Puchaz spin - now wearing 'chutes

[Bill Daniels]

The discussion of wearing parachutes is an interesting one. Parachutes are
cheap insurance and, when one is needed, nothing else will quite do the job.
So, why aren't they universally worn?

In a word, weight. The available two seaters, for the most part, have
weight limitations that almost preclude wearing 'chutes. Two 17 pound
'chutes rob 34 pounds from what may be only 380 pounds of allowable cockpit
load. The choice becomes, wear 'chutes and fly over gross weight or leave
them behind. In the USA the choice is almost always to leave them on the
ground when flying two seaters. Pilots of single seaters choose to wear
'chutes far more frequently since the payload permits it.

Requiring the wearing of 'chutes will put a lot of people into violation of
the C of A or rule them out of the sport entirely - neither is an acceptable
option.

The choices are:

1. Make humans lighter - working on that.
2. Make 'chutes lighter - little more to be gained here.
3. Make glider manufacturers build two seaters with greater payload.

Number 3 is the real problem. I suggest we insist on at least 200 Kilos
minimum certifiable payload after allowances for oxygen and avionics.

Bill Daniels

[John Galloway]

I don't understand why wearing chutes should be problematical
in the States and not in the UK where they are almost
universally worn. I wouldn't ever fly a glider without
a chute I had complete confidence in and, as far as
I can recall, I haven't seen anyone get in a glider
without a chute for years.

John Galloway

At 18:36 08 February 2004, Bill Daniels wrote:
>The discussion of wearing parachutes is an interesting
>one. Parachutes are
>cheap insurance and, when one is needed, nothing else
>will quite do the job.
>So, why aren't they universally worn?
>
>In a word, weight. The available two seaters, for
>the most part, have
>weight limitations that almost preclude wearing 'chutes.
> Two 17 pound
>'chutes rob 34 pounds from what may be only 380 pounds
>of allowable cockpit
>load. The choice becomes, wear 'chutes and fly over
>gross weight or leave
>them behind. In the USA the choice is almost always
>to leave them on the
>ground when flying two seaters. Pilots of single seaters
>choose to wear
>'chutes far more frequently since the payload permits
>it.
>
>Requiring the wearing of 'chutes will put a lot of
>people into violation of
>the C of A or rule them out of the sport entirely -
>neither is an acceptable
>option.
>
>The choices are:
>
>1. Make humans lighter - working on that.
>2. Make 'chutes lighter - little more to be gained
>here.
>3. Make glider manufacturers build two seaters with
>greater payload.
>
>Number 3 is the real problem. I suggest we insist
>on at least 200 Kilos
>minimum certifiable payload after allowances for oxygen
>and avionics.
>
>Bill Daniels
>
>

[Bill Daniels]

"John Galloway" > wrote in message
...
> I don't understand why wearing chutes should be problematical
> in the States and not in the UK where they are almost
> universally worn. I wouldn't ever fly a glider without
> a chute I had complete confidence in and, as far as
> I can recall, I haven't seen anyone get in a glider
> without a chute for years.
>
> John Galloway

So, John, how do you handle the weight issue in a situation where the
occupants + 'chutes will be over the allowable gross weight for the glider?
Do you send the overweight passenger/student home or do you fly over weight?

I don't like flying without 'chutes, but I'm also nervous about flying over
weight.

Bill Daniels

[W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\).]

I needed to do a check flight in 2002 with a coach, Simon Adlard. We
needed to use the K13, because the check was to include stall/spinning, and
the other gliders available to us at the particular club were K21s which
were not suitable for the exercises we needed to do.

We were overweight for the K13, so we did not do the flight. It did not
cross our minds to fly without parachutes.

I therefore went to Bicester to fly with Simon in the BGA Puchacz '99', we
also used an RAFGSA K13 'R88' which had been beautifully totally restored by
Dave Bullock, and had newly approved placards allowing heavier cockpit
weights.

One of the exercises, done in the K13, was a stall in a steep thermal turn.
It did this very well with no pre-stall symptoms other than control
movements and position, it broke straight into a steep diving spin entry,
very convincing!
This exercise may be found on page 19-5 of the BGA Instructors' Manual
Second edition, title "Spin off a Steep or Thermal Turn".

