Just pull the little red handle! [Archive]

flyingmr2

August 30th 10, 12:06 AM

Why not have a ballistic parachute option in your sailplane? Why not
double chute and have a BRS and a backpack parachute for multiple
options? I am relatively new and have found much resistance as I have
talked to the old timers around the air field. The common attitude is
that we already wear parachutes and we don't need any more. Cost is
another obvious issue. How many are planning the purchase of their
next new ship shipped from overseas. How many of us have an extra
$125K to blow on a new dream boat without divorce papers being
threatened. "I know honey that we just paid off the house but hey,
what's another 15 year mortgage going to hurt?"
I have put a lot of thought into the manufacturing question and
have wondered if it is a Euro stigma to American technology or safety
standards. It seems that most new sailplanes being produced do not
have this option. Most new sailplanes are being built in Europe.
American sailplanes seem to be the exception.
The one current production American sailplane builder is Windward
Performance they offer the BRS option with the Sparrowhawk. One of
the reasons I bought a Sparrowhawk was the BRS was a great safety
selling point for my wife and yes, I believe it too. From talking
with Greg Cole, all but one Sparrowhawk has the BRS option. This is a
strong embrace of the technology if it was more readily available.
The other recent sailplane from American design was the Genesis G2
which originally included a BRS in its design. I wondered if that is
why the full development and implementation of the BRS was never
finished as the production and final development was shipped over to
LAK in Lithuanian. Cirrus aircraft also another American company has
developed the BRS it into all of its piston aircraft and even into its
new Vision Jet. The ultralight aircraft have strongly embraced the
tech and most of the new ships have a BRS system although most never
carried parachutes in the first place.
I would really love to have a BRS system in my current DG-303 but
none is available. Is there even a modification available or are
there too many liability issues with our fat USA lawyers revving there
engines. Maybe the core reason of lack of availability is that the
American sailplane market is a very low demand market with declining
membership and current fiberglass ships that seems to last forever.
How many of your current glider pilot friends are talking about that
brand new ship they are planning on ordering from Europe for $125K.
Not many I would imagine. I long sometimes to travel back in time to
the age of the Schweitzers when the good old USA was the sailplane
manufacture of the world. We were the leaders of flight development
but have lost that in modern times. It's kind of sad I think.

JJ at least you have the option and panel built in your Genesis
fuselage that it is possible for you to get the upgrade. Eventually I
imagine that the availability of BRS will slowly trickle down to
standard options as it get recognized as a significant safety
benefit. Some of the old timers will get converted, some will die
off. Us young guys can hardly wait!

JJ, I too lost a friend here in Utah to a crash and wonder if a BRS
might have saved him. We readily spend $3K on new winglets but I have
yet to read about anyone bragging about his new BRS system.

Please, if anyone has some answers, please help! We need a few
converts to the benefits and increase in safety of BRS which might
come from the new younger generation to increase demand. If we
request it, they will build it. I know it is possible for the older
guys to get converted as I recently discovered in Parowan at the club
class Nationals that you JJ, are not a spring chicken. Your passion
and writing on the message boards for soaring lead me to believe that
you were much younger. Kudos us young kids would say.

John Ackerson

August 30th 10, 12:56 AM

Here's a nice demo of a near worst case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaU9PnXU1Pc

-Tom

Andy[_1_]

August 30th 10, 02:53 AM

On Aug 29, 4:06*pm, flyingmr2 > wrote:
> Why not have a ballistic parachute option in your sailplane? *

> Please, if anyone has some answers, please help! *

Cost, weight, and availability, but perhaps not in that order.

Andy

[email protected]

August 30th 10, 03:08 AM

On Aug 29, 5:06*pm, flyingmr2 > wrote:
> *> ......The other recent sailplane from American design was the Genesis G2
> which originally included a BRS in its design. *I wondered if that is
> why the full development and implementation of the BRS was never
> finished as the production and final development was shipped over to
> LAK in Lithuanian.......

The reason the production Genesis gliders did not have a BRS is that
it was an option and no one ordered one.

One Genesis has been retrofitted with a BRS by the owner. It sounds
like JJ and I will be doing the same.

A BRS system large enough for a modern 15 meter glider weighs about 35
lbs. It also is rather tall and so having a deep fuselage helps with
fitting it in.

Robert J. Mudd
Genesis sn 2009

stephanevdv

August 30th 10, 01:44 PM

I flew a Ventus2BXR at Saint-Auban, France. The "R" stands for
"recovery parachute". It has a little yellow/black handle that needs
to be secured with a pin when on the ground, because the pyrotechnic
system going off in somebody's face when pushing the glider presents a
real safety problem. You have to take the safety pin off just when
ready for launching, and have to put it back before opening the canopy
after landing. I'm sorry to say I sometimes had some problems
remembering one or the other... There are also three items to add to
the preflight check: primary (maintenance) safety removed, safety wire
OK, electronics checked). And in France, having a ballistic recovery
parachute doesn't mean you no longer have to wear a personal chute...
Kind of belt and braces approach!

Many German glider types can be had with that system, but people
prefer adding a motor or fancy glide computers...

JJ Sinclair

August 30th 10, 03:06 PM

On Aug 29, 4:06*pm, flyingmr2 > wrote:
> Why not have a ballistic parachute option in your sailplane? *Why not
> double chute and have a BRS and a backpack parachute for multiple
> options? *I am relatively new and have found much resistance as I have
> talked to the old timers around the air field. *The common attitude is
> that we already wear parachutes and we don't need any more. Cost is
> another obvious issue. *How many are planning the purchase of their
> next new ship shipped from overseas. *How many of us have an extra
> $125K to blow on a new dream boat without divorce papers being
> threatened. *"I know honey that we just paid off the house but hey,
> what's another 15 year mortgage going to hurt?"
> * * I have put a lot of thought into the manufacturing question and
> have wondered if it is a Euro stigma to American technology or safety
> standards. *It seems that most new sailplanes being produced do not
> have this option. *Most new sailplanes are being built in Europe.
> American sailplanes seem to be the exception.
> * * The one current production American sailplane builder is Windward
> Performance they offer the BRS option with the Sparrowhawk. *One of
> the reasons I bought a Sparrowhawk was the BRS was a great safety
> selling point for my wife and yes, I believe it too. *From talking
> with Greg Cole, all but one Sparrowhawk has the BRS option. *This is a
> strong embrace of the technology if it was more readily available.
> The other recent sailplane from American design was the Genesis G2
> which originally included a BRS in its design. *I wondered if that is
> why the full development and implementation of the BRS was never
> finished as the production and final development was shipped over to
> LAK in Lithuanian. *Cirrus aircraft also another American company has
> developed the BRS it into all of its piston aircraft and even into its
> new Vision Jet. *The ultralight aircraft have strongly embraced the
> tech and most of the new ships have a BRS system although most never
> carried parachutes in the first place.
> * *I would really love to have a BRS system in my current DG-303 but
> none is available. *Is there even a modification available or are
> there too many liability issues with our fat USA lawyers revving there
> engines. *Maybe the core reason of lack of availability is that the
> American sailplane market is a very low demand market with declining
> membership and current fiberglass ships that seems to last forever.
> How many of your current glider pilot friends are talking about that
> brand new ship they are planning on ordering from Europe for $125K.
> Not many I would imagine. *I long sometimes to travel back in time to
> the age of the Schweitzers when the good old USA was the sailplane
> manufacture of the world. *We were the leaders of flight development
> but have lost that in modern times. *It's kind of sad I think.
>
> JJ *at least you have the option and panel built in your Genesis
> fuselage that it is possible for you to get the upgrade. *Eventually I
> imagine that the availability of BRS will slowly trickle down to
> standard options as it get recognized as a significant safety
> benefit. *Some of the old timers will get converted, some will die
> off. *Us young guys can hardly wait!
>
> JJ, I too lost a friend here in Utah to a crash and wonder if a BRS
> might have saved him. *We readily spend $3K on new winglets but I have
> yet to read about anyone bragging about his new BRS system.
>
> Please, if anyone has some answers, please help! *We need a few
> converts to the benefits and increase in safety of BRS which might
> come from the new younger generation to increase demand. *If we
> request it, they will build it. *I know it is possible for the older
> guys to get converted as I recently discovered in Parowan at the club
> class Nationals that you JJ, are not a spring chicken. *Your passion
> and writing on the message boards for soaring lead me to believe that
> you were much younger. Kudos us young kids would say.
>
> John Ackerson

