Talk:Ballistic Recovery Systems

Merge

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:

Ballistic Recovery Systems
Cirrus Aircraft Parachute System (changed to a re-direct)
Cirrus Design.

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]

Sea Recovery

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]