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

>
> "Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > "John Galloway" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > I don't understand why wearing chutes should be problematical in the
> > States and not in the UK where they are almost universally worn.
> > I wouldn't ever fly a glider without a chute I had complete confidence
> > in and, as far as I can recall, I haven't seen anyone get in a glider
> > without a chute for years.
> >
> > John Galloway
> >
>
> So, John, how do you handle the weight issue in a situation where the
> occupants + 'chutes will be over the allowable gross weight for the
> glider?
> Do you send the overweight passenger/student home or do you fly over
> weight?
>
> I don't like flying without 'chutes, but I'm also nervous about flying
> over weight.
>
> Bill Daniels
>

[Stephen Haley]

Chutes are mandatory at my club as well. If you cant meet the weight
placard limits you don't fly - its as simple as that. I have seen several
people turned away. I think most British clubs put a limit on dual trial
flights of 16 stone for the front seat. It helps that we dont allow our AEI
pilots to eat for a week beforehand <G>

I am surprised that in such a litigious country as the US any club would
even consider it.

Stephen Haley

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Galloway" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I don't understand why wearing chutes should be problematical
> > in the States and not in the UK where they are almost
> > universally worn. I wouldn't ever fly a glider without
> > a chute I had complete confidence in and, as far as
> > I can recall, I haven't seen anyone get in a glider
> > without a chute for years.
> >
> > John Galloway
>
> So, John, how do you handle the weight issue in a situation where the
> occupants + 'chutes will be over the allowable gross weight for the
glider?
> Do you send the overweight passenger/student home or do you fly over
weight?
>
> I don't like flying without 'chutes, but I'm also nervous about flying
over
> weight.
>
> Bill Daniels
>

[Mark James Boyd]

Bill Daniels > wrote:
>
>In a word, weight.

Er...price. $50 every 120 days = $100 per soaring season =
$1000 over ten years.

And rigs that get old get hard to find someone to pack them.
And there are chute AD's. $$$$s to be legal...

I saw a place in AZ, USA that does rig training for $525.
Assuming the test is $250 and materials $250, maybe one is better
off getting the license and just doing it oneself...cheaper
in the long run...

http://www.skydivemarana.com/rigging.htm

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Dave Houlton > wrote:
>This parachute discussion has me thinking about the rocket-deployed
>chutes we used to have for hang gliding, and the BRS systems now in
>Cirrus (Cirrii?) and small Cessnas. Probably no improvement w.r.t
>weight or cost considerations, but for convenience, comfort, and "always
>there when you need it" they would seem ideal. I don't actually know
>the repack requirements, but I would guess they're annually or even longer.
>
>Are there any gliders out there today with whole-ship BRS-type chutes?

I've flown a powered ultralight with one. Additionally,
the whole ultralight weight issue excludes safety devices.
From what I understand, you may add 70# to your legal
empty weight if you add a BRS type chute.

So you can actually GAIN legal empty weight by adding
a chute. Still cuts into gross wt though...

I've read the stats and these things have a remarkable
save rate, and at VERY low altitudes (some below 300 ft).

[Dave Houlton]

This parachute discussion has me thinking about the rocket-deployed
chutes we used to have for hang gliding, and the BRS systems now in
Cirrus (Cirrii?) and small Cessnas. Probably no improvement w.r.t
weight or cost considerations, but for convenience, comfort, and "always
there when you need it" they would seem ideal. I don't actually know
the repack requirements, but I would guess they're annually or even longer.

Are there any gliders out there today with whole-ship BRS-type chutes?

Dave


Mark James Boyd wrote:
> Bill Daniels > wrote:
>
>>In a word, weight.
>
>
> Er...price. $50 every 120 days = $100 per soaring season =
> $1000 over ten years.
>
> And rigs that get old get hard to find someone to pack them.
> And there are chute AD's. $$$$s to be legal...
>
> I saw a place in AZ, USA that does rig training for $525.
> Assuming the test is $250 and materials $250, maybe one is better
> off getting the license and just doing it oneself...cheaper
> in the long run...
>
> http://www.skydivemarana.com/rigging.htm
>
>

[Andreas Maurer]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:11:03 -0700, Dave Houlton > wrote:

>This parachute discussion has me thinking about the rocket-deployed
>chutes we used to have for hang gliding, and the BRS systems now in
>Cirrus (Cirrii?) and small Cessnas. Probably no improvement w.r.t
>weight or cost considerations, but for convenience, comfort, and "always
>there when you need it" they would seem ideal. I don't actually know
>the repack requirements, but I would guess they're annually or even longer.
>
>Are there any gliders out there today with whole-ship BRS-type chutes?

