BRS chutes. Why doesn't everyone use them?

[Sparkorama]

I'm just getting back into the sport after a long hiatus. I've seen that a lot of glider pilots fly with parachutes (ones they wear) and I have seen Ballistic Recovery System parachutes in planes as well. From my layman's view, it appears that getting out of a plane using a traditional chute after a mid-air collision seems exceedingly difficult and time-consuming. On the other hand, BRS chutes seem to deploy very fast and can be deployed very close to the ground. They can lower the entire plane safely to the ground in almost any terrain, and a few bruises to your bird or your body seems a lot better than certain death if you can't get out of a plane after a mid-air. So if this is true, and I am happy to say I am no expert, then why isn't everyone using these things? I think they should be mandatory in every new glider built. Thoughts?
Spark

[shkdriver]

I'm just getting back into the sport after a long hiatus. I've seen that a lot of glider pilots fly with parachutes (ones they wear) and I have seen Ballistic Recovery System parachutes in planes as well. From my layman's view, it appears that getting out of a plane using a traditional chute after a mid-air collision seems exceedingly difficult and time-consuming. On the other hand, BRS chutes seem to deploy very fast and can be deployed very close to the ground. They can lower the entire plane safely to the ground in almost any terrain, and a few bruises to your bird or your body seems a lot better than certain death if you can't get out of a plane after a mid-air. So if this is true, and I am happy to say I am no expert, then why isn't everyone using these things? I think they should be mandatory in every new glider built. Thoughts?
Spark

IMHO,
Sailplanes are the ultimate expression of aerodynamics, and as such, demand an almost fanatical devotion to efficiency. Nothing about a sailplanes' design or construction is superfluous. Indeed, a cockpit that is merely adequate in size is deemed a luxury. New gliders run from about $70,000 to over $300,000. I don't believe adding an explosive or pyrotechnic device with a very short life limit (read a few years) with an increase of an estimated $10,000 to $20,000 in cost is what the new glider buying public wants.
Also, while I don't have hard data, I think backpack worn parachutes have thousands of lives saved across all aviation, I think you would have a hard time finding even a hundred lives saved with BRS, I'll even give you any Fb-111 capsule deployments into the count.

IMHO, BRS belongs in LSA, new GA (read Cessna) and selected ultralite aviation as an owner/buyer option, even in gliders as optional equipment.
Never mandatory.
Scott.

[Doug Greenwell]

At 05:22 20 January 2011, shkdriver wrote:
>
>Sparkorama;760406 Wrote:
>> I'm just getting back into the sport after a long hiatus. I've seen
that
>> a lot of glider pilots fly with parachutes (ones they wear) and I have
>> seen Ballistic Recovery System parachutes in planes as well. From my
>> layman's view, it appears that getting out of a plane using a
>> traditional chute after a mid-air collision seems exceedingly
difficult
>> and time-consuming. On the other hand, BRS chutes seem to deploy very
>> fast and can be deployed very close to the ground. They can lower the
>> entire plane safely to the ground in almost any terrain, and a few
>> bruises to your bird or your body seems a lot better than certain
death
>> if you can't get out of a plane after a mid-air. So if this is true,
and
>> I am happy to say I am no expert, then why isn't everyone using these
>> things? I think they should be mandatory in every new glider built.
>> Thoughts?
>> Spark
>
>IMHO,
>Sailplanes are the ultimate expression of aerodynamics, and as
>such, demand an almost fanatical devotion to efficiency. Nothing about a
>sailplanes' design or construction is superfluous. Indeed, a cockpit
>that is merely adequate in size is deemed a luxury. New gliders run from
>about $70,000 to over $300,000. I don't believe adding an explosive or
>pyrotechnic device with a very short life limit (read a few years) with
>an increase of an estimated $10,000 to $20,000 in cost is what the new
>glider buying public wants.
>Also, while I don't have hard data, I think backpack worn
>parachutes have thousands of lives saved across all aviation, I think
>you would have a hard time finding even a hundred lives saved with BRS,
>I'll even give you any Fb-111 capsule deployments into the count.
>
>IMHO, BRS belongs in LSA, new GA (read Cessna) and selected
>ultralite aviation as an owner/buyer option, even in gliders as optional
>equipment.
>Never mandatory.
>
>Scott.
>
>
>
>
>--
>shkdriver
>
BRS claim 259 lives saved with their systems

http://www.brsaerospace.com/lives_saved.aspx

A glider sized internally mounted unit is around $6000, with a claimed 12
year lift for the rocket and a six year repack - so not unreasonable?
I'd be worried about accidental operation though.

There's always the ejector seat option

rocket powered :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAA4tYFxrS0&feature=related

or a strange sort of reverse airbag:

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/noah-e.html

[Big Wings]

If you read the passenger's report of a glider incident at the following
URL

http://sites.google.com/site/thebig40reachfortheskiesagain/

you will see from the photographs that the damage in the area behind the
cockpit, where a BRS system would probably have been installed, was so
badly damaged that its unlikely that it would have worked. The pilot and
passenger both wore parachutes and survived.

Yes I know there are other accidents where the opposite argument can be
made - but I'm not aware of any statistics that come down firmly on one
approach versus the other in the gliding world where (in the UK at least)
parachutes are worn for a very high proportion of flights. In the power
world, where parachutes are worn infrequently, the value of BRS is likely
to be less ambiguous.

At 04:35 20 January 2011, Sparkorama wrote:
>
>I'm just getting back into the sport after a long hiatus. I've seen
that
>a lot of glider pilots fly with parachutes (ones they wear) and I have
>seen Ballistic Recovery System parachutes in planes as well. From my
>layman's view, it appears that getting out of a plane using a
>traditional chute after a mid-air collision seems exceedingly difficult
>and time-consuming. On the other hand, BRS chutes seem to deploy very
>fast and can be deployed very close to the ground. They can lower the
>entire plane safely to the ground in almost any terrain, and a few
>bruises to your bird or your body seems a lot better than certain death
>if you can't get out of a plane after a mid-air. So if this is true,
and
>I am happy to say I am no expert, then why isn't everyone using these
>things? I think they should be mandatory in every new glider built.
>Thoughts?
>Spark
>
>
>
>
>--
>Sparkorama
>

[Mike the Strike]

On Jan 20, 5:07*am, Big Wings > wrote:
> If you read the passenger's report of a glider incident at the following
> URL
>
> http://sites.google.com/site/thebig40reachfortheskiesagain/
>
> you will see from the photographs that the damage in the area behind the
> cockpit, where a BRS system would probably have been installed, was so
> badly damaged that its unlikely that it would have worked. *The pilot and
> passenger both wore parachutes and survived.
>
> Yes I know there are other accidents where the opposite argument can be
> made - but I'm not aware of any statistics that come down firmly on one
> approach versus the other in the gliding world where (in the UK at least)
> parachutes are worn for a very high proportion of flights. *In the power
> world, where parachutes are worn infrequently, the value of BRS is likely
> to be less ambiguous.
>
> At 04:35 20 January 2011, Sparkorama wrote:
>
>
>
> >I'm just getting back into the sport after a long hiatus. I've seen
> that
> >a lot of glider pilots fly with parachutes (ones they wear) and I have
> >seen Ballistic Recovery System parachutes in planes as well. From my
> >layman's view, it appears that getting out of a plane using a
> >traditional chute after a mid-air collision seems exceedingly difficult
> >and time-consuming. On the other hand, BRS chutes seem to deploy very
> >fast and can be deployed very close to the ground. They can lower the
> >entire plane safely to the ground in almost any terrain, and a few
> >bruises to your bird or your body seems a lot better than certain death
> >if you can't get out of a plane after a mid-air. So if this is true,
> and
> >I am happy to say I am no expert, then why isn't everyone using these
> >things? I think they should be mandatory in every new glider built.
> >Thoughts?
> >Spark
>
> >--
> >Sparkorama

Destruction of gliders by lightning is so rare this is hardly
something to worry about. The event in question occurred when the
glider intercepted a rare and very energetic positive lightning ground
flash. Most glider lightning incidents are much less exciting,
although some damage is likely to occur.

Most parachutes are deployed after a mid-air AFAIK.

Mike

[[email protected]]

On Jan 19, 11:35*pm, Sparkorama <Sparkorama.
> wrote:
> I'm just getting back into the sport after a long hiatus. I've seen that
> a lot of glider pilots fly with parachutes (ones they wear) and I have
> seen Ballistic Recovery System parachutes in planes as well. From my
> layman's view, it appears that getting out of a plane using a
> traditional chute after a mid-air collision seems exceedingly difficult
> and time-consuming. On the other hand, BRS chutes seem to deploy very
> fast and can be deployed very close to the ground. They can lower the
> entire plane safely to the ground in almost any terrain, and a few
> bruises to your bird or your body seems a lot better than certain death
> if you can't get out of a plane after a mid-air. So if this is true, and
> I am happy to say I am no expert, then why isn't everyone using these
> things? I think they should be mandatory in every new glider built.
> Thoughts?
> Spark
>
> --
> Sparkorama

Here we go with this mandatorys stuff again!!

