SonexBuilders.net

I have deep respect for all who fly, and all of the thoughts and emotions that flying evokes. To go ballooning must be to see like God: elevated, leisurely, coasting in detached silence. You see it all; you hear it all. Like a bicycle alone on a garden path. Civilized and serene. As heavenly as flying gets. But Gods are immortal, and we are not. When a balloon fails, there are no options. We fall from Heaven. Death is a certainty. So we look for Options -- wings to glide, airframes to protect, controls to steer; reliable engines, a wealth of instruments, tricycle gear, flaps, vortilons; better runways, better training, better radios, better weather forecasting. Risk Management to cheat Certain Death! And then Boris Popov took flying back to ballooning. What do you do when you are falling from Heaven? And the answer was, and still is, what I call TOLO -- That One Last Option: the whole plane ballistic parachute. Fly the plane! I know. It’s ingrained in me like the name of my first-born child. But what if you can’t fly the plane? You have a heart attack. A hinge breaks and a control surface departs. You hit something -- a drone, a wire, a goose. Or, how about a departure stall and spin? NTSB investigative analyses? Knowledgeable eyewitness observations? Transition training? Precision deadstick training? Engine and airframe improvements? Yes and yes. More is more. Just don’t tell me that Sonex cannot incorporate TOLO. Any airplane is a collection of compromises. The B-Model wasn’t needed to help correct crab landings. Tricycle gear will do that; it just costs 5-10 mph. The better panel and the bigger tanks are welcome. But Options beg Priorities. And in my opinion, this is where Sonex got it wrong. It is the single reason why I put my money elsewhere two years ago, and sadly, it is why I would still put my money elsewhere today. Sonex, where’s TOLO? -- Respectfully Submitted.

Hi Rich,

I'm happy you found a design that suits your needs. Not every airplane is for every person but that does not make a particular design "wrong." Many find the performance, strength, and low cost of the Sonex Aircraft product line to be "just right." And I wonder why if you are happy with the design you chose that you have chosen to post here. I selected the Sonex over the Pietenpol (and every other design) but I have never posted on the sites for the designs I did not choose that they got it "wrong." They just did not get it right for me. We all have so many, many choices for aircraft we can build. Isn't that fantastic?!

Of course "The One Last Option" is to stay on the ground. But prior to the Wright Brothers, 100% of humans died on the ground. Aviation has its risks, most things in life do. I ride motorcycles and I know damn well my leather boots, jacket, gloves, helmet and defensive riding style won't protect me from a deer or reckless driver but I don't let the fear of everything that may go wrong stop me from motorcycling. I stay off interstates, I seldom ride at night. These are the things I do to keep motorcycling as safe for me as it can be. A three-wheeler may add more safety. A car even more (does two more wheels equal Two Last Options?). But neither a three-wheeler nor a car are a motorcycle that leans through a curve.

I will repeat, I'm happy you found an airplane that lets you enjoy flying on your terms.

The list of potential One Last Option is endless. If I may co-opt a line from aircraft designer and air race master Steve Wittman when asked why he didn't make a particular part stronger, "Because then something else will be weaker."

Finally, before one more internet comment grows its own life, correcting for a crab landing was never a reason for the B-Model upgrade. The legacy model handled crab-landings just fine, at least that was my experience in 500-hours of Sonex tailwheel flying.

Blue Skies....

Kerry Fores
Sonex Aircraft Tech Support
Builder of "Metal Illness" Sonex s/n 9
The most dangerous thing I do is run on city sidewalks.

I think I agree with Sonex (and Richard Vangrunsven who wrote a great essay on the topic which I now can not find ;-) ) - the weight penalty and complexity is not worth it to have a BRS for these missions.

If TOLO is the key consideration, buy a Cirrus! They seem nice and capable. I went Sonex for other reasons, mainly low cost yet decent performance.

Every airplane is a collection of compromises, and every additional item that adds complexity is also a compromise.

For example: That ballistic chute option means lugging around an explosive pyrotechnic device inside the aircraft at all times. So can it save your life? Yes! But it also has its own risks and failure modes.