Ventus 2 and ASW-28. Just order the BRS when you buy one.
Bye
Andreas

[Mike Borgelt]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:11:03 -0700, Dave Houlton > wrote:

>This parachute discussion has me thinking about the rocket-deployed
>chutes we used to have for hang gliding, and the BRS systems now in
>Cirrus (Cirrii?) and small Cessnas. Probably no improvement w.r.t
>weight or cost considerations, but for convenience, comfort, and "always
>there when you need it" they would seem ideal. I don't actually know
>the repack requirements, but I would guess they're annually or even longer.
>
>Are there any gliders out there today with whole-ship BRS-type chutes?
>
>Dave

The whole ship chute concept is a bit of a worry. There you are in a
large heavy object with absolutely no control. With a personal chute
you do have steering on most rigs nowadays.

With a whole ship chute would it just ruin your day to have save and
then hit the high voltage lines, fall out of a tree, fall over a cliff
etc?

I think I would prefer a smaller chute to stabilise the glider so I
could get out or the NOAH system that one pilot has fitted to his LS8
in Oz(he's had one bailout)

Mike Borgelt

[Mark James Boyd]

Mike Borgelt > wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:11:03 -0700, Dave Houlton > wrote:
>
>The whole ship chute concept is a bit of a worry. There you are in a
>large heavy object with absolutely no control. With a personal chute
>you do have steering on most rigs nowadays.
>
>With a whole ship chute would it just ruin your day to have save and
>then hit the high voltage lines, fall out of a tree, fall over a cliff
>etc?
>
>I think I would prefer a smaller chute to stabilise the glider so I
>could get out or the NOAH system that one pilot has fitted to his LS8
>in Oz(he's had one bailout)

Having one doesn't stop you from also wearing a
personal chute (ok, maybe we're really pushing weight
considerations now).

Whether the super low altitude capability and ease of use (vs
eject canopy, egress, pull handle) is good for you I guess depends.
From my experience doing a VERY poor job of hitting my landing spots
with a personal chute, I'd prefer the whole ship chute to a
personal one if cost and repack and weight were no factor...

I also like the idea of hitting the ground with all that fiberglass and
seat around me, instead of being lobotomized by a tree...

[Bill Daniels]

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:4029b95f$1@darkstar...
> Mike Borgelt > wrote:
> >On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:11:03 -0700, Dave Houlton > wrote:
> >
> >The whole ship chute concept is a bit of a worry. There you are in a
> >large heavy object with absolutely no control. With a personal chute
> >you do have steering on most rigs nowadays.
> >
> >With a whole ship chute would it just ruin your day to have save and
> >then hit the high voltage lines, fall out of a tree, fall over a cliff
> >etc?
> >
> >I think I would prefer a smaller chute to stabilise the glider so I
> >could get out or the NOAH system that one pilot has fitted to his LS8
> >in Oz(he's had one bailout)
>
> Having one doesn't stop you from also wearing a
> personal chute (ok, maybe we're really pushing weight
> considerations now).
>
> Whether the super low altitude capability and ease of use (vs
> eject canopy, egress, pull handle) is good for you I guess depends.
> From my experience doing a VERY poor job of hitting my landing spots
> with a personal chute, I'd prefer the whole ship chute to a
> personal one if cost and repack and weight were no factor...
>
> I also like the idea of hitting the ground with all that fiberglass and
> seat around me, instead of being lobotomized by a tree...

I will find the whole-glider 'chute idea a lot more attractive when I see
videos of test engineers riding them to the ground. So far, I think all the
manufacturers' tests had the test pilot leaving the test aircraft with a
personal 'chute after the aircraft 'chute opened - not too confidence
inspiring.