First of all you have at least one misconception......the aircraft is
not "lowered to the ground with only a few bruises". The opening of
the chute is a major event, the shock can cause considerable damage by
itself. The descent rates are high, so considerable damage upon
striking the ground. The device is "life saving" but not "aircraft
saving".

I has strongly considered a BRS when building my homebuilt
plane......I ruled it out for a number of reasons. The greatest
reason was that the design and structure of the aircraft wuld have had
too have been highly modified.....strengthened....coping with strong
force loads in the oposite direction......to with stand the opening
shock of the chute............this required the doubling of the
cockpit side walls, installation of metal cross members, etc. This
alone would have added too much weight to the aircraft, not to mention
the complications and weight of the mounting of the BRS unit
itself.........

Yeah, and then the cost...........

Now on the other hand, there are many factory built aircraft with
BRS....Like Cirrus.....a few gliders too..........these companies feel
that the BRS is a good selling point....enhanced safety and all
that....

In the world of ultralights, BRS type chutes are the "norm" fairly
common in Light Sport aircraft too......I believe that just about ALL
hanglider guys have a ballistic chute of some type.

Cookie

[T8]

On Jan 20, 7:47*am, "
> wrote:

> Here we go with this mandatory stuff again!!

I think it's a January thing. My daughter's 4th grade class was
assigned to write up a proposed new state law, due this morning. My
suggestion was that she propose a law keeping government noses out of
private business :-). She came up with the idea of limiting internet
tracking all on her own, so perhaps there's hope for the youngsters,
yet!

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

On Jan 19, 8:35*pm, Sparkorama >
wrote:
> I'm just getting back into the sport after a long hiatus. I've seen that
> a lot of glider pilots fly with parachutes (ones they wear) and I have
> seen Ballistic Recovery System parachutes in planes as well. From my
> layman's view, it appears that getting out of a plane using a
> traditional chute after a mid-air collision seems exceedingly difficult
> and time-consuming. On the other hand, BRS chutes seem to deploy very
> fast and can be deployed very close to the ground. They can lower the
> entire plane safely to the ground in almost any terrain, and a few
> bruises to your bird or your body seems a lot better than certain death
> if you can't get out of a plane after a mid-air. So if this is true, and
> I am happy to say I am no expert, then why isn't everyone using these
> things? I think they should be mandatory in every new glider built.
> Thoughts?
> Spark
>
> --
> Sparkorama

I tried to get info from BRS last fall and received no reply to two e-
mails and a phone call. Have the fallen on hard times (economy
issues)? I was ready to buy one, but before plunking down $4500 bucks
I need to know they will support the product.
JJ

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 19, 9:35*pm, Sparkorama >
wrote:
> I'm just getting back into the sport after a long hiatus. I've seen that
> a lot of glider pilots fly with parachutes (ones they wear) and I have
> seen Ballistic Recovery System parachutes in planes as well. From my
> layman's view, it appears that getting out of a plane using a
> traditional chute after a mid-air collision seems exceedingly difficult
> and time-consuming. On the other hand, BRS chutes seem to deploy very
> fast and can be deployed very close to the ground. They can lower the
> entire plane safely to the ground in almost any terrain, and a few
> bruises to your bird or your body seems a lot better than certain death
> if you can't get out of a plane after a mid-air. So if this is true, and
> I am happy to say I am no expert, then why isn't everyone using these
> things? I think they should be mandatory in every new glider built.
> Thoughts?
> Spark
>
> --
> Sparkorama

You say you are no expert yet you think they should be mandatory in
every new glider built. I find that to be a paradox.

Would it not make more sense to familiarize yourself with the subject
before deciding what should be mandatory?

Previously cited factors have included increased weight, increased
cost, lack of adequate test data, insufficient space and probably a
few more.

I was interested in BRS when it was offered as an option for the
ASW-28. It seems the brochure writer was ahead of the designer and
the option was never made available.

Andy

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 1/20/2011 4:35 AM, Mike the Strike wrote:
> On Jan 20, 5:07 am, Big > wrote:

>
> Destruction of gliders by lightning is so rare this is hardly
> something to worry about. The event in question occurred when the
> glider intercepted a rare and very energetic positive lightning ground
> flash. Most glider lightning incidents are much less exciting,
> although some damage is likely to occur.
>
> Most parachutes are deployed after a mid-air AFAIK.

It would be interesting to know the numbers. I can think of a few
deployments resulting from in-flight breakup, jammed controls, and
unrecoverable spins, in addition to mid-airs.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Jan 19, 8:35*pm, Sparkorama >
wrote:

> ...I think they should be mandatory in every new glider built...
> Thoughts?

I think that the idea is well-intentioned but ill-conceived. Others
have already pointed out that BRS totals the aircraft in most
deployments, usually results in injuries to the occupants, and is
otherwise very far from being a panacea.

If there were an affordable and reliable system that was guaranteed to
work in all sailplanes across a wide variety of conditions, I'd
probably not object so strenuously. However, that is not the case. The
systems that are available are bulky and expensive, and can be
difficult or impossible to fit into something small aircraft where
interior volume is so scarce.

Sailplanes present special challenges for ballistic recovery systems.
Their requirement for low drag can make it difficult to install the
suspension bridles without performance-robbing bulges and blisters,
and their wide range of operating weights makes it hard to tailor the
parachute size to the aircraft mass.

My strongest issue with the idea is the underlying assertion that
there is or should be some bureau or agency responsible for making BRS
"mandatory in every new glider built." Required for gliders that
receive type certificates after some certain date, I can sort of see
that. That's the sort of thing that the NTSB might recommend to the
FAA in a decade or two, and which the FAA might take under advisement
for a similar span. But required for gliders being manufactured under
current type certificates? No, sorry, I think that retroactive
requirements like that set a very, very bad precedent. And required
for Experimental, Amateur-built, and Experimental, Racing gliders? No
way. That would very much stifle the kind of innovation and
competition that those (non-)certification categories are designed to
foster.

That said, in the glider I am developing now, I have indeed reserved a
modest volume for a ballistic parachute system should some customers
express an interest in it. However, that volume is not available in
sustainer or self-launch versions, so you would have to choose between
the motor and the parachute.

In the overall scheme of things, the place to look for the deployment
of new systems like this are customers and insurance companies. Both
of them vote with dollars, and in the free market that's pretty much
the only vote that matters.

Thanks, Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[Bob D]

> I think that the idea is well-intentioned but ill-conceived. Others
> have already pointed out that BRS totals the aircraft in most
> deployments, usually results in injuries to the occupants, and is
> otherwise very far from being a panacea.
>


To me the key issue and logic for BRS is: a low altitude mid-air
collision where getting out and deploying your chute is going to be
dicey at best. Like in the traffic pattern or near the pattern which
is where most collisions occur.

Best example of a BRS being worth it at low altitude:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrVxp_gyTcI

Considering how light our gliders are--I think it's worth having--but
not mandatory.

Bob
GE2

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jan 20, 2:16*pm, Bob D > wrote:
> > I think that the idea is well-intentioned but ill-conceived. Others
> > have already pointed out that BRS totals the aircraft in most
> > deployments, usually results in injuries to the occupants, and is
> > otherwise very far from being a panacea.
>
> To me the key issue and logic for BRS is: a low altitude mid-air
> collision where getting out and deploying your chute is going to be
> dicey at best. Like in the traffic pattern or near the pattern which
> is where most collisions occur.
>
> Best example of a BRS being worth it at low altitude:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrVxp_gyTcI
>
> Considering how light our gliders are--I think it's worth having--but
> not mandatory.
>
> Bob
> GE2

But I don't believe that near the pattern is where most glider
collisions occur-- I believe the major risk happens in thermals and
when entering/exiting thermals. And I don't say that lightly, as we
lost two pilots in Northern California in a collision between a glider
and towplane in the pattern not too long ago.

The issue is BRS is pretty invasive to install its a large package to
fit into a small space. My motorglider has *no* room for a BRS and I
see not practical way of adding room.

Its not an endless list of thigns we could/should have all of saftey
related technologies involve tradeoffs, effectiveness, cost,
complexity, reliability, weight, space, ... There are other saftey
technologies (like effective use of VHF radio and beyond that also
adding PowerFLARM, transponders (in appropriate areas), etc) that I
would much rather see people invest their money in than a BRS. If you
do all that then maybe look at a BRS. And I would be horrified to see
attempts at mandating or even pushing BRS and its potential to take
away money that would potentially be used to purchase VHF radios,
PowerFLARM, transponders etc. I assume everybody out there is wearing
a personal parachute, and if your are not its your life, but at least
using a radio effectively and a PowerFLARM can help save other lives
not just your own.