BRS offers a soft pack that measures 18" (L) X 11.5" (W) X 7.5" (H).
To modify an existing ship one would need to cut a hatch of those
dimensions in the top skin over the wing. It should fit the baggage
compartment of most existing sailplanes. Reinforce the skin and build
in a lip, the cut-out piece could become the hatch. Nylon webs attach
to all 4 lift fittings and the little red handle is routed forward and
mounted on the side of the instrument panel. I see no reason a ship
licenced experimental couldn't be so modified. The BRS-1350 has a 40'
chute and weighs 29#, good for max GW of 1350 and max speed of 138
mph.
Some ships may need to mount the chute farther back which can be done
with longer forward bridles, the Genesis uses 42" forward and 30"
rear. On deployment, some fuselage skin damage may occur, but what the
hell?
JJ

Wayne Paul

August 30th 10, 03:16 PM

Here is information relating to a BRS system installed in a Schreder HP-16.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-16/N8DC/BRS/BRS_in_HP-16.htm

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message ...
On Aug 29, 4:06 pm, flyingmr2 > wrote:

BRS offers a soft pack that measures 18" (L) X 11.5" (W) X 7.5" (H).
To modify an existing ship one would need to cut a hatch of those
dimensions in the top skin over the wing. It should fit the baggage
compartment of most existing sailplanes. Reinforce the skin and build
in a lip, the cut-out piece could become the hatch. Nylon webs attach
to all 4 lift fittings and the little red handle is routed forward and
mounted on the side of the instrument panel. I see no reason a ship
licenced experimental couldn't be so modified. The BRS-1350 has a 40'
chute and weighs 29#, good for max GW of 1350 and max speed of 138
mph.
Some ships may need to mount the chute farther back which can be done
with longer forward bridles, the Genesis uses 42" forward and 30"
rear. On deployment, some fuselage skin damage may occur, but what the
hell?
JJ

Dave Nadler

August 30th 10, 03:40 PM

On Aug 29, 7:06*pm, flyingmr2 > wrote:
>... * * I have put a lot of thought into the manufacturing question and
> have wondered if it is a Euro stigma to American technology or safety
> standards. *

Huh ? American technology ?
Are you aware of all the work Streifeneder has done ?
See: http://www.streifly.de/leistungen-e.htm
Or that this has been an option on some SH sailplanes ?

> It seems that most new sailplanes being produced do not
> have this option. *Most new sailplanes are being built in Europe.

Most pilots don't want it.
Its hard to fit both a chute and a sustainer engine,
most just buy the sustainer.
Lack of interest => lack of options from manufacturers.
Its extremely expensive to design, produce, certify,
and must be justified by actual sales...

>*... We were the leaders of flight development...

Huh ? In gliders ? In 1906 for sure, I have a picture
of that flight on my office wall...

See ya, Dave

John Cochrane[_2_]

August 30th 10, 08:35 PM

>
> Little red handle anyone?
> JJ

If I could put one in my standard category asw 27, I would.

In the meantime, why don't we get together and buy flarms, so we don't
run in to each other in the first place. They're even on sale for the
first 50 orders. I put my order in, so if you get one you won't run in
to me next year!

John Cochrane BB

jcarlyle

August 30th 10, 09:24 PM

With a BRS, what happens to your back and feet when you hit the
ground, still strapped inside the cockpit in a sitting position? At
the minimum I'd think you'd want a real good energy absorbing cushion,
and you probably should remember to lower the gear, too. I know, I
know - better alive than dead. But the thought of being crippled for
life is very sobering, too.

DG has posted some of their thoughts on Recovery Systems:
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/rettungssystem-e.html
Yeah, they're pushing NOAH, but there's some good stuff in this
article.

-John

kirk.stant

August 30th 10, 10:03 PM

> If I could put one in my standard category asw 27, I would.
>
> In the meantime, why don't we get together and buy flarms, so we don't
> run in to each other in the first place. They're even on sale for the
> first 50 orders. I put my order in, so if you get one you won't run in
> to me next year!
>
> John Cochrane BB

I agree with John. I prefer to avoid the midair first. So my
priority is PCAS, FLARM, Mode S transponder (with ADS-B out in the
future). With those systems up and running, the chance of a midair
is drastically reduced, IMO.

So instead of crying for a worst case solution, we should be pushing
for fleet wide adoption of less expensive and more useful solutions -
how about radios and FLARM in all gliders and towplanes? Or audio
varios and radios in all trainers? There is a lot we can do,
relatively inexpensively, before we get to the point of installing BRS
chutes in our gliders!

DG also has their NOAH system that can probably be retrofitted to most
gliders a lot easier than a BRS - that would be my first choice,
instead of riding down in the glider after a midair.

Kirk

Andy[_1_]

August 30th 10, 10:21 PM

On Aug 30, 12:35*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
>In the meantime, why don't we get together and buy flarms

For one reason FLARM is not approved for use in US and for another I'm
not aware of any manufacturer that has published a date when it will
be available and approved for use in US.

I think if potential manufacturers were more open with plans,
specifications, and schedules there would be more interest.

Andy

Darryl Ramm

August 31st 10, 12:13 AM

On Aug 30, 2:21*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Aug 30, 12:35*pm, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
> >In the meantime, why don't we get together and buy flarms
>
> For one reason FLARM is not approved for use in US and for another I'm
> not aware of any manufacturer that has published a date when it will
> be available and approved for use in US.
>
> I think if potential manufacturers were more open with plans,
> specifications, and schedules there would be more interest.
>
> Andy

More interest? Jeez I see a very large interest in the PowerFLARM.

The manufacturer has put back their data for availability.
Distributors like Craggy Aero are now stating availability of
PowerFLARM December 2010. See See http://www.craggyaero.com/collision_avoidance.htm

PowerFLARM cannot be legally sold in the USA without FCC approval, so
that date implies FCC approval. If you want to order one and have
questions about availability or other things call Richard at Craggy,
or any of the other dealers...

There has been lots of comments on r.a.s on specifications. Dave
Nadler, myself and others who are aware of some of the details have
clarified this where there was questions. Seems at least part of the
problem was there were people who wanted to look at the ButterFly/
PowerFLARM European web site and would not believe us that things
there may not exactly apply to the USA version of the product.

Folks are working on putting up a web site with USA specific content,
but in the meantime what else exactly is not clear?

Darryl

Richard[_9_]

August 31st 10, 12:41 AM

Tuno

August 31st 10, 06:46 PM

> Little red handle anyone?

There is a little red handle I would LOVE to have.

Many years ago the skydiving industry came up with a way to jettison a
malfunctioned main canopy and deploy the reserve as a single action by
simply adding a static line from the main parachute's riser to the
reserve parachute's pin. Thus pulling the "cutaway" handle would also
result in a deployed reserve. This system was especially appreciated
at low altitudes!

Since August 4th I've been wondering how difficult it would be to add
a single "red handle" to the glider cockpit, that would be secured to
one of the shoulder straps (i.e. at the pilot's torso, easy to find in
the worst of conditions). Pulling this handle would simultaneously
release the canopy and unbuckle the harness. No fumbling for one set
of handles and then another.

This handle, as I envision it, would look very much like the cutaway
handles in skydiving -- a small pillow attached to teflon cable(s),
brightly colored, hard to pull by accident but easy to find and pull
on purpose.

ted/2NO

Ramy

August 31st 10, 06:54 PM

On Aug 30, 12:35*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > Little red handle anyone?
> > JJ
>
> If I could put one in my standard category asw 27, I would.
>
> In the meantime, why don't we get together and buy flarms, so we don't
> run in to each other in the first place. They're even on sale for the
> first 50 orders. I put my order in, so if you get one you won't run in
> to me next year!
>
> John Cochrane BB

Same here. If there was an option to add a BRS to my 27, I would, even
if it will be a substantial cost.
I flew hang gliders with a BRS system for many years, and know of a
number of hang glider pilots saved by this system.
While I doubt it will help with stall/spin accidents, which still
seems to be the cause of many accidents, a proper system should be
able to save most mid airs, control problems and structural failures.
But in the meantime, to address midairs, the PowerFlarm is the obvious
solution, and I just ordered mine. My hope is that within a year of
it's release, pilots who fly without them will feel unwelcome to a
point they will rather get one...