Bill Daniels

[nafod40]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> I will find the whole-glider 'chute idea a lot more attractive when I see
> videos of test engineers riding them to the ground. So far, I think all the
> manufacturers' tests had the test pilot leaving the test aircraft with a
> personal 'chute after the aircraft 'chute opened - not too confidence
> inspiring.

They've been given the real test...by an owner.

http://www.ulflyingmag.com/2003web/archives/cirrusave.html

[Mark James Boyd]

Bill Daniels > wrote:
>
>
>I've read that story before but the SR22 is not a glider. The SR22 gear
>legs are designed to absorb a lot of the impact. I don't think a gliders'
>hard gear will protect my spine when hitting a hard surface at 5 meters per
>second.
>
>I don't think even the manufacturers of these "whole-aircraft" chutes claim
>that landing with one is safer than landing with a personal 'chute.

At 500 feet and below (typical ultralight altitude),
I'm gonna go out on a limb and
say they are DEFINITELY safer...from a midair in a gaggle at a bijillion
feet...
I dunno...

>
>I'm with Mike Borgelt. Give me a NOAH or a tail 'chute to stabilize the
>wreckage so I can depart with a personal 'chute.

Comparing a 3000# airplane to a 800# glider is apples and oranges
in my opinion.

And on a Sparrowhawk at <500#, I'd take a BRS in a heartbeat.

If you want real statistics on sink rate with chute, and
survivability, use the ultralight stats. There are many
reported saves...

And if you want to sink slower, just get a bigger chute... :)

900 lbs aircraft, canister, 135mph terminal, 6 yr repack,
25lbs weight, 2 ft long and 8" diameter...

www.ultralightnews.com/brs1/BRS2.HTML
has the weights and sizes...

"I have recieved no compensation for this posting and
am not in any way an employee or beneficiary of
BRS, although I flown aircraft using their
products. This is not to say, however, that I would
not accept a nice shiny new BRS if offered."
Yeah, RIGHT!! :P

[Bill Daniels]

"nafod40" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Daniels wrote:
> > I will find the whole-glider 'chute idea a lot more attractive when I
see
> > videos of test engineers riding them to the ground. So far, I think all
the
> > manufacturers' tests had the test pilot leaving the test aircraft with a
> > personal 'chute after the aircraft 'chute opened - not too confidence
> > inspiring.
>
> They've been given the real test...by an owner.
>
> http://www.ulflyingmag.com/2003web/archives/cirrusave.html
>

I've read that story before but the SR22 is not a glider. The SR22 gear
legs are designed to absorb a lot of the impact. I don't think a gliders'
hard gear will protect my spine when hitting a hard surface at 5 meters per
second.

I don't think even the manufacturers of these "whole-aircraft" chutes claim
that landing with one is safer than landing with a personal 'chute.

I'm with Mike Borgelt. Give me a NOAH or a tail 'chute to stabilize the
wreckage so I can depart with a personal 'chute.

Bill Daniels

[Andrew Warbrick]

At 16:18 11 February 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
snip...

>At 500 feet and below (typical ultralight altitude),
>
>I'm gonna go out on a limb and
>say they are DEFINITELY safer...from a midair in a
>gaggle at a bijillion
>feet...
>I dunno...
>
It would remove the temptation to stay with the glider
and try to save it. You pull the bung and float down
on the BRS, rather than descend from 3000', have the
tailplane part company with the fin at 1000' and bunt
straight into the ground. And, before Mark claims that
scenario is far fetched, it has already happened with
fatal consequences.

I would have a BRS if it was possible to retrofit one
to my glider at a sensible price.

snip...

[Jim Harper]

Dave Houlton > wrote in message >...

> Are there any gliders out there today with whole-ship BRS-type chutes?
>
> Dave

Hi, Dave.

The short answer to your question is, yep!
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-16/N8DC/BRS/BRS_in_HP-16.htm

You can do a google search and find a long discussion regarding this
(initiated by me, that time...not the first discussion on this) from
around last Christmas (02).

Short form: I made the decision to put a BRS 1050 in my HP-16 because:

1. I am a big guy. Whilst I did fit in the glider with a parachute,
the ergonomics were challenging. Without a parachute, I am in
sumptious luxury.