And possibly the best saftey investment pilots can make in the next
few months is... (you all thought I was going to say a PowerFLARM
right...) is a spring checkout with an instructor. Should we mandate
those? :-)

Darryl

[Sparkorama]

On Jan 20, 2:16*pm, Bob D wrote:
I think that the idea is well-intentioned but ill-conceived. Others
have already pointed out that BRS totals the aircraft in most
deployments, usually results in injuries to the occupants, and is
otherwise very far from being a panacea.

To me the key issue and logic for BRS is: a low altitude mid-air
collision where getting out and deploying your chute is going to be
dicey at best. Like in the traffic pattern or near the pattern which
is where most collisions occur.

Best example of a BRS being worth it at low altitude:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrVxp_gyTcI

Considering how light our gliders are--I think it's worth having--but
not mandatory.

Bob
GE2

But I don't believe that near the pattern is where most glider
collisions occur-- I believe the major risk happens in thermals and
when entering/exiting thermals. And I don't say that lightly, as we
lost two pilots in Northern California in a collision between a glider
and towplane in the pattern not too long ago.

The issue is BRS is pretty invasive to install its a large package to
fit into a small space. My motorglider has *no* room for a BRS and I
see not practical way of adding room.

Its not an endless list of thigns we could/should have all of saftey
related technologies involve tradeoffs, effectiveness, cost,
complexity, reliability, weight, space, ... There are other saftey
technologies (like effective use of VHF radio and beyond that also
adding PowerFLARM, transponders (in appropriate areas), etc) that I
would much rather see people invest their money in than a BRS. If you
do all that then maybe look at a BRS. And I would be horrified to see
attempts at mandating or even pushing BRS and its potential to take
away money that would potentially be used to purchase VHF radios,
PowerFLARM, transponders etc. I assume everybody out there is wearing
a personal parachute, and if your are not its your life, but at least
using a radio effectively and a PowerFLARM can help save other lives
not just your own.

And possibly the best saftey investment pilots can make in the next
few months is... (you all thought I was going to say a PowerFLARM
right...) is a spring checkout with an instructor. Should we mandate
those? :-)

Darryl

It seems I caused a bit of a stir with the "mandatory" comment. I can see that it may not be so simple. However, I think the BRS system needs some good competition and maybe a glider-specific model. I wonder if in a few years they could bring down cost and size to make it more accessible to the soaring community. I imagine a well thought out glider model would be something a lot of people might consider. Does anyone know the stats or have personal info about getting out of a glider with a personal chute after a mid-air?

[150flivver]

On Jan 21, 3:57*am, Sparkorama >
wrote:
> Darryl Ramm;760474 Wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 20, 2:16*pm, Bob D wrote:--
> > I think that the idea is well-intentioned but ill-conceived. Others
> > have already pointed out that BRS totals the aircraft in most
> > deployments, usually results in injuries to the occupants, and is
> > otherwise very far from being a panacea.-
>
> > To me the key issue and logic for BRS is: a low altitude mid-air
> > collision where getting out and deploying your chute is going to be
> > dicey at best. Like in the traffic pattern or near the pattern which
> > is where most collisions occur.
>
> > Best example of a BRS being worth it at low
> > altitude:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrVxp_gyTcI
>
> > Considering how light our gliders are--I think it's worth having--but
> > not mandatory.
>
> > Bob
> > GE2-
>
> > But I don't believe that near the pattern is where most glider
> > collisions occur-- I believe the major risk happens in thermals and
> > when entering/exiting thermals. And I don't say that lightly, as we
> > lost two pilots in Northern California in a collision between a glider
> > and towplane in the pattern not too long ago.
>
> > The issue is BRS is pretty invasive to install its a large package to
> > fit into a small space. My motorglider has *no* room for a BRS and I
> > see not practical way of adding room.
>
> > Its not an endless list of thigns we could/should have all of saftey
> > related technologies involve tradeoffs, effectiveness, cost,
> > complexity, reliability, weight, space, ... There are other saftey
> > technologies (like effective use of VHF radio and beyond that also
> > adding PowerFLARM, transponders (in appropriate areas), etc) that I
> > would much rather see people invest their money in than a BRS. If you
> > do all that then maybe look at a BRS. And I would be horrified to see
> > attempts at mandating or even pushing BRS and its potential to take
> > away money that would potentially be used to purchase VHF radios,
> > PowerFLARM, transponders etc. I assume everybody out there is wearing
> > a personal parachute, and if your are not its your life, but at least
> > using a radio effectively and a PowerFLARM can help save other lives
> > not just your own.
>
> > And possibly the best saftey investment pilots can make in the next
> > few months is... (you all thought I was going to say a PowerFLARM
> > right...) is a spring checkout with an instructor. Should we mandate
> > those? :-)
>
> > Darryl
>
> It seems I caused a bit of a stir with the "mandatory" comment. I can
> see that it may not be so simple. However, I think the BRS system needs
> some good competition and maybe a glider-specific model. I wonder if in
> a few years they could bring down cost and size to make it more
> accessible to the soaring community. I imagine a well thought out glider
> model would be something a lot of people might consider. Does anyone
> know the stats or have personal info about getting out of a glider with
> a personal chute after a mid-air?
>
> --
> Sparkorama

You can't just stick one of these on an aircraft without doing some
extensive design and testing and the testing would involve trashing
the test bed. There is no one size fits all like a radio or
transponder. You have to look at the numbers of prospective customers
and retrofitting a chute to the relatively small glider market is not
financially plausible. If you've got very deep pockets anything's
possible--this just doesn't look profitable.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jan 21, 1:57*am, Sparkorama >
wrote:
> Darryl Ramm;760474 Wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 20, 2:16*pm, Bob D wrote:--
> > I think that the idea is well-intentioned but ill-conceived. Others
> > have already pointed out that BRS totals the aircraft in most
> > deployments, usually results in injuries to the occupants, and is
> > otherwise very far from being a panacea.-
>
> > To me the key issue and logic for BRS is: a low altitude mid-air
> > collision where getting out and deploying your chute is going to be
> > dicey at best. Like in the traffic pattern or near the pattern which
> > is where most collisions occur.
>
> > Best example of a BRS being worth it at low
> > altitude:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrVxp_gyTcI
>
> > Considering how light our gliders are--I think it's worth having--but
> > not mandatory.
>
> > Bob
> > GE2-
>
> > But I don't believe that near the pattern is where most glider
> > collisions occur-- I believe the major risk happens in thermals and
> > when entering/exiting thermals. And I don't say that lightly, as we
> > lost two pilots in Northern California in a collision between a glider
> > and towplane in the pattern not too long ago.
>
> > The issue is BRS is pretty invasive to install its a large package to
> > fit into a small space. My motorglider has *no* room for a BRS and I
> > see not practical way of adding room.
>
> > Its not an endless list of thigns we could/should have all of saftey
> > related technologies involve tradeoffs, effectiveness, cost,
> > complexity, reliability, weight, space, ... There are other saftey
> > technologies (like effective use of VHF radio and beyond that also
> > adding PowerFLARM, transponders (in appropriate areas), etc) that I
> > would much rather see people invest their money in than a BRS. If you
> > do all that then maybe look at a BRS. And I would be horrified to see
> > attempts at mandating or even pushing BRS and its potential to take
> > away money that would potentially be used to purchase VHF radios,
> > PowerFLARM, transponders etc. I assume everybody out there is wearing
> > a personal parachute, and if your are not its your life, but at least
> > using a radio effectively and a PowerFLARM can help save other lives
> > not just your own.
>
> > And possibly the best saftey investment pilots can make in the next
> > few months is... (you all thought I was going to say a PowerFLARM
> > right...) is a spring checkout with an instructor. Should we mandate
> > those? :-)
>
> > Darryl
>
> It seems I caused a bit of a stir with the "mandatory" comment. I can
> see that it may not be so simple. However, I think the BRS system needs
> some good competition and maybe a glider-specific model. I wonder if in
> a few years they could bring down cost and size to make it more
> accessible to the soaring community. I imagine a well thought out glider
> model would be something a lot of people might consider. Does anyone
> know the stats or have personal info about getting out of a glider with
> a personal chute after a mid-air?
>
> --
> Sparkorama

I think you have it backwards, the market does not need more vendors/
different technology/competition. Potential vendors need a practically
addressable market. Your trying to sell a marginal improvement
(benefits of BRS vs personal parachute) at significant increase in
cost and complexity and installation hassles/limitations.