Ramy

Mike Schumann

August 31st 10, 07:05 PM

On 8/31/2010 12:46 PM, Tuno wrote:
>> Little red handle anyone?
>
> There is a little red handle I would LOVE to have.
>
> Many years ago the skydiving industry came up with a way to jettison a
> malfunctioned main canopy and deploy the reserve as a single action by
> simply adding a static line from the main parachute's riser to the
> reserve parachute's pin. Thus pulling the "cutaway" handle would also
> result in a deployed reserve. This system was especially appreciated
> at low altitudes!
>
> Since August 4th I've been wondering how difficult it would be to add
> a single "red handle" to the glider cockpit, that would be secured to
> one of the shoulder straps (i.e. at the pilot's torso, easy to find in
> the worst of conditions). Pulling this handle would simultaneously
> release the canopy and unbuckle the harness. No fumbling for one set
> of handles and then another.
>
> This handle, as I envision it, would look very much like the cutaway
> handles in skydiving -- a small pillow attached to teflon cable(s),
> brightly colored, hard to pull by accident but easy to find and pull
> on purpose.
>
> ted/2NO

I suspect that one of the principle risk areas for mid-airs (outside of
contests) is in the pattern, near an airport. There is absolutely no
way a conventional chut can save you when you are this low, no matter
how fast you can get out of the glider. A BRS can.

--
Mike Schumann

Andy[_1_]

August 31st 10, 07:08 PM

On Aug 30, 4:13*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:

> Folks are working on putting up a web site with USA specific content,
> but in the meantime what else exactly is not clear?

So you are saying that the only manufacturer's web site that provides
any information on PowerFLARM is not related to the US product, but
you still ask me what is not clear?

I have downloaded and read extensive documentation on FLARM, including
a user manual, installation guide, data port specification and also
checked on a FLARM forum. There is lots of information on the
exisitng FLARM products.

Please let me know when and where I can find the equivalent
information on US Power FLARM. That is the clarity I seek.

I have been interested in PowerFLARM since the first announcement of
an intention to make it available in US. That was a long time ago.
Having an interest is not the same as having an intention to spend a
lot of money on a product that is not yet available and for which no
specifications are published.

So, anyone who wants my money please send me the specifications that
the product is being designed to meet, a definition of what capability
will be in the first release, and a schedule for adding features that
are not included in the first release. First dealer to do that will
have the first bite at my wallet.

Andy

Tony[_5_]

August 31st 10, 07:18 PM

> My hope is that within a year of
> it's release, pilots who fly without them will feel unwelcome to a
> point they will rather get one...
>
> Ramy

will you be establishing a scholarship fund for those of us who feel
unwelcome and unwealthy?

Ramy

August 31st 10, 07:21 PM

On Aug 31, 11:05*am, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 8/31/2010 12:46 PM, Tuno wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Little red handle anyone?
>
> > There is a little red handle I would LOVE to have.
>
> > Many years ago the skydiving industry came up with a way to jettison a
> > malfunctioned main canopy and deploy the reserve as a single action by
> > simply adding a static line from the main parachute's riser to the
> > reserve parachute's pin. Thus pulling the "cutaway" handle would also
> > result in a deployed reserve. This system was especially appreciated
> > at low altitudes!
>
> > Since August 4th I've been wondering how difficult it would be to add
> > a single "red handle" to the glider cockpit, that would be secured to
> > one of the shoulder straps (i.e. at the pilot's torso, easy to find in
> > the worst of conditions). Pulling this handle would simultaneously
> > release the canopy and unbuckle the harness. No fumbling for one set
> > of handles and then another.
>
> > This handle, as I envision it, would look very much like the cutaway
> > handles in skydiving -- a small pillow attached to teflon cable(s),
> > brightly colored, hard to pull by accident but easy to find and pull
> > on purpose.
>
> > ted/2NO
>
> I suspect that one of the principle risk areas for mid-airs (outside of
> contests) is in the pattern, near an airport. *There is absolutely no
> way a conventional chut can save you when you are this low, no matter
> how fast you can get out of the glider. *A BRS can.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I concur. The most difficult and time consuming part is the egress
from the glider, not the release of the straps. It is unlikely to be
able to bailout from a glider below 1000 feet. A BRS could be deployed
instantly even from 100 feet.

Ramy

Tuno

August 31st 10, 07:29 PM

> I suspect that one of the principle risk areas for mid-airs (outside of
> contests) is in the pattern, near an airport. *

Statistics? What data support this suspection?

> There is absolutely no
> way a conventional chut can save you when you are this low, no matter
> how fast you can get out of the glider. *A BRS can.

Not true! Emergency parachutes open in less than 300 feet. Not as good
as a BRS of course, but having a "little red handle" can easily be the
difference in suriviving a collision at low altitude.

Grider Pirate

August 31st 10, 07:38 PM

On Aug 31, 10:54*am, Ramy > wrote:
> On Aug 30, 12:35*pm, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
> > > Little red handle anyone?
> > > JJ
>
> > If I could put one in my standard category asw 27, I would.
>
> > In the meantime, why don't we get together and buy flarms, so we don't
> > run in to each other in the first place. They're even on sale for the
> > first 50 orders. I put my order in, so if you get one you won't run in
> > to me next year!
>
> > John Cochrane BB
>

> But in the meantime, to address midairs, the PowerFlarm is the obvious
> solution, and I just ordered mine. My hope is that within a year of
> it's release, pilots who fly without them will feel unwelcome to a
> point they will rather get one...
>
> Ramy

That will be sad. I hate being unwelcome, but I just used the last of
my space (and no small amount of money) to install a (ADS-B capable)
Transponder, since my immediate concern is airliner traffic. I see
vastly more airliners than gliders when I'm flying.

Ramy

August 31st 10, 07:54 PM

On Aug 31, 11:18*am, Tony > wrote:
> > My hope is that within a year of
> > it's release, pilots who fly without them will feel unwelcome to a
> > point they will rather get one...
>
> > Ramy
>
> will you be establishing a scholarship fund for those of us who feel
> unwelcome and unwealthy?

I realize I may made myself unpopular with this comment ;-) I believe
the biggest glider to glider risk is during XC or contests flights, in
which the majority of pilots owns glass ships and likely can afford
it. Those who obviously can't should get some slack and perhaps use
the radio more often for position reports. But those who fly 100K
ships should have hard time explaining why they don't use Flarm.
My gut feeling is that 90% of pilots who are at risk can efford it,
which sould be sufficient to significantly reduce the risk.

Ramy

Darryl Ramm

August 31st 10, 08:08 PM

On Aug 31, 11:08*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Aug 30, 4:13*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > Folks are working on putting up a web site with USA specific content,
> > but in the meantime what else exactly is not clear?
>
> So you are saying that the only manufacturer's web site that provides
> any information on PowerFLARM is not related to the US product, but
> you still ask me what is not clear?
>
> I have downloaded and read extensive documentation on FLARM, including
> a user manual, installation guide, data port specification and also
> checked on a FLARM forum. *There is lots of information on the
> existing FLARM products.

No what I was asking is what is not clear to you given I believe all
questions raised by anybody about this product on r.a.s. have pretty
much been answered. I'm trying to understand what else remains that is
causing confusion. If I can I'll either answer it here or make sure it
gets answered and ideally put up on the USA webs site.

The difference between the USA product and the European web site that
caused most confusion is the IGC recorder (a standard feature with up
to three diamond certification level in the USA model). I think that
has all been pointed out here before and is clear in Richard's web
site.

Also pointed out here before is ADS-B TIS-B is not shipping in the
initial product, as I've tried to point out before that's likely not
mentioned in the European web site since it is not relevant to use
there.

Documentation would be great, I'd love that too, but this is not yet a
shipping product.

So what else is not clear?

Darryl

Tony[_5_]

August 31st 10, 08:33 PM

On Aug 31, 1:54*pm, Ramy > wrote:
> On Aug 31, 11:18*am, Tony > wrote:
>
> > > My hope is that within a year of
> > > it's release, pilots who fly without them will feel unwelcome to a
> > > point they will rather get one...
>
> > > Ramy
>
> > will you be establishing a scholarship fund for those of us who feel
> > unwelcome and unwealthy?
>
> I realize I may made myself unpopular with this comment ;-) I believe
> the biggest glider to glider risk is during XC or contests flights, in
> which the majority of pilots owns glass ships and likely can afford
> it. Those who obviously can't should get some slack and perhaps use
> the radio more often for position reports. But those who fly 100K
> ships should have hard time explaining why they don't use Flarm.
> My gut feeling is that 90% of pilots who are at risk can efford it,
> which sould be sufficient to significantly reduce the risk.
>
> Ramy

fair enough. plus us low cost gliders usually have colorful paint jobs
and low closing speeds on our side :)

Eric Greenwell

August 31st 10, 09:16 PM

On 8/31/2010 10:54 AM, Ramy wrote:
> On Aug 30, 12:35 pm, John >
> wrote:
>
>>> Little red handle anyone?
>>> JJ
>>>
>> If I could put one in my standard category asw 27, I would.
>>
>> In the meantime, why don't we get together and buy flarms, so we don't
>> run in to each other in the first place. They're even on sale for the
>> first 50 orders. I put my order in, so if you get one you won't run in
>> to me next year!
>>
>> John Cochrane BB
>>
> Same here. If there was an option to add a BRS to my 27, I would, even
> if it will be a substantial cost.
> I flew hang gliders with a BRS system for many years, and know of a
> number of hang glider pilots saved by this system.
> While I doubt it will help with stall/spin accidents, which still
> seems to be the cause of many accidents, a proper system should be
> able to save most mid airs, control problems and structural failures.
>
I'd like to see a list of incidents where a BRS could have avoided a
fatality. Most of the fatal mid-airs I'm aware of, the pilot was almost
surely incapacitated by the collision. The control problems and
structural failures seem to have happy endings because the pilot is able
to bail out. My impression is the BRS would have a very small effect on
the USA fatality rate.