2. I could. The glider is experimental, and changes are trivial. A
certificated glider would be much more difficult to do this in,
requiring a 337 which may or may not be possible (I'd bet on not).

3. While the cost was higher than a regular parachute (around $2500,
if memory serves, now around $2900) the weight penalty was not
significantly higher at 24 pounds for the 1050 softpack model I
bought. Repacks are sort of a push, given that they are quite
expensive, but only need done every 6 years.

I reached the decision after doing a moderately exhaustive search on
parachute saves in gliders. Basically, it looked to me like most
fatalities would not have been prevented by the usual open the canopy
and bail out...given the relative low altitude of most. Read the
thread for more on that, please. At any rate, I feel I can get a
canopy over me at anything above around 250 feet, perhaps lower, so I
have a better margin of safety than if I needed to open the canopy and
bail out...I think most believe that you need to start that at around
1500-2000 feet above ground.

I believe that my parachute will lower me relatively nose-down, and as
such, my legs will protect me to some extent on landing. I feel safer
surrounded by the aluminum and plexiglass than if I were on my own
under canopy, given that I'll likley not be descending into a prepared
drop zone, more likely trees or worse...and I have around 500 sport
parachute and military jumps, so I speak from knowledge there.

No, thank God, I have not had the opportunity to use it, and hope that
I never find out if it'll work...but it comforts me to know it's
there.

I hope that helps.

Jim

[nafod40]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> "nafod40" wrote
>>
>>They've been given the real test...by an owner.
>>
>>http://www.ulflyingmag.com/2003web/archives/cirrusave.html
>>
>
> I've read that story before but the SR22 is not a glider. The SR22 gear
> legs are designed to absorb a lot of the impact. I don't think a gliders'
> hard gear will protect my spine when hitting a hard surface at 5 meters per
> second.
>
> I don't think even the manufacturers of these "whole-aircraft" chutes claim
> that landing with one is safer than landing with a personal 'chute.
>
> I'm with Mike Borgelt. Give me a NOAH or a tail 'chute to stabilize the
> wreckage so I can depart with a personal 'chute.

Some thoughts to consider...
1. Glider weighs a lot less than a Cirrus, since you don't have engine,
etc. to lower to ground = slower land speed. Want slower landing? Use
bigger chute. Someone will come up with airbag deployment too. Should be
cheap, as they are mass produced for cars.
2. Landing in prone position vice upright, you can accept a hell of a
big force. Gliders put you in the right position to land.
3. Jumping out of plane at low levels can be hazardous to your health.
4. With whole plane chute, you still have an intact glider when all is
said and done. With personal chute, you have scrap.

I personally sat in (never used...knock on wood) an ejection seat for a
few thousand hours, but they weigh more than some gliders, I think.

[Jim Harper]

Mike Borgelt > wrote in message >...

<some snippage>
> The whole ship chute concept is a bit of a worry. There you are in a
> large heavy object with absolutely no control. With a personal chute
> you do have steering on most rigs nowadays.
>
> With a whole ship chute would it just ruin your day to have save and
> then hit the high voltage lines, fall out of a tree, fall over a cliff
> etc?
<some MORE snippage>

> Mike Borgelt

Actually, Mike, on that we disagree.

Unless you are using a square canopy for your personal chute, you have
very little choice on where you are gonna land...and hitting the tree,
high voltage lines or over the cliff are gonna suck less if you have
some aluminum or fiberglass around you. Well, that was my decision for
sure.

Oh, and keep in mind that as I disagree with you, I do it with all due
deference to someone as distinguished in our sport as yourself (no
sarcasm, I meant that!)

Jim

[Ian MacArthur]

Just wondering...

Do Americans wear parachutes whilst flying in competitions?
I went to fly at one of the big clubs in the states,
no-one wore any chutes but there were some availiable.
so we wore them.