I don't see any dramatic changes in technology that will shrink the
package or make a fully installed (and approved/STCed etc. if needed)
and allow a price point of interest to most glider owners. BRS systems
are available now in some motorgliders (when the motor is not
installed and the new glider cost is enough that the purchaser is more
likely to be willing to accept the BRS system cost) and its great to
see them being designed into those aircraft, and Bob's HP-24, for
owners who want that option (and don't want an engine).

Darryl

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

BRS type systems are still attractive for gliders. We've had quite a
few crashes in which pilots were not able to get out of gliders, but
perhaps could have pushed a button.

For gliders, the Streifender system is probably the most relevant.

http://www.streifly.de/gesamtrettungssystem-e.htm

It seems to be legal and all. What happened? Is it simply that most
poeple are putting the motor where it should go?

John Cochrane

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 18:03 21 January 2011, John Cochrane wrote:
>BRS type systems are still attractive for gliders.

Seems to me it's a lot easier to get out of a glider in an emergency than
from the average light airplane. (Well, OK, the open cockpit jobs like
Stearmen are different.) The only time I've worn a parachute in a power
plane was when we were going for an aerobatic ride. And one of those
instances was in a Cessna Aerobat, which would have been sort of difficult
to exit if it was tumbling out of control.

Jim Beckman

[bildan]

On Jan 21, 11:03*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> BRS type systems are still attractive for gliders. We've had quite a
> few crashes in which pilots were not able to get out of gliders, but
> perhaps could have pushed a button.
>
> For gliders, the Streifender system is probably the most relevant.
>
> http://www.streifly.de/gesamtrettungssystem-e.htm
>
> It seems to be legal and all. What happened? Is it simply that most
> poeple are putting the motor where it should go?
>
> John Cochrane

I'd be more impressed with BRS chutes if videos of the tests didn't
show the flight test guy jumping with his own personal 'chute after
the BRS deployment. It suggests he knows riding the darn thing down
isn't good for his health.

I'd like the NOAH idea better if it was available as a mere "butt
raiser" which lifts the pilots rump up and forward a few inches. I
think just a little lift would make a huge difference in ease of
egress. Raising the pilot in a reclining position, as the current
NOAH unit does, only works with canopy mounted panels.

Bill Daniels

[Wayne Paul]

I know there is at least one BRS system installed in a Schreder HP-16.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-16/N8DC/BRS/BRS_in_HP-16.htm
There soon will also be one in a HP-14. (The '14 I'm referring to isn't mine.)

Wayne
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F

"John Cochrane" > wrote in message ...
> BRS type systems are still attractive for gliders. We've had quite a
> few crashes in which pilots were not able to get out of gliders, but
> perhaps could have pushed a button.
>
> For gliders, the Streifender system is probably the most relevant.
>
> http://www.streifly.de/gesamtrettungssystem-e.htm
>
> It seems to be legal and all. What happened? Is it simply that most
> poeple are putting the motor where it should go?
>
> John Cochrane

[T[_2_]]

On Jan 19, 8:35*pm, Sparkorama >
wrote:
> I'm just getting back into the sport after a long hiatus. I've seen that
> a lot of glider pilots fly with parachutes (ones they wear) and I have
> seen Ballistic Recovery System parachutes in planes as well. From my
> layman's view, it appears that getting out of a plane using a
> traditional chute after a mid-air collision seems exceedingly difficult
> and time-consuming. On the other hand, BRS chutes seem to deploy very
> fast and can be deployed very close to the ground. They can lower the
> entire plane safely to the ground in almost any terrain, and a few
> bruises to your bird or your body seems a lot better than certain death
> if you can't get out of a plane after a mid-air. So if this is true, and
> I am happy to say I am no expert, then why isn't everyone using these
> things? I think they should be mandatory in every new glider built.
> Thoughts?
> Spark
>
> --
> Sparkorama

Do I not remember a Sparrow Hawk glider that was built with a BRS and
sold for a military application. The test pilot exceeded VNE due to
some ASI calibration errors. The glider came apart, in the process the
BRS self deployed because the cable pulled tight with the failing
airframe. On BRS deployment the resulting opening shock caused the
seat belt attach points to fail and the pilot was ejected through the
canopy. Lucky he was also wearing a backpack parachute and he
survived.

BRS is not a cure all if the structure fails.

T

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 1/21/2011 4:35 PM, bildan wrote:

> I'd like the NOAH idea better if it was available as a mere "butt
> raiser" which lifts the pilots rump up and forward a few inches. I
> think just a little lift would make a huge difference in ease of
> egress. Raising the pilot in a reclining position, as the current
> NOAH unit does, only works with canopy mounted panels.

And pedestal mounted panels like the DG single seaters, and swivel
panels like the Ventus uses. Maybe not good with a Nimbus 3 canopy
mounted to the cockpit sills, and similar panels. Maybe they have a
version with limited inflation - worth asking.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 1/21/2011 10:49 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 1/21/2011 4:35 PM, bildan wrote:
>
>> I'd like the NOAH idea better if it was available as a mere "butt
>> raiser" which lifts the pilots rump up and forward a few inches. I
>> think just a little lift would make a huge difference in ease of
>> egress. Raising the pilot in a reclining position, as the current
>> NOAH unit does, only works with canopy mounted panels.
>
> And pedestal mounted panels like the DG single seaters, and swivel
> panels like the Ventus uses. Maybe not good with a Nimbus 3 canopy
> mounted to the cockpit sills, and similar panels. Maybe they have a
> version with limited inflation - worth asking.

That should be "panel mounted to the cockpit sills", not "canopy".

I did consider the NOAH system years ago, but decided the need for it
was so unlikely, it wasn't worth the cost to install and maintain. I do
make sure I can get out of my glider easily under 1 G conditions by
pushing myself out of the cockpit after landing, wearing the parachute.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Martin[_5_]]

Another way to look at it...

Of all the ways we can spend dollars and pounds (of weigh) to improve
safety, is a BRS chute the most effective? Will it save the most
lives per pound (or per dollar?)

[bildan]

On Jan 22, 11:32*am, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> On 1/21/2011 10:49 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> > On 1/21/2011 4:35 PM, bildan wrote:
>
> >> I'd like the NOAH idea better if it was available as a mere "butt
> >> raiser" which lifts the pilots rump up and forward a few inches. I
> >> think just a little lift would make a huge difference in ease of
> >> egress. Raising the pilot in a reclining position, as the current
> >> NOAH unit does, only works with canopy mounted panels.
>
> > And pedestal mounted panels like the DG single seaters, and swivel
> > panels like the Ventus uses. Maybe not good with a Nimbus 3 canopy
> > mounted to the cockpit sills, and similar panels. Maybe they have a
> > version with limited inflation - worth asking.
>
> That should be "panel mounted to the cockpit sills", not "canopy".
>
> I did consider the NOAH system years ago, but decided the need for it
> was so unlikely, it wasn't worth the cost to install and maintain. I do
> make sure I can get out of my glider easily under 1 G conditions by
> pushing myself out of the cockpit after landing, wearing the parachute.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> email me)

Another thought. (subject to revision)

Getting out is difficult because of a lack of "grab handles". I
wonder if it is possible to add an extending strut with a grip which
deploys when the canopy is jettisoned. I'm thinking of a 35mm
diameter carbon fiber tube which extends vertically between the pilots
knees as the canopy ejects. A gas strut could power it and lift the
front of the canopy.

A strategically positioned grab handle plus an inflatable seat cushion
"butt lifter" (Perhaps triggered by a hard pull on the grab handle)
could make it pretty easy to get out. If egress with a personal
'chute can be assured, I'd have little interest in a BRS system.

Bill Daniels

[Jim Logajan]

Martin > wrote:
> Another way to look at it...
>
> Of all the ways we can spend dollars and pounds (of weigh) to improve
> safety, is a BRS chute the most effective? Will it save the most
> lives per pound (or per dollar?)

A reasonable question to pose for any safety device; consider:

A PowerFLARM costs ~US$1800 per plane and can prevent only midair collision
accidents - but presumably only if a large proportion of other aircraft
invest the same amount. How much does one's safety improve for that
investment?

A BRS costs ~US$3100 to ~US$4500 per plane and can can prevent injury or
death after midair collision accidents and in other situations. No other
aircraft need to invest in it to make it work for your aircraft. What
fraction of fatal accidents would a BRS have turned into non-fatal
accidents? How much does one's safety improve for that investment?

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Jan 23, 10:18*am, Jim Logajan > wrote:

> A BRS costs ~US$3100 to ~US$4500 per plane...

Is that just for the BRS system, or does that include installation?

Thanks, Bob K.

[Jim Logajan]

Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Jan 23, 10:18*am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
>> A BRS costs ~US$3100 to ~US$4500 per plane...
>
> Is that just for the BRS system, or does that include installation?
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

That is just for the BRS, as I presume you already know. I think you would
have a better idea of installation costs than I would. I'm sure it depends
somewhat on whether it is designed in from the start, or after the fact.