The DG web site (referenced earlier) comes to the same conclusion: a lot
of expense for very few incidents where it is useful. DG's point is the
money should be spent elsewhere in new gliders, and retrofitting did not
seem an option for the big majority of glider owners. In fact, if the
factories were to simply make Flarm/PowerFlarm standard equipment, that
might reduce risk more than offering a BRS as an option.

I think getting a lot of USA competition pilots to use a PowerFlarm
would reduce fatalities more than the same pilots equipping with BRS,
and it can be done in time for next season at far less cost, even if you
could buy a retrofit for the same price as a factory installed system.
Here's an idea to encourage it: you buy a PowerFlarm at regular price,
then you send them a trace from the PowerFlarm logger showing you flew
at least one contest day with it, and they send you a rebate of, say,
$200. The SSA could do the same thing, offering a rebate on the entry
fee for the first contest you fly in with your PowerFlarm. PowerFlarm
benefits as the increasing installed base makes it more desirable to use
a PowerFlarm, and contest pilots would make good champions for spreading
the word.

Get PowerFlarm and SSA to do it, and it'd be a tempting offer - heck, it
might even increase contest participation to get the rebate, AND because
some pilots decide the collision risk is decreased enough to draw them
into a contest they would otherwise avoid.
--

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

Jim Logajan

August 31st 10, 10:21 PM

Tuno > wrote:
>> I suspect that one of the principle risk areas for mid-airs (outside of
>> contests) is in the pattern, near an airport. *
>
> Statistics? What data support this suspection?

"A recent AOPA Air Safety Foundation study of midair collisions revealed
that 49 percent occurred in the traffic pattern or on approach to or
departure from an airport. Of the other 51 percent, about half occurred
during en route climb, cruise, or descent, and the rest resulted from
formation flights or other hazardous activities. Eighty percent of the
midair collisions that occurred during "normal" flight activities happened
within ten miles of an airport, and 78 percent of the midair collisions
that occurred around the traffic pattern happened at nontowered airports."

From:
http://www.aopa.org/asf/epilot_acc/e_chi97fa218a.html

>> There is absolutely no
>> way a conventional chut can save you when you are this low, no matter
>> how fast you can get out of the glider. *A BRS can.
>
> Not true! Emergency parachutes open in less than 300 feet. Not as good
> as a BRS of course, but having a "little red handle" can easily be the
> difference in suriviving a collision at low altitude.

I believe he was considering not just the time for the chute to deploy, but
the time to open or eject the canopy, release the seatbelt and shoulder
harness, and jump out. If the glider is damaged and tumbling down (e.g.
loss of a wing) then egress is probably that much more difficult. And then
after all that, pull the chute cord. This assumes the pilot has the
presence of mind (and courage) to do something they may not have enough
training to do in a prompt and decisive manner.

A rocket-propelled whole-aircraft parachute is likely to deploy much faster
and requires just one action by the pilot. I believe that the recent RANS
S-9 that lost a wing while flying acerobatics in Argentina actually wrapped
itself around the parachute lines (which is presumably why it landed under
the chute nose-first) but still managed to deliver the pilot to safety even
in an unintended attitude.

There are exceptions of course where a BRS has not helped, and critics use
such anecdotes to "prove" that such devices don't provide perfect safety.
It is of course a strawman argument. Like all safety devices a BRS can only
improve the odds of surviving an otherwise fatal mishap.

Jim Logajan

August 31st 10, 10:33 PM

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> I think getting a lot of USA competition pilots to use a PowerFlarm
> would reduce fatalities more than the same pilots equipping with BRS,
> and it can be done in time for next season at far less cost, even if you
> could buy a retrofit for the same price as a factory installed system.

Given the finite resources glider pilots have (only so much time and money)
it is reasonable to compute the benefit/cost ratio of BRS versus Flarm and
prioritize investment accordingly.

But whereas a BRS is useful for a large number of accident classes, (e.g.
one's wings fold up (there was just such a case discussed here)) something
like Flarm helps only with a single class of accidents. On the other hand,
Flarm is less expensive and easier to employ.

Beyond having both in one's safety repertoire, absent statistical
estimates, it isn't immediately clear to me that one should spend one's
finite money on Flarm first rather than a BRS first. The latter is not an
available option for a lot of gliders, though.

JJ Sinclair

August 31st 10, 10:41 PM

Darryl Ramm

September 1st 10, 12:02 AM

On Aug 31, 2:41*pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
[snip]
> The BRS has been
> demonstrated to work as low as 260 feet during the FAA certification
> of the Cirrus. This could save you from a mid-air in the pattern or
> that all time biggest killer. stall/spin turning final.

Are you sure? Does anybody know at what height most spin-ins from a
base/final happen?

My concern there is the glider is already pretty low, especially if
trying to stretch their glider/hold off the turn. And the pilot is
already likely far behind the aircraft and so may be some delay in
pulling the handle.

I'm not disputing the benefits of a BRS in other situations (including
collisions in the pattern) I'm just not sure they would necessarily be
that useful in the classic over rudder/under piloting stall/spin off a
turn from base to final.

[snip]
> Cheers,
> JJ

I am hoping you buy a PowerFLARM as well as this BRS chute.

Darryl

Andy[_1_]

September 1st 10, 12:46 AM

On Aug 31, 12:08*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> So what else is not clear?

Do you represent the manufacturer? If so, in what capacity?

Andy

Darryl Ramm

September 1st 10, 02:31 AM

On Aug 31, 4:46*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Aug 31, 12:08*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > So what else is not clear?
>
> Do you represent the manufacturer? *If so, in what capacity?
>
> Andy

Represent anybody? On a good day I can barely represent myself. No I
do not represent Flarm, Trig, Becker, NavWorx, or any other company
whose product you'll see me talk about in detail on r.a.s. But I care
passionately that people understand technology related to collision
avoidance. Transponders, Flarm, ADS-B, glider batteries, etc. There is
all too much confusion about this stuff. I've been flying where we
have had some mid-air collisions in the area and other incidents and
lost too many people I know to mid-air collisions. This goes back to
the day I was flying out of Minden when the Hawker and ASG-29
collided. And all the subsequent confusion and misinformation I saw on
transponders, glider batteries, ATC radar, TCAS etc. so I've worked to
especially try to educate pilots in Northern California and Nevada on
those topics.

I'm voluntarily helping the folks who are putting together the USA web
site for PowerFLARM, esp. reviewing technical content on collision
avoidance systems. And I do give (free) feedback and suggestions to
Flarm folks at times on things, just as I do to Trig and others. e.g.
You'll see features in future Trig releases that I've pushed for. I've
also worked to educate some GA industry authors on technology issues
and in discussions with both pilot organizations and some avionics
manufacturers about how ADS-B things will or will not work easily for
pilots to use. In the weeds stuff but things I want to see the
manufacturers think of and want to see reviewers start looking for as
they discuss technology and review products. And some of that is
starting to slowly appear e.g. see Max Trescott in a recent EAA Sports
Aviation Magazine nicely clarifyied an ADS-B transmitter is required
for TIS-B to be received by a UAT receiver - the first time I've even
seen something as simple and important as that mentioned in any
popular coverage of ADS-B (thanks Max).

I'm pulling together content for our annual PASCO safety seminar where
I'll be talking about collision avoidance technology so I want to know
what things people find confusing or want information on. And Urs
Rothacher CEO of Flarm is speaking at that seminar on the history of
Flarm development. Should be interesting, well his bit at least.