[Bill Daniels]

"Jim Harper" > wrote in message
om...
> Mike Borgelt > wrote in message
>...
>
> <some snippage>
> > The whole ship chute concept is a bit of a worry. There you are in a
> > large heavy object with absolutely no control. With a personal chute
> > you do have steering on most rigs nowadays.
> >
> > With a whole ship chute would it just ruin your day to have save and
> > then hit the high voltage lines, fall out of a tree, fall over a cliff
> > etc?
> <some MORE snippage>
>
> > Mike Borgelt
>
> Actually, Mike, on that we disagree.
>
> Unless you are using a square canopy for your personal chute, you have
> very little choice on where you are gonna land...and hitting the tree,
> high voltage lines or over the cliff are gonna suck less if you have
> some aluminum or fiberglass around you. Well, that was my decision for
> sure.
>
> Oh, and keep in mind that as I disagree with you, I do it with all due
> deference to someone as distinguished in our sport as yourself (no
> sarcasm, I meant that!)
>
> Jim

OK, crank these numbers. Consider my Nimbus 2C (Experimental, so I could
install a BRS) at 650 Kilos with water (which takes 5 minutes to dump). The
gear strut will give 30mm on impact and the tire will give 50mm more. The
cockpit shell is just fiberglass with no crush structure.

I pop a BRS at 300 meters AGL with the surface wind at 15 knots. What are
my chances? Give BRS weights, 'chute diameters and descent rates.

Bill Daniels

[Eric Greenwell]

Dave Houlton wrote:
> This parachute discussion has me thinking about the rocket-deployed
> chutes we used to have for hang gliding, and the BRS systems now in
> Cirrus (Cirrii?) and small Cessnas. Probably no improvement w.r.t
> weight or cost considerations, but for convenience, comfort, and "always
> there when you need it" they would seem ideal. I don't actually know
> the repack requirements, but I would guess they're annually or even longer.
>
> Are there any gliders out there today with whole-ship BRS-type chutes?

Some of the Russia AC-4 gliders in the US are equipped with them, and
the SparrowHawk has it available as a $2200 option. At least one
SparrowHawk has it installed. Neither the Russia nor the SparrowHawk
people have tested the BRS in a glider yet.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[nafod40]

Bill Daniels wrote:
>
> I pop a BRS at 300 meters AGL with the surface wind at 15 knots. What are
> my chances? Give BRS weights, 'chute diameters and descent rates.

Infinitely better than trying to bailout, no?

[Dave Houlton]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> "Jim Harper" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>Mike Borgelt > wrote in message
>
> >...
>
>><some snippage>
>>
>>>The whole ship chute concept is a bit of a worry. There you are in a
>>>large heavy object with absolutely no control. With a personal chute
>>>you do have steering on most rigs nowadays.
>>>
>>>With a whole ship chute would it just ruin your day to have save and
>>>then hit the high voltage lines, fall out of a tree, fall over a cliff
>>>etc?
>>
>><some MORE snippage>
>>
>>>Mike Borgelt
>>
>>Actually, Mike, on that we disagree.
>>
>>Unless you are using a square canopy for your personal chute, you have
>>very little choice on where you are gonna land...and hitting the tree,
>>high voltage lines or over the cliff are gonna suck less if you have
>>some aluminum or fiberglass around you. Well, that was my decision for
>>sure.
>>
>>Oh, and keep in mind that as I disagree with you, I do it with all due
>>deference to someone as distinguished in our sport as yourself (no
>>sarcasm, I meant that!)
>>
>>Jim
>
>
> OK, crank these numbers. Consider my Nimbus 2C (Experimental, so I could
> install a BRS) at 650 Kilos with water (which takes 5 minutes to dump). The
> gear strut will give 30mm on impact and the tire will give 50mm more. The
> cockpit shell is just fiberglass with no crush structure.
>
> I pop a BRS at 300 meters AGL with the surface wind at 15 knots. What are
> my chances? Give BRS weights, 'chute diameters and descent rates.
>
> Bill Daniels

Hi, Bill.

Too many variables there to calculate for me, but I did visit the BRS
site to gather some data. Their 680 kg. capacity system is 13.5m in
diameter, weighs 16kg, and claims 7.6 m/sec descent rate @ 5000' density
altitude. So in your proposed situation you're going to land with about
a 15kt vertical component and a 15kt horizontal component. Translating
that into G-forces and survivability I'll leave up to someone more
knowledgeable...