Also note that its not a panacea - people in Cirrus aircraft have died because they pulled the chute and were then stuck floating down in a burning aircraft; or descended under parachute and hit high-tension wires.

Examining safety options is well and good, but its important to actually weigh out the risks and benefits of every option. There is no magic solution that makes flying 100% safe and has no inherent problems or risks.

--Noel

I have admittedly had my share of disagreements with Sonex on things, but not this point. Not at all.

There are plenty of other choices, as Kerry and others point out. Some offer a ballistic chute.

The airframe Sonex provides in its plans, Kit, or quick build, legacy or b model, is a tank. I love the airplane and have full faith in the structure, integrity, and strength.

For some, this is not enough and I respect that. I considered RANS and Vans RV along with Sonex and am very happy with my choice. But to state this is a design flaw or an error is not, in my own opinion, valid.

Respectfully,

This is just my opinion on the matter Rich, but there is no such thing as a 100% effective TOLO card for you to play, unless of course you leave your airplane sitting in the hangar for its entire life. There is always going to be some degree of inherent risk involved with any motor sport, be it flying, boating, skydiving, motorcycle riding, ATV's, jet skis, etc. That risk is unavoidable.

Yet, at the same time, we as pilots can and should do everything in our power to mitigate these risks as much as possible, which can and often does include the decision to stay on the ground. Is there a possible maintenance issue that needs attention? Stay on the ground. Is the weather questionable or you don't feel comfortable? Stay on the ground. Did you have a long day at work or maybe you're a little under the weather? Stay on the ground.

I can go on and on, but I think you understand my point. We try to make things as safe as possible by making safe and smart decisions, and for me personally, that's enough. I know my Waiex is as safe as I can make it and I'm comfortable flying it without a parachute. As a long time Cirrus Standardized Instructor Pilot (CSIP), I know all about the parachute system and agree that it can add an additional layer of safety when used properly, but I also know Cirrus's still crash. They're great airplanes and I'd love to own one (if I had an extra $800K burning a hole in my wallet) but a parachute doesn't supersede good decision making skills and proper judgement.

I agree with Kerry, Robbie, and everyone else that's posted; these airplanes are very well designed and tough! In the end though it's your money so buy whatever airplane you'd like!

Good luck!

Rich,

I agree that having a ballistic chute adds a unique degree of safety that cannot be replicated by most other means. But, as others have pointed out, the chute is a compromise. Is the risk added by the chute, the weight, and complexity of integrating into the exiting design worth the safety benefits? Everyone calculates this sum differently. What you are hearing is that many people do the math for a Sonex and conclude that it's not a good tradeoff.

Looking back at many of the recent accidents, both fatal and non-fatal, I have to wonder how a chute would have changed the course of the accident, or the outcome. Several accidents were initiated by power interruptions (low power output, surging, or total loss). In those cases, either the plane landed under control and the pilot walked away, or there was a loss of control with serious injuries. Would a chute have changed the outcome? Unless the chute was activated at first indication of a problem, many cases it would not. This is largely due to the fast-paced nature of how the incident unfolds.

Let me pose this question to you. If you were making a landing approach and just as you were turning base the engine quit, would you immediately pull the chute? You've only got perhaps 20 seconds until you'll be on the ground, and things are going to happen fast. If you were on initial climb out at 300 ft and had a problem, would you pull the chute? I think many people will agree that a chute might not help in some of these situations. Will the chute help in some cases? Yes. But again, everyone does the math differently and this effects the outcome of the tradeoff equation.

As a community of Sonex enthusiasts, the members of this board have largely concluded that the tradeoffs and compromises that Sonex designed into their airplanes align with their personal criteria. They're understandably inclined to "side" with Sonex on the issue of the relative value of a chute. This doesn't make other designs or approaches invalid, just not selected by this group. Times change, and opinions change, and so might the value equation, especially as the "costs" of chutes continue to decrease. Maybe someday it will be such that the value equation will work out differently.

Jeff