unless they already know what you are doing. There are fuel lines and electrical and all sorts of things that “do not respond well” to saws.
They need training if they are doing this sort of work.
Come on Arthur, you know all airplanes are not created equal. There are tons of homebuilts that have the Ballistic Recovery Systems (BRS) installed. You don’t have to cut into anything, just by moving some wreckage they can stretch the cable and fire the rocket. A lot of first responders are volunteers and to expect them to even try to be familiar with every type of aircraft is unreasonable.
If they are official rescue crews, then they better darn well know what they are doing OR be supervised. How long would it take to “teach” that a Cirrus has a CAPS system? Seriously.
You do understand that airplanes don’t just crash at (or even near) airports? I don’t see a more pronounced placard/label that could protect my little town’s volunteer firefighters as a big deal.
You don’t seem to understand that little town volunteer firefighters are NOT going to stop a rescue procedure and read aircraft placards (much less will they understand what the term “BRS Installed” actually means).
Ask 10 random non-aviation people tomorrow what “BRS Installed” means and see if any of them even get close.
Unless you can tell us where planes are going to crash, you can’t DEMAND any kind of training from those who respond. I was a volunteer EMT for 15 years and we never had ONE session on aircraft accidents.
As for “not sawing into aircraft… unless they already know” - what would YOU suggest the responder do if someone is trapped inside and no one who is responding knows anything about airplanes?
Go for the huge, clear warnings.
So, you as a volunteer EMT never saw this kind of accident in 15 years?
Then your opinion, based on experience, would be that they are extremely rare.
Then lets not get over enthusiastic about the “need” for this.