Since LSAs have been designed with it in mind and their cost has not been
that much above those without BRS, I would guesstimate installation cost to
be as much as an additional $1000 to $2000.

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 18:18 23 January 2011, Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>A reasonable question to pose for any safety device; consider:
>
>A BRS costs ~US$3100 to ~US$4500 per plane and can can prevent injury or

>death after midair collision accidents and in other situations. No other

>aircraft need to invest in it to make it work for your aircraft.

A BRS will make *some* otherwise fatal midairs survivable. Some midairs
are survived by continuing to fly the glider to a landing. Some midairs
are not survivable under any circumstances, if the pilot is killed in the
collision.

> What
>fraction of fatal accidents would a BRS have turned into non-fatal
>accidents? How much does one's safety improve for that investment?

Given that most gliders are flown by pilots wearing parachutes, seems to
me what we have to consider is what fraction of accidents are made
survivable by a BRS that would not be survivable with an individual
parachute. Inability to get out of the aircraft is the only circumstance
that comes to my mind.

BRS probably sells best to power planes where the occupants typically do
*not* wear parachutes.

Jim Beckman

[John Smith]

Jim Beckman wrote:
> Given that most gliders are flown by pilots wearing parachutes, seems to
> me what we have to consider is what fraction of accidents are made
> survivable by a BRS that would not be survivable with an individual
> parachute. Inability to get out of the aircraft is the only circumstance
> that comes to my mind.

I know of several accidents where pilots didnt't get out of the glider,
and I even knew some of those personally. A BRS may or may not have
saved their lives.

The main problem is that is is very difficult if not impossible to
retrofit a BRS to most existing gliders. And new glider types are mostly
built around existing fuselages, whle a BRS would require a complete
redesign of the fuselage.

[Andreas Maurer]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 12:18:03 -0600, Jim Logajan >
wrote:


>A PowerFLARM costs ~US$1800 per plane and can prevent only midair collision
>accidents - but presumably only if a large proportion of other aircraft
>invest the same amount. How much does one's safety improve for that
>investment?
>
>A BRS costs ~US$3100 to ~US$4500 per plane and can can prevent injury or
>death after midair collision accidents and in other situations. No other
>aircraft need to invest in it to make it work for your aircraft. What
>fraction of fatal accidents would a BRS have turned into non-fatal
>accidents? How much does one's safety improve for that investment?

Close to NIL.

- A BRS can NOT be retrofitted to any existing gliders apart from the
few that were designed for it (which are, at the moment, only special
versions of Ventus 2 and Discus 2).

- Why let the accident (=collison) happen in the first place? FLARM
lowers the probability of a collision a lot, a BRS doesn't.

- A BRS is NOT going to save you from a low-level stall, nor a CFIT.

- NO BRS has ever been tested in an extreme situation (one wing or
tailplane gon, violent spin, high positive or negative g-loads).

- Read the limitations on current BRS systems (especially, read the
limitations for the Cirrus). Prepare to be amazed.


What is the scenario where a BRS is a reliable help?
At the moment, straight and level flight below Vne. Usually such a
condition means a controllable glider.
Ask yourself if you would deploy a BRS in such a situation.



A better solution than a BRS?
Soteira by Akaflieg Darmstadt - a rocket that pulles the pilot and his
parachute out of the glider. No speed limits, no g-load limits, low
probability to get tangled in a spinning glider. Zero-zero capability.



Cheers
Andreas

[Tony V]

> - NO BRS has ever been tested in an extreme situation (one wing or
> tailplane gon, violent spin, high positive or negative g-loads).


Huh? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrVxp_gyTcI

Tony

[Sparkorama]

;760573']On 1/21/2011 10:49 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 1/21/2011 4:35 PM, bildan wrote:

I'd like the NOAH idea better if it was available as a mere "butt
raiser" which lifts the pilots rump up and forward a few inches. I
think just a little lift would make a huge difference in ease of
egress. Raising the pilot in a reclining position, as the current
NOAH unit does, only works with canopy mounted panels.

And pedestal mounted panels like the DG single seaters, and swivel
panels like the Ventus uses. Maybe not good with a Nimbus 3 canopy
mounted to the cockpit sills, and similar panels. Maybe they have a
version with limited inflation - worth asking.

That should be "panel mounted to the cockpit sills", not "canopy".

I did consider the NOAH system years ago, but decided the need for it
was so unlikely, it wasn't worth the cost to install and maintain. I do
make sure I can get out of my glider easily under 1 G conditions by
pushing myself out of the cockpit after landing, wearing the parachute.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

Has anyone here ever had to exit a glider in the air? Know anyone that has? It seems to me that a mid-air in a thermal or in the pattern is the biggest danger. And I just can't imagine getting out of a harness and out of a plane in the few seconds it would take if you broke a wing on another plane.

[cernauta]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 01:36:45 +0100, Andreas Maurer
> wrote:

>A better solution than a BRS?
>Soteira by Akaflieg Darmstadt - a rocket that pulles the pilot and his
>parachute out of the glider. No speed limits, no g-load limits, low
>probability to get tangled in a spinning glider. Zero-zero capability.


Andreas is a reliable source of rational opinions and solutions.
Here I just want to add a link to the Soteira system. Some partial
experiments have been successfully tested. If development goes on, it
might work safely from zero altitude and speed.
Please remember that up until now, a crash in a glider means that
most of the damage to the pilot is created by the mass of the glider
_behind the pilot_.

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

aldo cernezzi

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 1/23/2011 6:32 PM, Sparkorama wrote:

>
> Has anyone here ever had to exit a glider in the air?

Yes. (No collision involved; I believed it 'pitch-broken' though it probably
wasn't.)

> Know anyone that has? It seems to me that a mid-air in a thermal or in the pattern is the
> biggest danger. And I just can't imagine getting out of a harness and
> out of a plane in the few seconds it would take if you broke a wing on
> another plane.

Yes.

Dick Johnson...at least twice. 'Way back when' he bailed from an
overstressed/'exploding' Bowlus Baby Albatross while cu-nim soaring. In the
1960's he (low-altitude) bailed from a spinning Austria. SSA members can find
writeups of both events in "Soaring" magazine archives.

Dave Lawrence...overspeeded/flutter-destroyed the BRS-equipped Sparrowhawk
being tested at Mississippi State University. Saved via personal 'chute. Ditto
"Soaring" (and I believe "Aviation Week") writeup(s).

This arena is certainly rich for thought/discussion...with no universal
conclusions other than odds are that if you manage to extricate yourself from
an uncontrollable ship with*out* a 'chute, little long-term good will likely
result. Balance of risks would seem to apply...

Thoughtfully,
Bob W.

[Andreas Maurer]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 20:31:50 -0500, Tony V
> wrote:

>
>> - NO BRS has ever been tested in an extreme situation (one wing or
>> tailplane gon, violent spin, high positive or negative g-loads).
>
>
>Huh? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrVxp_gyTcI


Hey Tony,

we are talking about gliders, not ultralights! :)

There have been quite a few successful BRS recoveries indeed - but an
ultralight is a lot slower than any glider (BRS systems are usually
restricted to 150 kts which a tail- or wingless glider will quickly
exceed), smaller, and lighter, and unfortunately at least in Germany
there have been lots of attempted BRS activations in ultralight
aircraft (two seats, maximum takeoff weight about 900 lbs, cruise
speed between 100 and 140 kts) where the BRS didn't work - because it
hadn't been tested in that part of the flight envelope.

Sorry, but in aviation I don't trust such complex systems if they
haven't been thoroughly tested. :)

If you take a closer look the BRS in this case didn't work correctly
either - the lines got tangled in the tail, therefore the aircraft
impacted vertically. Fortunately the parachute of the BRS was
oversized, it opened and the structure was rigid enough to prevent the
engine to be crushed into the leg area of the cockpit - but it was a
close case.


Statistics clearly show that the problem is to leave the aircraft (be
it a glider or an F-16).

Why try to save the whole aircraft with a huge and complex parachute
(whose size causes a pretty narrow escape envelope) with the need to
handle impact forces and masses behind the pilot (which try to crush
him on impact) if the only problem is to get him out of the cockpit?

Get the pilot out of the cockpit somehow and let him use his proven
parachute that has proven lots of times to work reliably in the speed
range of a (broken) glider.
Soteira.


Cheers
Andreas

[Andreas Maurer]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 01:32:50 +0000, Sparkorama
> wrote:


>Has anyone here ever had to exit a glider in the air? Know anyone that
>has? It seems to me that a mid-air in a thermal or in the pattern is the
>biggest danger. And I just can't imagine getting out of a harness and
>out of a plane in the few seconds it would take if you broke a wing on
>another plane.