So seriously what else is not clear? (BTW I just found one myself,
people need the power output specs for powering an external PDA etc.
to see if it can power their PDA/PNA. Also the actual power specs of
the device are still not public AFAIK).

Thanks

Darryl

Darryl Ramm

September 1st 10, 02:37 AM

On Aug 31, 4:02*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
[snip]
>
> I am hoping you buy a PowerFLARM as well as this BRS chute.
>
> Darryl

I'm also mildly terrified of J.J. having access to a ballistic
anything while in the middle of a heated contest rules argument :-)

Darryl

Tom Claffey

September 1st 10, 03:26 AM

Flarm has been mandatory in Australia for at least the last 3 years in
National and regional comps. There has been no mid-airs in comps in that
time. There were on average probably one ore a little more mid-airs a year
before that.
It won't stop them all, I nearly got cleaned up by an inexperienced Pilot
this year but at least I knew he was there and I took avoiding action.
The last WGC in Hungary had about 70% Flarm, I reckon the guys without it
[on purpose for "tactical" reasons] were idiots!!
Initially the units were <$500, now still under $1000 and can be linked to
maps etc. Towplanes have them too!
You guys in the US really should get on board! Whatever frequency your
government will allow should be able to be programmed in both Euroflarm
and Ozflarm.
I am seriously considering if I will fly in Uvalde or any further WGC
without mandatory Flarm.
Tom Claffey

Darryl Ramm

September 1st 10, 03:40 AM

On Aug 31, 7:26*pm, Tom Claffey > wrote:
> Flarm has been mandatory in Australia for at least the last 3 years in
> National and regional comps. There has been no mid-airs in comps in that
> time. There were on average probably one ore a little more mid-airs a year
> before that.
> It won't stop them all, I nearly got cleaned up by an inexperienced Pilot
> this year but at least I knew he was there and I took avoiding action.
> The last WGC in Hungary had about 70% Flarm, I reckon the guys without it
> [on purpose for "tactical" reasons] were idiots!!
> Initially the units were <$500, now still under $1000 and can be linked to
> maps etc. Towplanes have them too!
> You guys in the US really should get on board! Whatever frequency your
> government will allow should be able to be programmed in both Euroflarm
> and Ozflarm.
> I am seriously considering if I will fly in Uvalde or any further WGC
> without mandatory Flarm.
> Tom Claffey

The issue in the USA has really not been willingness to adopt Flarm
Technology amongst pilots. Flarm has not had product available for
sale in the USA. Likely for multiple reasons, including concern about
liability and the need for FCC approval which is a bit tougher than
many other countries. The choice of the actual frequncy to be used has
been done for years (and your Flarm units will probalby tune to that
frequncy if you brought them here). The first chance for USA pilots to
adopt this technology will be the upcoming PowerFLARM product.

I am not surprised at all to see Australia leading with technology
adoption(*), but the situation in the USA is a bit more complex with
more issues than airliner and GA traffic issues. That maybe makes the
PowerFLARM with 1090ES data-in/PCAS maybe even more interesting here,
but at a higher price than the older Flarm units.

Darryl
(* I am an Australian).

Morgans[_2_]

September 1st 10, 06:49 AM

"Ramy" > wrote

I concur. The most difficult and time consuming part is the egress
from the glider, not the release of the straps. It is unlikely to be
able to bailout from a glider below 1000 feet. A BRS could be deployed
instantly even from 100 feet.

Ramy
************
I wonder if you could have the red handle attached to an emergency release
pin on the gliders canopy, as in bubble clear thing over the top of the
cockpit. There could then be a line going from the bubble, to a release for
the seat safety harness, and the top of the parachute.

Jettisoning the bubble would carry the chute out in the slipstream to
inflate, which would then lift the pilot from the plane.

An idea, or just a poor idea? Sort of a poor man's ejection seat?
--
Jim in NC

Walt Connelly

September 1st 10, 08:02 AM

I have felt for some time now that my back-pack parachute provides
little more than a false sense of security..............I don't think
I would ever get out of a spinning, tumbling ship. The BRS has been
demonstrated to work as low as 260 feet during the FAA certification
of the Cirrus. This could save you from a mid-air in the pattern or
that all time biggest killer. stall/spin turning final. BRS also
provides a way out of structural failures or pilot incapacitation. How
about stuck low on the wrong side of the ridge with nothing but trees
in all directions?

The BRS descent rate is about like a normal parachute (like stepping
off a 7' ledge). The Genesis installation calls for a 4-point bridle
that attaches to all 4 lift fittings, this will result in a wings-
level, slight nose down attitude under the chuts. Lowering the gear
will absorb some of the landing forces.

Flarm is great and I'd buy it in heartbeat if everybody had it. Lets
not forget that 2 of the 4 mid-airs in the US last year involved a tow
plane and some of them still don't even have radios, let alone
transpponders, Pcas or Flarm.

Bottom line is; We are all the chairman of our own safety committee
and we must take the actions we believe to be the best course to keep
us out of harms way. For me that includes installing a BRS.
Cheers,
JJ

I have always felt that listening to those with greater experience than myself is one of the best safety devices. Seems that today people spend more time flying with their heads inside the cockpit than outside. With a parachute, BRS, FLARM, survival kit, bail out bottle, knife, gun, flares, medical kit, lunch, snacks, condoms and everything else one could carry in a glider, it's a wonder these things can get off the ground.

As a relative newbie to the world of gliding, I have in my some 100 flight had two close calls. I consider myself a heads up kind of guy and try hard to keep my head on a swivel, my eyes wide open and paying attention.

I have asked a few local pilots why it seems that the preferred color for gliders appears to be white. I understand that the sun might degrade a more brightly painted ship faster than a base white one. Is this really true? It would seem to me that the cheapest form of avoidance would be making ourselves more visible. I am in the market for an older, aluminum ship and would consider painting it bright red if it would increase my visibility.

I understand that FLARM only works if the other guy has one. I guess for the time being I will have to depend on my parachute and luck for survival, along with a healthy dose of paying attention.

Walt

Wayne Paul

September 1st 10, 01:57 PM

"Walt Connelly" > wrote in message ...
>
.... Snip ...
..
>
> I have asked a few local pilots why it seems that the preferred color
> for gliders appears to be white. I understand that the sun might
> degrade a more brightly painted ship faster than a base white one. Is
> this really true? It would seem to me that the cheapest form of
> avoidance would be making ourselves more visible.

.... Snip ...

> Walt

Here is an article you may want to read.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Construction/Color_Temp.html

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/

Surfer![_2_]

September 1st 10, 04:48 PM

"Ramy" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
> I believe
> the biggest glider to glider risk is during XC or contests flights, in
> which the majority of pilots owns glass ships and likely can afford
> it. Those who obviously can't should get some slack and perhaps use
> the radio more often for position reports. But those who fly 100K
> ships should have hard time explaining why they don't use Flarm.
> My gut feeling is that 90% of pilots who are at risk can efford it,
> which sould be sufficient to significantly reduce the risk.
>
> Ramy

We spend what we can afford on our gliders. For most of us (including me)
there is previous little left over for much else - I certainly cannot afford
to upgrade from a £16k ship to a £26k one, or even a £20k one.

Additionally, in Europe there are also the EASA hoops that would have to be
jumped and that is neither simple or cheap.

Surfer![_2_]

September 1st 10, 04:54 PM

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> I have felt for some time now that my back-pack parachute provides
> little more than a false sense of security..............I don't think
> I would ever get out of a spinning, tumbling ship.
<snip>

Personally I know one glider pilot whose life was saved after a mid-air by
his parachute, and I know of at least one more. I also know of a poor chap
who managed to egress from his glider but whose parachute malfunctioned. :(

So, your parachute as well as being a pricey cushion might save your life
one day.

How easy it is go get out might also depend on the glider design as well as
what has happened to it. It seems likely to me that the AS front canopy
hinge designs with a lifting panel leave a lot more room than the SH side
hinge ones especially if the panel is non-lifting. I got in a Discus with a
non-lifting panel once, and the thought crossed my mind that it would
probably be very difficult to get out in a hurry, whereas my own has a
front-hinged canopy and a massive gap once it's open - or the canopy is
removed.

BTW I pulled the handle on my parachute last time it was repacked - was
surprised how little force was needed, and how little happened given I was
stood on the floor in the packing room!

Surfer![_2_]

September 1st 10, 05:01 PM

"Walt Connelly" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
>
> I have asked a few local pilots why it seems that the preferred color
> for gliders appears to be white. I understand that the sun might
> degrade a more brightly painted ship faster than a base white one. Is
> this really true? It would seem to me that the cheapest form of
> avoidance would be making ourselves more visible. I am in the market
> for an older, aluminum ship and would consider painting it bright red if
> it would increase my visibility.
<snip>

On a sunny day, put your hand on a red nose or wing tip on a glass glider,
then put it on the white bits. The temperature difference is very obvious.