You are correct.

A friend of mine had an inflight collision. She lost 8 ft of the left
wing of her ASW-27 which entered a spiral dive.

The collision happened at about 4.000 ft over the ground. Time from
collision to impact 56 (!!!!!) seconds. During this time she was
unable to leave the glider.

I'm really a huge fan of the ASW-27, but in my opinion its very high
cockpit walls definitely were a factor for her inability to bail out.

On the ground I get out of the 25 in less than five seconds with the
parachute starpped on.


Andreas

[Tim Mara]

I had to bail out of a glider in 1990.this was an LS1f when the ailerons
became locked up at full left aileron after a yank and bank.....
I was only at the time somewhere between 1500-2000' AGL....after one
complete roll it was obvious the controls were not going to come free so I
jettisoned the canopy, undid the belts and pushed out...I had still enough
time to clear the risers, steer the parachute and make a safe landing in the
woods down through the trees .....I attribute my success to this to having
been prepared and knowing my equipment, the glider and the parachute. I had
several years before this made 3 static line jumps so the fear of actually
having to bail out was reduced and I had some idea what to expect...did I
say I wasn't scared? absolutely not, this was an emergency! I said several
"Hail Mary's" and some stuff I made up!..but I was as prepared as I could be
.....that is the difference from those who have had to bail out (and I know
of several other) and those we have held funerals for...hesitation to bail
out would be expected if you only wore a parachute because others flying
gliders do....read the manuals, practice and go through the motions just as
you would need to if the emergency were to come...trust me, you won't have
time to read them when it happens!
I'm not a big fan of having BRS in every aircraft, I think it too can give a
false sense of security....witness the number of successful BRS uses on just
the Cirrus aircraft alone....how many of these pilots simply popped the
chute when they panicked, got over their heads and into weather they weren't
qualified or current enough to handle..we can't verify every one but there
have been some instances where these and I'm sure some UL or LSA BRS
deployments that were just a Panic reaction to a bad situation..even if I
had a BRS I would still wear a parachute....I buy life insurance too, when I
quit buying life insurance then too I'll leave the parachute on the ground.
tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

"Andreas Maurer" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 01:32:50 +0000, Sparkorama
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Has anyone here ever had to exit a glider in the air? Know anyone that
>>has? It seems to me that a mid-air in a thermal or in the pattern is the
>>biggest danger. And I just can't imagine getting out of a harness and
>>out of a plane in the few seconds it would take if you broke a wing on
>>another plane.
>
> You are correct.
>
> A friend of mine had an inflight collision. She lost 8 ft of the left
> wing of her ASW-27 which entered a spiral dive.
>
> The collision happened at about 4.000 ft over the ground. Time from
> collision to impact 56 (!!!!!) seconds. During this time she was
> unable to leave the glider.
>
> I'm really a huge fan of the ASW-27, but in my opinion its very high
> cockpit walls definitely were a factor for her inability to bail out.
>
> On the ground I get out of the 25 in less than five seconds with the
> parachute starpped on.
>
>
> Andreas
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5811 (20110123) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5811 (20110123) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 01:36:45 +0100, Andreas Maurer wrote:

> - NO BRS has ever been tested in an extreme situation (one wing or
> tailplane gon, violent spin, high positive or negative g-loads).
>
With all due respect, this is not correct. There are two BRS uses I'm
aware of where it was popped after the aircraft shed a wing and both are
the subject of videos:

- An Archaeopteryx ultra-light glider lost a wing when over-stressed
in a loop at the 2010 Coupe Icarus. http://vimeo.com/17923312

- An RANS-7 lost a wing during an aerobatic display in Argentina.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgfG2DfPB6I

I'd agree that retro-fitting is problematic: I can't imagine how you'd
get a BRS into any glider with exposed spar stubs, e.g. a Libelle, ASW-19
or Discus 1. Even where it apparently just slots in there may be problems
that aren't obvious until you fire it. I've always been worried by photos
of a BRS installation in an HP-14 (I think it was a 14) that show the BRS
webbing straps wrapped round the centre section spar. The thing that
bothers me is that the straps pass round the protruding edge of an alloy
L extrusion, so there's apparently nothing to stop it from cutting the
webbing during the initial opening shock. I'm not an engineer so this may
be perfectly fine, but the sight still makes my teeth itch each time I
see that photo.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 24, 5:23*am, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 01:36:45 +0100, Andreas Maurer wrote:
> > - NO BRS has ever been tested in an extreme situation (one wing or
> > tailplane gon, violent spin, high positive or negative g-loads).
>
> With all due respect, this is not correct. There are two BRS uses I'm
> aware of where it was popped after the aircraft shed a wing and both are
> the subject of videos:
>
> - An Archaeopteryx ultra-light glider lost a wing when over-stressed
> * in a loop at the 2010 Coupe Icarus.http://vimeo.com/17923312
>
> - An RANS-7 lost a wing during an aerobatic display in Argentina.
> *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgfG2DfPB6I
>
> I'd agree that retro-fitting is problematic: I can't imagine how you'd
> get a BRS into any glider with exposed spar stubs, e.g. a Libelle, ASW-19
> or Discus 1. Even where it apparently just slots in there may be problems
> that aren't obvious until you fire it. I've always been worried by photos
> of a BRS installation in an HP-14 (I think it was a 14) that show the BRS
> webbing straps wrapped round the centre section spar. The thing that
> bothers me is that the straps pass round the protruding edge of an alloy
> L extrusion, so there's apparently nothing to stop it from cutting the
> webbing during the initial opening shock. I'm not an engineer so this may
> be perfectly fine, but the sight still makes my teeth itch each time I
> see that photo.
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

What do you mean by exposed spar stubs? How are they more exposed,
and to what, in the 19 rather than say the 24, 27, 28, and 29.

Andy

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 08:26:52 -0800, Andy wrote:

> What do you mean by exposed spar stubs? How are they more exposed, and
> to what, in the 19 rather than say the 24, 27, 28, and 29.
>
I'm familiar with Discus 1, 19, 20 and Pegase innards but not with the
others, so I was restricting my comments to gliders I understand. I
didn't mention the 20 since its very likely that the mixer is exactly
where you'd want to put the BRS.

By 'exposed spar stubs' I meant that there's no obvious tunnel, or top
and bottom guide channels, that the BRS webs could could go round the
outside of so they are guaranteed to be round the spars after the glider
is rigged: you'd need something like that to keep the webbing loop open
and let the spar stubs fit easily through them.

The 19/20/Pegase fuselage also has a battery mount in front of the spars
that would need to be cut partly away to allow the BRS webs to come round
the front of the spar. I don't think its structural apart from supporting
the batteries, but even so making clearance for the webs may weaken it
unacceptably: you really don't want the batteries ending up sitting on
the wheel well after a 'firm' landing.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Jan 24, 12:30*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
>...
> By 'exposed spar stubs' I meant that there's no obvious tunnel, or top
> and bottom guide channels, that the BRS webs could could go round the
> outside of so they are guaranteed to be round the spars after the glider
> is rigged: you'd need something like that to keep the webbing loop open
> and let the spar stubs fit easily through them...

On the surface, it seems to me that attaching the parachute bridle to
the wing main spar stubs is not the optimal way to do it. In general,
I think I'd rather attach the bridle to the aircraft structure at the
forward and aft lift pin fittings. My thinking is that the lift
fitting structure is closer to the pilot along the primary load path
between the wings and the fuselage.

At issue is that there is usually no direct structural connection
between the wings and the fuselage at the wing main spar stubs, and
there are many conceivable failure modes that could disengage the
wings from the fuselage while leaving the fuselage otherwise intact.
That being the case, I'd rather grab the fuselage directly at its
strongest points rather than grab the wings that may or may not be
attached there.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 24, 3:55*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Jan 24, 12:30*pm, Martin Gregorie >
> wrote:
>
> >...
> > By 'exposed spar stubs' I meant that there's no obvious tunnel, or top
> > and bottom guide channels, that the BRS webs could could go round the
> > outside of so they are guaranteed to be round the spars after the glider
> > is rigged: you'd need something like that to keep the webbing loop open
> > and let the spar stubs fit easily through them...
>
> On the surface, it seems to me that attaching the parachute bridle to
> the wing main spar stubs is not the optimal way to do it. In general,
> I think I'd rather attach the bridle to the aircraft structure at the
> forward and aft lift pin fittings. My thinking is that the lift
> fitting structure is closer to the pilot along the primary load path
> between the wings and the fuselage.
>
> At issue is that there is usually no direct structural connection
> between the wings and the fuselage at the wing main spar stubs, and
> there are many conceivable failure modes that could disengage the
> wings from the fuselage while leaving the fuselage otherwise intact.
> That being the case, I'd rather grab the fuselage directly at its
> strongest points rather than grab the wings that may or may not be
> attached there.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

That was my thinking too, which explains why I was puzzled by the spar
stub reference. For most single seat Schleichers I would have thought
that attaching to the rear lift pin carry through would be about as
good as you would get. It's clear of all control linkages and the
spars, and probably reasonably strong.

The Cirrus and perhaps other aircraft designed from the start for BRS
use a glassed in bridle that breaks out when the parachute is
deployed. No reason a glider designed from the start for BRS
couldn't do the same I suppose.

I think my ideal BRS would have the option to extract the pilot from
the fuselage as a 2 stage deployment. Stage 1 the BRS is fired and
slows the descent rate of the glider. Pilot assesses altitude,
stability, injuries, wind, terrain etc and has the option to choose
stage 2 which separates the BRS parachute from the glider and extracts
the pilot who is wearing a parachute harness attached to the BRS chute
risers. Somewhere between stage 1 and stage 2 the pilot better
release the seat belt or it could get uncomfortable.

Andy

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:29:10 -0800, Andy wrote:

>> On the surface, it seems to me that attaching the parachute bridle to
>> the wing main spar stubs is not the optimal way to do it. In general, I
>> think I'd rather attach the bridle to the aircraft structure at the
>> forward and aft lift pin fittings. My thinking is that the lift fitting
>> structure is closer to the pilot along the primary load path between
>> the wings and the fuselage.
>>
Good point. The only pic I've seen of an installed BRS where I could see
what was going on was that HP installation I mentioned, so I just
extrapolated without really engaging my brain.

> I think my ideal BRS would have the option to extract the pilot from the
> fuselage as a 2 stage deployment. Stage 1 the BRS is fired and slows
> the descent rate of the glider. Pilot assesses altitude, stability,
> injuries, wind, terrain etc and has the option to choose stage 2 which
> separates the BRS parachute from the glider and extracts the pilot who
> is wearing a parachute harness attached to the BRS chute risers.
> Somewhere between stage 1 and stage 2 the pilot better release the seat
> belt or it could get uncomfortable.
>
Better have a lifting panel too, or it would still be somewhat
uncomfortable, whether the seat harness was released or not.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Kevin]

Many Pipistrel Taurus have a BRS; mine does. You can see the
installation in a shot I took at the factory - unfortunately, I don't
have a better picture handy:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tauruspilots/photos/album/1152126656/pic/1294033870/view?picmode=large&mode=tn&order=ordinal&start=21&dir=asc

or http://yhoo.it/g6IUh3

The half cylinder in front is the rocket; the larger container behind
it is the chute; the tube leading down is the exhaust route for the
rocket. Its located behind the spars, just in front of the firewall
and does not attach to the spars. Obviously, this configuration is
not relevant to a discussion about retrofitting, and because the ship
has side-by-side seating, there's a lot more room to work with than a
typical ship would have. I can easily conceive of situations where I
might also want a personal parachute, but I think having another
option is good. To me, it only made sense to order it.

I believe that Pipistrel has the same option in its touring
motorgliders and I seem to recall hearing that they had been used on a
few occasions.

- Kevin


On Jan 24, 8:05*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:29:10 -0800, Andy wrote:
> >> On the surface, it seems to me that attaching the parachute bridle to
> >> the wing main spar stubs is not the optimal way to do it. In general, I
> >> think I'd rather attach the bridle to the aircraft structure at the
> >> forward and aft lift pin fittings. My thinking is that the lift fitting
> >> structure is closer to the pilot along the primary load path between
> >> the wings and the fuselage.
>
> Good point. The only pic I've seen of an installed BRS where I could see
> what was going on was that HP installation I mentioned, so I just
> extrapolated without really engaging my brain.
>
> > I think my ideal BRS would have the option to extract the pilot from the
> > fuselage as a 2 stage deployment. *Stage 1 the BRS is fired and slows
> > the descent rate of the glider. Pilot assesses altitude, stability,
> > injuries, wind, terrain etc and has the option to choose stage 2 which
> > separates the BRS parachute from the glider and extracts the pilot who
> > is wearing a parachute harness attached to the BRS chute risers.
> > Somewhere between stage 1 and stage 2 the pilot better release the seat
> > belt or it could get uncomfortable.
>
> Better have a lifting panel too, or it would still be somewhat
> uncomfortable, whether the seat harness was released or not.
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

[BruceGreeff]

Hi Bob

I have seen an ASW20 where the wings departed the fuselage together-
ripping the main spar out of the fuselage. The accident entry was
exactly the kind of situation one would typically envisage a BRS handle
being reached for. Pilot did something stupid, went way over Vne
recovering from the resulting unusual attitude. A little flutter
combined with high G pull up and structural failure.

My conclusion is that - if you were to attach the BRS bridle exclusively
to either the wing spar, or the fuselage you would have problems.
Picture the pilot plummeting vertically in his perfectly streamlined
fuselage, while the wings drift down under the BRS. Alternatively
picture the pilot after the BRS rapidly decelerated the fuselage, but
not the wings which are now displaced some feet forward of their
original fitting.

Seriously- the loads have to be designed for - and I doubt there are
many gliders that this would work on. I don't know what the design work
was on the Schempp-Hirth gliders, and I know that the BRS systems have
chokes on the shrouds to reduce the shock loading. But still...

Personally I will go with a decent personal chute, Flarm and some
dedicated use of the Mk1 eyeball.

Bruce



On 2011/01/25 12:55 AM, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Jan 24, 12:30 pm, Martin >
> wrote:
>> ...
>> By 'exposed spar stubs' I meant that there's no obvious tunnel, or top
>> and bottom guide channels, that the BRS webs could could go round the
>> outside of so they are guaranteed to be round the spars after the glider
>> is rigged: you'd need something like that to keep the webbing loop open
>> and let the spar stubs fit easily through them...
>
> On the surface, it seems to me that attaching the parachute bridle to
> the wing main spar stubs is not the optimal way to do it. In general,
> I think I'd rather attach the bridle to the aircraft structure at the
> forward and aft lift pin fittings. My thinking is that the lift
> fitting structure is closer to the pilot along the primary load path
> between the wings and the fuselage.
>
> At issue is that there is usually no direct structural connection
> between the wings and the fuselage at the wing main spar stubs, and
> there are many conceivable failure modes that could disengage the
> wings from the fuselage while leaving the fuselage otherwise intact.
> That being the case, I'd rather grab the fuselage directly at its
> strongest points rather than grab the wings that may or may not be
> attached there.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57

[[email protected]]

On Jan 20, 7:47*am, "
> wrote:
> On Jan 19, 11:35*pm, Sparkorama <Sparkorama.
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > I'm just getting back into the sport after a long hiatus. I've seen that
> > a lot of glider pilots fly with parachutes (ones they wear) and I have
> > seen Ballistic Recovery System parachutes in planes as well. From my
> > layman's view, it appears that getting out of a plane using a
> > traditional chute after a mid-air collision seems exceedingly difficult
> > and time-consuming. On the other hand, BRS chutes seem to deploy very
> > fast and can be deployed very close to the ground. They can lower the
> > entire plane safely to the ground in almost any terrain, and a few
> > bruises to your bird or your body seems a lot better than certain death
> > if you can't get out of a plane after a mid-air. So if this is true, and
> > I am happy to say I am no expert, then why isn't everyone using these
> > things? I think they should be mandatory in every new glider built.
> > Thoughts?
> > Spark
>
> > --
> > Sparkorama
>
> Here we go with this mandatorys stuff again!!
>
> First of all you have at least one misconception......the aircraft is
> not "lowered to the ground with only a few bruises". *The opening of
> the chute is a major event, the shock can cause considerable damage by
> itself. *The descent rates are high, so considerable damage upon
> striking the ground. *The device is "life saving" but not "aircraft
> saving".
>
> I has strongly considered a BRS when building my homebuilt
> plane......I ruled it out for a number of reasons. *The greatest
> reason was that the design and structure of the aircraft wuld have had
> too have been highly modified.....strengthened....coping with strong
> force loads *in the oposite direction......to with stand the opening
> shock of the chute............this required the doubling of the
> cockpit side walls, installation of metal cross members, etc. * This
> alone would have added too much weight to the aircraft, not to mention
> the complications and weight of the mounting of the BRS unit
> itself.........
>
> Yeah, and then the cost...........
>
> Now on the other hand, there are many factory built aircraft with
> BRS....Like Cirrus.....a few gliders too..........these companies feel
> that the BRS is a good selling point....enhanced safety and all
> that....
>
> In the world of ultralights, BRS type chutes are the "norm" * fairly
> common in Light Sport aircraft too......I believe that just about ALL
> hanglider guys have a ballistic chute of some type.
>
> Cookie

Correction!