There were also some trials done about visibility in the UK, the conclusion
was that mirror film on the leading edges was the most effective thing to
do. However I'm not sure where the glider makers stand on that, nor how
much the tiny edge of the film upsets the airflow and hence the lift.

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/Data/glider-conspicuity-study.pdf

kirk.stant

September 1st 10, 07:18 PM

On Aug 31, 4:33*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> But whereas a BRS is useful for a large number of accident classes, (e.g.
> one's wings fold up (there was just such a case discussed here)) something
> like Flarm helps only with a single class of accidents. On the other hand,
> Flarm is less expensive and easier to employ.
>
> Beyond having both in one's safety repertoire, absent statistical
> estimates, it isn't immediately clear to me that one should spend one's
> finite money on Flarm first rather than a BRS first. The latter is not an
> available option for a lot of gliders, though.

Funny, I come to the exact opposite conclusion - Collision avoidance
technology/procedures are more cost effective than after-the-fact
safety devices.

In my 3000+ hours of glider and light plane flying (and 2000+ of
military), ive had numerous close calls (near midairs) and many of
those resolved via early detection of the threat. I've never had an
actual collision. So to me, it's better to make my ability to see and
avoid more efficient, than to beef up my ability to survive the
collision.

BTW, if all else fails and you are unable to physically get out of you
cockpit after a collision, just jettison the canopy, undo the straps,
lean forward and pull your D-ring. You WILL leave the cockpit. It
WILL hurt. You MAY survive. Beats the alternative, though!

Kirk
66

jcarlyle

September 1st 10, 07:47 PM

Interesting! I had wondered about this possibility, but never saw
anything on it. Sounds like you know more than you're saying - where
could I go for more details? Send it to me off line, if you like.

-John

On Sep 1, 2:18 pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> BTW, if all else fails and you are unable to physically get out of you
> cockpit after a collision, just jettison the canopy, undo the straps,
> lean forward and pull your D-ring. You WILL leave the cockpit. It
> WILL hurt. You MAY survive. Beats the alternative, though!

JJ Sinclair

September 1st 10, 09:27 PM

> BTW, if all else fails and you are unable to physically get out of you
> cockpit after a collision, just jettison the canopy, undo the straps,
> lean forward and pull your D-ring. *You WILL leave the cockpit. *It
> WILL hurt. *You MAY survive. *Beats the alternative, though!

I know a glider pilot that did this (pull the ripcord while seated in
the sailplane), the pilot chute deployed and she was extracted from
the cockpit OK.

I knew another pilot that tried this, the chute deployed right into
the tail feathers! A tumbling mass of glider, nylon and pilot
descended back to earth.

We need something more reliable with predictable results.

JJ

EdByars

September 1st 10, 10:46 PM

On Sep 1, 4:27*pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> > BTW, if all else fails and you are unable to physically get out of you
> > cockpit after a collision, just jettison the canopy, undo the straps,
> > lean forward and pull your D-ring. *You WILL leave the cockpit. *It
> > WILL hurt. *You MAY survive. *Beats the alternative, though!
>
> I know a glider pilot that did this (pull the ripcord while seated in
> the sailplane), the pilot chute deployed and she was extracted from
> the cockpit OK.
>
> I knew another pilot that tried this, the chute deployed right into
> the tail feathers! A tumbling mass of glider, nylon and pilot
> descended back to earth.
>
> We need something more reliable with predictable results.
>
> JJ

For decades at least once or twice each contest I use to practice
getting out of the cockpit with my chute on after a flight. In the
1990s (my late 60s and 70s) I got too old to easily and quickly do it.
I was (and am still) convinced that I would be unable to exit under
any positive G situation (even +1). I had lost more than a couple of
friends who I thought maybe could have survived if able to jump. I
thought (and still think) this ability is a major safety
consideration. So during the last four or five years I competed
(1998-2003) I used a NOAH like system I designed. Cost was <100 bucks.
At a paint ball store I got most of the parts…a small on board CO2
tank (about 3to4” dia. And 15-18”long) and a gallon or two size refill
tank for the crew car or front of the trailer. I found a small 90
degree valve with handle (not knob) at the hardware, two high pressure
lines, one from the tank (wedged behind the seat) along the side just
below the gunwale to the valve mounted there next to my water dump
lever (in a Discus, later my LS-8 and finally my ASW-28). Another line
ran from the valve down under my cushion to the bladder. I sketched up
a neat expandable bladder but never found the right source to make it
so I continued to use an ATV inner tube folded over I found for
initial testing.
With about 1200psi in the tank a flick of the valve would raise my
fanny, with chute, up to the gunwale in about 2 seconds. I did many
tests in my shop and it was effortless to roll out and fall on the
mattress beside the cockpit.
Later when DG developed the NOAH system they had to incorporate
complicated canopy and seat belt release systems which made it
expensive. For liability reasons no company (or person) could make
such a system for resale without the automatic systems. A BIG factor
in my system was my reliance on my personal drill while in the cockpit
with it armed. I developed a rigid 1,2,3 drill I practiced when I got
in and just before take off. 1) release canopy, 2) twist belt release,
3) twist valve. My checklist include touching each in order just
before rolling. Once in my shop while testing I inadvertently hit the
valve with the belts tight. It really pushed me hard against the belts
but not painfully so and I did not feel incapacitated (just silly!)
After that, just as another backup I keep a knife in the side pouch to
deal with the bladder if necessary.
For liability reasons I never made another system for friends who
requested. Several wanted one just to get out on the ground after a
flight. I used mine this way many times. Cracking the valve slowly
raised you up so you could easily step out. It took less than five
minutes to recharge the tank.
The system was rather gut simple but potentially dangerous. I was a
licensed professional engineer and an FAA A&P at the time. My gliders
were “experimental”. I never did any “paperwork”.
This post is a discussion of my experiences and is in no way a
recommendation of any kind.
Ed Byars

Eric Greenwell

September 1st 10, 10:49 PM

On 9/1/2010 8:48 AM, Surfer! wrote:
>
>
> "Ramy" > wrote in message
> ...
> <snip>
>> I believe
>> the biggest glider to glider risk is during XC or contests flights, in
>> which the majority of pilots owns glass ships and likely can afford
>> it. Those who obviously can't should get some slack and perhaps use
>> the radio more often for position reports. But those who fly 100K
>> ships should have hard time explaining why they don't use Flarm.
>> My gut feeling is that 90% of pilots who are at risk can efford it,
>> which sould be sufficient to significantly reduce the risk.
>>
>> Ramy
>
> We spend what we can afford on our gliders. For most of us (including
> me) there is previous little left over for much else - I certainly
> cannot afford to upgrade from a £16k ship to a £26k one, or even a
> £20k one.
>
> Additionally, in Europe there are also the EASA hoops that would have
> to be jumped and that is neither simple or cheap.
>
A Flarm is less than £1k, isn't it? And what are the EASA hoops you'd
have to jump through to put a small, self-contained box on top of your
instrument panel?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

Andy[_1_]

September 2nd 10, 01:31 AM

On Aug 31, 7:40*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> The choice of the actual frequncy to be used has
> been done for years (and your Flarm units will probalby tune to that
> frequncy if you brought them here). The first chance for USA pilots to
> adopt this technology will be the upcoming PowerFLARM product.

More clarity requested.

If Existing FLARM supports the freq to be allocated in US why are not
manufacturers of those units jumping on the US market and getting FCC
certification. I know what freqs are supported by FLARM as I have the
documentation. What freq is being used for USA and where is that
published?

Why are we waiting for PowerFLAM with it's still undocumented new
features when FLARM products already exist?

On the other hand, if Power FLARM is being built with an RF section
that is unique to USA then potential purchasers may want to know that.
It could limit both resale value and its usefulness for US pilots that
fly overseas.

So why is US PowerFLARM not identical with PowerFLARM being marketed
to the rest of the world and are the systems interoperable?

Andy

Andreas Maurer

September 2nd 10, 01:51 AM

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 17:31:59 -0700 (PDT), Andy >
wrote:

>More clarity requested.
>
>If Existing FLARM supports the freq to be allocated in US why are not
>manufacturers of those units jumping on the US market and getting FCC
>certification.

US lawyers and US product liability.