I was just taken to task by a hang glider (and sailplane) pilot
friend......

Hang gliders use "hand thrown" chutes, not "ballistic".


Cookie

[Tony V]

>
> Correction!
>
> I was just taken to task by a hang glider (and sailplane) pilot
> friend......
>
> Hang gliders use "hand thrown" chutes, not "ballistic".
>
> Cookie

Happily, everybody is right. :-) both hand-thrown and ballistic chutes
are available to the hang glider community. See
http://www.highenergysports.com/articles/ballistic_controversy.htm for a
start

Tony LS6-b, USHPA 7826

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 25, 8:05*am, BruceGreeff > wrote:
> I have seen an ASW20 where the wings departed the fuselage together-
> ripping the main spar out of the fuselage.

As a Schleicher driver I'm interested to know what failed. How did
the wings separate from the fuselage but remain together? Did all the
lift pins fail, or did the lift pin sockets in the wing roots fail, or
was there somehow sufficient bending of the spar that the lift pins
detached without the pins or sockets failing. Maybe the whole lift
pin carry through structure detached from the fuselage but isn't it
attached to the landing gear?

I'd always assumed the spar would break before any of that could
happen but I know the 20 spar is more flexible than some.

Andy

[Andreas Maurer]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:48:29 -0800 (PST), Andy >
wrote:

>
>As a Schleicher driver I'm interested to know what failed. How did
>the wings separate from the fuselage but remain together? Did all the
>lift pins fail, or did the lift pin sockets in the wing roots fail, or
>was there somehow sufficient bending of the spar that the lift pins
>detached without the pins or sockets failing. Maybe the whole lift
>pin carry through structure detached from the fuselage but isn't it
>attached to the landing gear?

Hi Andy,

Schleicher gliders have a notorious weak point: The bushings that hold
the lift pins are a little bit too short and not fixed in the shear
force tube - there have been a number of accidents where they were
twisted and ripped out of the shear force tube instead of keeping the
wing attached. (I hope I got the technical terms halfways correctly).

However, I'm not aware of such a thing happening inflight, but it
happened a couple of times after a wing hit a tree and an extremely
hard impact. I'm pretty sure that strong wing flutter exhibits forces
that are sufficient.

In Schleicher gliders, the structure that carries the wing is not
directly attached to the landing gear (as ist is the case with most
Schempp-Hirth gliders).

One thing should be mentioned: I have the impression that the
Schleicher design is - despite the problem with the bushings - one of
the strongest - in case of a crash the wings of Schleicher gliders
stay attached to the fuselage comparably often.

Andreas

[[email protected]]

On Jan 25, 7:05*pm, Tony V > wrote:
> > Correction!
>
> > I was just taken to task by a hang glider (and sailplane) pilot
> > friend......
>
> > Hang gliders use "hand thrown" chutes, not "ballistic".
>
> > Cookie
>
> Happily, everybody is right. :-) both hand-thrown and ballistic chutes
> are available to the hang glider community. Seehttp://www.highenergysports.com/articles/ballistic_controversy.htmfor a
> start
>
> Tony LS6-b, USHPA 7826

Yes, according to my expert, both ballistic and hand thrown parachutes
have been and are used on hang gliders. But mostly hand thrown by a
large margin.

But my original point was that hang gliders widely use parachute
recovery systems, you could say "everybody uses them" and you could
say they are "mandated". I believe that the hang glider people have
decided to self regulate (as opposed to government regulation) and
require chutes at any "sanctioned" gliding site.

This is not the case in sailplanes however, for the reasons given in
this thread. Sailplanes are very different in some respects, than
hang gliders. I think that the "personal" parachute is the preferred
solution for sailplanes. Soaring also self regulates to some degree
as chutes are required in contests.

Cookie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 25, 7:48*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jan 25, 8:05*am, BruceGreeff > wrote:
>
> > I have seen an ASW20 where the wings departed the fuselage together-
> > ripping the main spar out of the fuselage.
>
> As a Schleicher driver I'm interested to know what failed. * How did
> the wings separate from the fuselage but remain together? *Did all the
> lift pins fail, or did the lift pin sockets in the wing roots fail, or
> was there somehow sufficient bending of the spar that the lift pins
> detached without the pins or sockets failing. *Maybe the whole lift
> pin carry through structure detached from the fuselage but isn't it
> attached to the landing gear?
>
> I'd always assumed the spar would break before any of that could
> happen but I know the 20 spar is more flexible than some.
>
> Andy

Interesting about the mode of structural failure on sailplanes. To
the defense of BRS...From what I learned in my research for possiblly
installing a BRS system into my homebuilt ...the BRS guys do a lot of
research and testing. It is not so simple as just hooking the
parachute onto some convenient spot on the aircraft. I have not seen
the details on the BRS set up for sailplanes, but on my airplane I
had originally expected that the parachute would be connected to the
center section of the top wing spar......I soon learned that this was
a bad idea and not how it is done. The BRS design called for kevlar
straps under the pilot and passenger section of the fuselage......In
theory, the wings could fall off, the tail could fall off ,the engine
could fall off and the passenger section could be severly damaged, and
still return the occupants to earth relatively unharmed.

I would not expect to see a recovery chute attached to the spars, or
spar stubs in a glider.....rather somehow strapping under the
passenger area of the cockpit.

Cookie

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 25, 7:47*pm, Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:48:29 -0800 (PST), Andy >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >As a Schleicher driver I'm interested to know what failed. * How did
> >the wings separate from the fuselage but remain together? *Did all the
> >lift pins fail, or did the lift pin sockets in the wing roots fail, or
> >was there somehow sufficient bending of the spar that the lift pins
> >detached without the pins or sockets failing. *Maybe the whole lift
> >pin carry through structure detached from the fuselage but isn't it
> >attached to the landing gear?
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> Schleicher gliders have a notorious weak point: The bushings that hold
> the lift pins are a little bit too short and not fixed in the shear
> force tube - there have been a number of accidents where they were
> twisted and ripped out of the shear force tube instead of keeping the
> wing attached. (I hope I got the technical terms halfways correctly).
>
> However, I'm not aware of such a thing happening inflight, but it
> happened a couple of times after a wing hit a tree and an extremely
> hard impact. I'm pretty sure *that strong wing flutter exhibits forces
> that are sufficient.
>
> In Schleicher gliders, the structure that carries the wing is not
> directly attached to the landing gear (as ist is the case with most
> Schempp-Hirth gliders).
>
> One thing should be mentioned: I have the impression that the
> Schleicher design is - despite the problem with the bushings - one of
> the strongest - in case of a crash the wings of Schleicher gliders
> stay attached to the fuselage comparably often.
>
> Andreas

Thanks for that information Andreas.

Andy

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

On Jan 25, 8:27*pm, "
> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 7:48*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 8:05*am, BruceGreeff > wrote:
>
> > > I have seen an ASW20 where the wings departed the fuselage together-
> > > ripping the main spar out of the fuselage.
>
> > As a Schleicher driver I'm interested to know what failed. * How did
> > the wings separate from the fuselage but remain together? *Did all the
> > lift pins fail, or did the lift pin sockets in the wing roots fail, or
> > was there somehow sufficient bending of the spar that the lift pins
> > detached without the pins or sockets failing. *Maybe the whole lift
> > pin carry through structure detached from the fuselage but isn't it
> > attached to the landing gear?
>
> > I'd always assumed the spar would break before any of that could
> > happen but I know the 20 spar is more flexible than some.
>
> > Andy
>
> Interesting about the mode of structural failure on sailplanes. *To
> the defense of BRS...From what I learned in my research for possiblly
> installing a BRS system into my homebuilt ...the BRS guys do a lot of
> research and testing. * It is not so simple as just hooking the
> parachute onto some convenient spot on the aircraft. *I have not seen
> the details on *the BRS set up for sailplanes, but on my airplane I
> had originally expected that the parachute would be connected to the
> center section of the top wing spar......I soon learned that this was
> a bad idea and not how it is done. *The BRS design called for kevlar
> straps under the pilot and passenger section of the fuselage......In
> theory, the wings could fall off, the tail could fall off ,the engine
> could fall off and the passenger section could be severly damaged, and
> still return the occupants to earth relatively unharmed.
>
> I would not expect to see a recovery chute attached to the spars, or
> spar stubs in a glider.....rather somehow strapping under the
> passenger area of the cockpit.
>
> Cookie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The Genesis 2 was designed to use a BRS and the web-harness is
attached to all 4 lift fittings just inside the fuselage. The system
was never tested, but should bring the ship down in a mostly wings
level attitude. The hatch is located to allow the risers to deploy
with minimum damage to surrounding area. At least one Genesis is
flying with this setup. I was ready to buy last fall, but never heard
back from several inquires. Has anybody had recent contact with BRS?
JJ