Regards
Andreas

Darryl Ramm

September 2nd 10, 02:47 AM

On Sep 1, 5:31*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Aug 31, 7:40*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > The choice of the actual frequncy to be used has
> > been done for years (and your Flarm units will probalby tune to that
> > frequncy if you brought them here). The first chance for USA pilots to
> > adopt this technology will be the upcoming PowerFLARM product.
>
> More clarity requested.
>
> If Existing FLARM supports the freq to be allocated in US why are not
> manufacturers of those units jumping on the US market and getting FCC
> certification. *I know what freqs are supported by FLARM as I have the
> documentation. What freq is being used for USA and where is that
> published?

We've been over the frequency here, I've said 915 MHz, there was some
innocent confusion from others and Urs from Flarm confirmed its
915MHz. Its on the 915 MHz ISM band using spread spectrum
communications. This has actually been known in the Flarm community
for a long time. Discussed on Flarm forums and it is mentioned in some
Flarm documentation (but not all versions of all docs - no I don't
know why).

> Why are we waiting for PowerFLAM with it's still undocumented new
> features when FLARM products already exist?

Because there are no FCC approved Flarm products from any vendor that
can legally be sold in the USA.

Flarm is busting their ass to get the new generation RF unit in
PowerFLARM FCC approved, its non-trivial work. As in previous products
the RF unit is Flarm's technology and they are buried in work getting
the certification done. I doubt they would be able to stop work on a
new generation product right now and go help others certify existing
products. Flarm is not a multinational company with unlimited
resources, they are a small group of pretty clever engineers.

> On the other hand, if Power FLARM is being built with an RF section
> that is unique to USA then potential purchasers may want to know that.
> It could limit both resale value and its usefulness for US pilots that
> fly overseas.

I know enough to say that the RF unit on the PowerFLARM is
definitively not "unique to the USA". PowerFLARM units brought here
and brought overseas will work in any location.

> So why is US PowerFLARM not identical with PowerFLARM being marketed
> to the rest of the world and are the systems interoperable?
>
> Andy

The USA is different from the rest of the world. Starting with we have
no Flarm installed base here and we have ADS-B data-out rolling out
here that touches a large number of aircraft unlike anywhere else.
That combination is unique. And I suspect that is largely driving
Flarm to enter the USA market with a combined ADS-B receiver/Flarm
product. With how complex things are already with ADS-B I am actually
glad they are doing that.

Darryl

Chris Nicholas[_2_]

September 2nd 10, 05:57 AM

Eric, as I posted earlier, on another thread, here in the UK I have
avoided the EASA paperwork problems by using a basic Flarm, held by
hook and loop tape on top of the instrument coaming, run from a
dedicated battery separate from the main glider instrument supply and
carried behind the seat, all of which I carry on to the glider as
personal equipment. The same battery drives the smallest PCAS unit,
fastened similarly and also personal carry on equipment. Total cost of
the two when I bought them was about £1000.

If you want to see a picture of my glider with its Flarm, PCAS, and
other bolt on goodies on the instrument panel, see :

http://picasaweb.google.com/cnich15000/DropBox?authkey=Gv1sRgCPDsytW03-n8WA#5502778413677251106
..

Chris N

Erik Braun

September 2nd 10, 07:39 AM

JJ Sinclair schrieb:
> We need something more reliable with predictable results.

Akaflieg Darmstadt is developing Soteira to extract pilots from the
aircraft by means of a small rocket. Their new training glider D-43 will
be the first plane to have the system built in.

http://www.akaflieg.tu-darmstadt.de/soteira/index.php

Regards, Erik.

Surfer![_2_]

September 2nd 10, 11:49 AM

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/1/2010 8:48 AM, Surfer! wrote:
<snip>
>>
> A Flarm is less than £1k, isn't it? And what are the EASA hoops you'd have
> to jump through to put a small, self-contained box on top of your
> instrument panel?

Sorry misread the post I replied to and thought he was saying we should all
have a ballistic thingie. However I do know people for whom a Flarm would
be hard to afford, and I'd also comment that the type that sites on top of
the instrument panel isn't a good choice if the coaming it sits on gets
ejected with the canopy. To my mind a Red Box style would be better for
those gliders as it won't involve any wiring between the canopy etc. and the
rest of the glider.

Walt Connelly

September 2nd 10, 12:37 PM

JJ Sinclair schrieb:
We need something more reliable with predictable results.

Akaflieg Darmstadt is developing Soteira to extract pilots from the
aircraft by means of a small rocket. Their new training glider D-43 will
be the first plane to have the system built in.

http://www.akaflieg.tu-darmstadt.de/soteira/index.php

Regards, Erik.

Mein Deutch ist frickinlousy. Not sure this is a viable idea, soon our max pilot weight will be so limited that only jockeys will be allowed to fly. We could add PLD's and butt kits to our chutes in the event we do egress successfully and come down in the woods miles from civilization. Perhaps a small, portable strobe light would be a good idea. Remember your snake bite kit for Florida and out west where rattlers are common. How about a set of water wings or a raft if we come down in a lake or river?

Talking with a friend of mine from Vietnam, an extra set of glasses in the event of a bailout would be a good idea, along with trying to secure those you are wearing to your head. The opening shock of a chute might dislodge most common eyeglasses, if they made it that far after the egress. Not sure I could see well enough then to avoid power lines and the like. Heads up folks.

Walt

Wayne Paul

September 2nd 10, 01:54 PM

"Walt Connelly" > wrote in message ...
>
> .... Snip ....

> Talking with a friend of mine from Vietnam, an extra set of glasses in
> the event of a bailout would be a good idea, along with trying to secure
> those you are wearing to your head. The opening shock of a chute might
> dislodge most common eyeglasses, if they made it that far after the
> egress. Not sure I could see well enough then to avoid power lines
> and the like. Heads up folks.
>
Good point Walt. I once lost the canopy of a HP-16 on takeoff. My hat was the first thing to leave the cockpit followed immediately by my glasses. (Both were found in the grass between the runway and taxiway. ) The chances of keeping your glasses during a bailout without the aid of an athletic strap are between slim and none.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-16/nocan.htm

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/

Andy[_1_]

September 2nd 10, 03:38 PM

On Sep 1, 5:51*pm, Andreas Maurer > wrote:

> US lawyers and US product liability.

Yes, that was understood to be one of the reasons FLARM was not
available in USA in the past. I have to wonder if making US Power
FLARM somehow different from PowerFLARM sold to the rest of the world,
and having a separate a US website, is perhaps an attempt to legally
separate the two PowerFLARM variants.

I don't see how that would work though if the manufacturing company
was the same and the alerting algorithms are common to all FLARM
products.

I've been subscribed to the PowerFLARM newsletter since Feb 2010 and
have not seen any information there, or on the PowerFLARM website,
that suggests a different product will be sold in USA.

Andy

Andy[_10_]

September 2nd 10, 03:41 PM

Darryl Ramm

September 2nd 10, 06:31 PM

On Sep 2, 7:38*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Sep 1, 5:51*pm, Andreas Maurer > wrote:
>
> > US lawyers and US product liability.
>
> Yes, that was understood to be one of the reasons FLARM was not
> available in USA in the past. * I have to wonder if making US Power
> FLARM somehow different from PowerFLARM sold to the rest of the world,
> and having a separate a US website, is perhaps an attempt to legally
> separate the two PowerFLARM variants.
>
> I don't see how that would work though if the manufacturing company
> was the same and the alerting algorithms are common to all FLARM
> products.

You know there are often simple answers to simple questions without
getting into all these complex worries. The web content for the USA is
simply being coordinated by the USA distributor and others who want to
see appropriate USA technical content available. See other comments
below why this is needed.

> I've been subscribed to the PowerFLARM newsletter since Feb 2010 and
> have not seen any information there, or on the PowerFLARM website,
> that suggests a different product will be sold in USA.

Yes it would be great to have more information on newsletters etc. I
don't know why that is not happening, besides the team just being
buried with work. I think most people are trusting that guys who have
delivered Flarm in the past with huge success know what they are
doing.

I've tried point out before, but will do so again, is that the reason
there needs to be a USA web site is the market is different and there
are some product differences. The market differs in ADS-B adoption/
mandates here and how ADS-B will work. Key USA issues/features like
ADS-R and TIS-B make no sense to have on a European web site but very
important to talk about on a USA web site. And because of differences
in ADS-B (and even transponders) what is said for one market can be
confusing or just plain wrong in another. The product difference I
have worried about are as simple as ButterFly is offering different
levels of flight recorder as standard in different markets, that has
already caused confusion here. That's why the flight recorder was not
mentioned on the European site and is mentioned on the Craggy Aero
site (-- I know Richard is actively working to make sure all the info
on his site is up to data and correct for the USA market) and also
needs to be on a USA product web site.

Darryl

Ramy

September 2nd 10, 10:20 PM

On Sep 2, 3:49*am, "Surfer!" > wrote:
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On 9/1/2010 8:48 AM, Surfer! wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > A Flarm is less than £1k, isn't it? And what are the EASA hoops you'd have
> > to jump through to put a small, self-contained box on top of your
> > instrument panel?
>
> Sorry misread the post I replied to and thought he was saying we should all
> have a ballistic thingie. *However I do know people for whom a Flarm would
> be hard to afford, and I'd also comment that the type that sites on top of
> the instrument panel isn't a good choice if the coaming it sits on gets
> ejected with the canopy. *To my mind a Red Box style would be better for
> those gliders as it won't involve any wiring between the canopy etc. and the
> rest of the glider.

The wiring issue can be easily resolved by adding a "weak link" of
some sort, such as a simple connector which will disconnect easily
when the canopy ejects.

Ramy

Walt Connelly

September 3rd 10, 10:02 AM

"Walt Connelly" wrote in message ...

.... Snip ....

Talking with a friend of mine from Vietnam, an extra set of glasses in
the event of a bailout would be a good idea, along with trying to secure
those you are wearing to your head. The opening shock of a chute might
dislodge most common eyeglasses, if they made it that far after the
egress. Not sure I could see well enough then to avoid power lines
and the like. Heads up folks.

Good point Walt. I once lost the canopy of a HP-16 on takeoff. My hat was the first thing to leave the cockpit followed immediately by my glasses. (Both were found in the grass between the runway and taxiway. ) The chances of keeping your glasses during a bailout without the aid of an athletic strap are between slim and none.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-16/nocan.htm

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/

Wayne, read the account of your incident, wow. I am in the process of ordering a set of sport glasses to use while flying. While the chances of needing to bail are small, it makes sense to insure that all the bases are covered to insure success. I ride a motorcycle so they will be multipurpose. You can spend a lot of money on the "nice to have" aspects of this sport.

Walt

mike

September 4th 10, 03:42 PM

On Sep 1, 1:02*am, Walt Connelly <Walt.Connelly.
> wrote:
> JJ Sinclair;739478 Wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have felt for some time now that my back-pack parachute provides
> > little more than a false sense of security..............I don't think
> > I would ever get out of a spinning, tumbling ship. The BRS has been
> > demonstrated to work as low as 260 feet during the FAA certification
> > of the Cirrus. This could save you from a mid-air in the pattern or
> > that all time biggest killer. stall/spin turning final. BRS also
> > provides a way out of structural failures or pilot incapacitation. How
> > about stuck low on the wrong side of the ridge with nothing but trees
> > in all directions?
>
> > The BRS descent rate is about like a normal parachute (like stepping
> > off a 7' ledge). The Genesis installation calls for a 4-point bridle
> > that attaches to all 4 lift fittings, this will result in *a wings-
> > level, slight nose down attitude under the chuts. *Lowering the gear
> > will absorb some of the landing forces.
>
> > Flarm is great and I'd buy it in heartbeat if everybody had it. Lets
> > not forget that 2 of the 4 mid-airs in the US last year involved a tow
> > plane and some of them still don't even have radios, let alone
> > transpponders, Pcas or Flarm.
>
> > Bottom line is; We are all the chairman of our own safety committee
> > and we must take the actions we believe to be the best course to keep
> > us out of harms way. For me that includes installing a BRS.
> > Cheers,
> > JJ
>
> I have always felt that listening to those with greater experience than
> myself is one of the best safety devices. *Seems that today people spend
> more time flying with their heads inside the cockpit than outside. *With
> a parachute, BRS, FLARM, survival kit, bail out bottle, knife, gun,
> flares, medical kit, lunch, snacks, condoms and everything else one
> could carry in a glider, it's a wonder these things can get off the
> ground.
>
> As a relative newbie to the world of gliding, I have in my some 100
> flight had two close calls. I consider myself a heads up kind of guy and
> try hard to keep my head on a swivel, my eyes wide open and paying
> attention. *
>
> I have asked a few local pilots why it seems that the preferred color
> for gliders appears to be white. *I understand that the sun might
> degrade a more brightly painted ship faster than a base white one. *Is
> this really true? *It would seem to me that the cheapest form of
> avoidance would be making ourselves more visible. * I am in the market
> for an older, aluminum ship and would consider painting it bright red if
> it would increase my visibility. *
>
> I understand that FLARM only works if the other guy has one. *I guess
> for the time being I will have to depend on my parachute and luck for
> survival, along with a healthy dose of paying attention. *
>
> Walt
>
> --
> Walt Connelly

There is a problem with darker colors on the majority of composite
sailplanes. The darker colors get hotter by absorbing more heat in the
sun, and at a certain temperature the glass/epoxy matrix will begin to
loose its structural integrity. Look up T sub G. Go to your glider
field in the midday sun and put your hand on a glass ship painted
white, do the same on a red 1-26.

Mike "0"

September 4th 10, 06:47 PM

On Sep 1, 12:02*am, Walt Connelly <Walt.Connelly.
> wrote:
> this really true? *It would seem to me that the cheapest form of
> avoidance would be making ourselves more visible. * I am in the market
> for an older, aluminum ship and would consider painting it bright red if
> it would increase my visibility. *

The BGA did a study and bottom line is the only thing that really
helps is adding highly reflective bits to leading and trailing edges.
Bright colors and contrasting colors end up being worthless at
anything but close range, is my understanding.

-Tom

Bob Whelan[_3_]

September 4th 10, 10:59 PM

On 9/4/2010 11:47 AM, 5Z wrote:
> On Sep 1, 12:02 am, Walt Connelly<Walt.Connelly.
> > wrote:
>> this really true? It would seem to me that the cheapest form of
>> avoidance would be making ourselves more visible. I am in the market
>> for an older, aluminum ship and would consider painting it bright red if
>> it would increase my visibility.
>
> The BGA did a study and bottom line is the only thing that really
> helps is adding highly reflective bits to leading and trailing edges.
> Bright colors and contrasting colors end up being worthless at
> anything but close range, is my understanding.
>
> -Tom

One good test is worth a thousand considered opinions. But that's just my
opinion...

Seriously, I doubt there's any single color/device that is '100% visually
"best".' The devil's in the details. F'r'example...

Reflective tape is likely pretty ineffective unless in non-diffuse sunlight.

Solid yellow is definitely better/more visible than many other primary colors
I've seen on sailplanes under many lighting conditions...but virtually
disappears in certain conditions of beneath-cloud shadow. Both observations
true for distant sightings, too, at least with my eyes.

In 'essentially solid color terms', dark orange is probably 2nd-best IMHO,
with red less so. Blue and green not so good, though against certain
backgrounds both can stand out.

Shiny silver is mostly excellent camouflage.

So anyone looking for a 'panacea visibility scheme' is likely doomed to
disappointment...but anyone rationalizing 'white is as good as anything else'
is (arguably) - and easily personally testable by keeping a good lookout in an
environment of mixed sailplane colors - wrong.

YMMV.

Bob W.

Jim Logajan

September 5th 10, 06:16 AM

Bob Whelan > wrote:
> So anyone looking for a 'panacea visibility scheme' is likely doomed
> to disappointment...

High intensity flashing beacon powered from a solar-charged battery? ;-)

(Haven't checked to see if such a thing already exists.)

johngalloway[_2_]

September 5th 10, 11:57 AM

As regards conspicuity colour schemes - there was a study some years
ago by (IIRC) the RAF that concluded that black was the colour that
allowed earliest visual acquisition because it had the highest colour
density.

This is purely personal opinion but I think that there is a lot of
confusion between "attention keeping" and "ease of visual acquisition"
and I think that brightly coloured gliders are a positively bad
thing. They tend to attract and keep other pilots attention - partly
involuntarily and partly cognitively as you start to ponder what a
nice bright glider it is and how well it stands out against the
scenery, all the time reducing look out elsewhere. I discipline
myself to look elsewhere when I see a coloured glider. I have never
once thought that I have seen a coloured glider earlier than another
white one flying next to it - even flying against a snowy
backdrop.

We have several RAF cadet scheme gliders at our site over the summers
and they have large dayglow areas on the wings and reflective strips.
I have been studying from the ground whether I can see them in the air
any sooner than the similar white club gliders and I am completely
unconvinced.

Good lookout supplemented by Flarm are the best we have at present.

John Galloway