OTOH, I'm glad you picked this particular scenario, because I think its
exactly where a BRS system would be invaluable. You're at 300m AGL in
an unlandable ship - you pull the BRS handle and 2-3 seconds later you
are under canopy. In the same situation what are your chances of
popping the canopy, unbuckling, bailing, and deploying your chute in
time? Now what if you're spinning, tumbling, or pointed straight down
without an elevator?

At a sufficient altitude where egress time isn't a big factor, I think
the personal vs. BRS calculation could go either way. The closer you
are to the terrain at the time of the 'incident', the more a BRS system
looks like the only game in town.

All IMHO,

Dave Houlton

[Dave Houlton]

Jim Harper wrote:

> Dave Houlton > wrote in message >...
>
>
>>Are there any gliders out there today with whole-ship BRS-type chutes?
>>
>>Dave
>
>
> Hi, Dave.
>
> The short answer to your question is, yep!
> http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-16/N8DC/BRS/BRS_in_HP-16.htm
>
> You can do a google search and find a long discussion regarding this
> (initiated by me, that time...not the first discussion on this) from
> around last Christmas (02).
>
> Short form: I made the decision to put a BRS 1050 in my HP-16 because:
>
> 1. I am a big guy. Whilst I did fit in the glider with a parachute,
> the ergonomics were challenging. Without a parachute, I am in
> sumptious luxury.
>
> 2. I could. The glider is experimental, and changes are trivial. A
> certificated glider would be much more difficult to do this in,
> requiring a 337 which may or may not be possible (I'd bet on not).
>
> 3. While the cost was higher than a regular parachute (around $2500,
> if memory serves, now around $2900) the weight penalty was not
> significantly higher at 24 pounds for the 1050 softpack model I
> bought. Repacks are sort of a push, given that they are quite
> expensive, but only need done every 6 years.
>
> I reached the decision after doing a moderately exhaustive search on
> parachute saves in gliders. Basically, it looked to me like most
> fatalities would not have been prevented by the usual open the canopy
> and bail out...given the relative low altitude of most. Read the
> thread for more on that, please. At any rate, I feel I can get a
> canopy over me at anything above around 250 feet, perhaps lower, so I
> have a better margin of safety than if I needed to open the canopy and
> bail out...I think most believe that you need to start that at around
> 1500-2000 feet above ground.
>
> I believe that my parachute will lower me relatively nose-down, and as
> such, my legs will protect me to some extent on landing. I feel safer
> surrounded by the aluminum and plexiglass than if I were on my own
> under canopy, given that I'll likley not be descending into a prepared
> drop zone, more likely trees or worse...and I have around 500 sport
> parachute and military jumps, so I speak from knowledge there.
>
> No, thank God, I have not had the opportunity to use it, and hope that
> I never find out if it'll work...but it comforts me to know it's
> there.
>
> I hope that helps.
>
> Jim

It does help - thanks, Jim! I'm flying club gliders now, but I expect
I'll eventually be an owner - and based on this discussion I'll quite
likely opt for an experimental. It just makes sense to me that if
you're trying to leave yourself an out for when things go Really Bad,
you want that out to be usable in as many phases of flight as possible -
including low on tow or in the pattern. BRS seems like the only game in
town in those situations.

I never put on a chute at all during training (including full-turn
spins, of course), but I started thinking more about it this fall when I
took my 8-yr-old son for his first glider ride. Along the lines of "I
should grab us some parachutes. But I'm not confident he'd be able to
get out and deploy, and I'm obviously not leaving without him...
Anyway, this is just a pattern tow and a sled ride - we'll never be high
enough to use them anyway." Perfectly reasoned but not very reassuring.

Dave Houlton

[Bill Daniels]

"Dave Houlton" > wrote in message
...

> > OK, crank these numbers. Consider my Nimbus 2C (Experimental, so I
could
> > install a BRS) at 650 Kilos with water (which takes 5 minutes to dump).
The
> > gear strut will give 30mm on impact and the tire will give 50mm more.
The
> > cockpit shell is just fiberglass with no crush structure.
> >
> > I pop a BRS at 300 meters AGL with the surface wind at 15 knots. What
are
> > my chances? Give BRS weights, 'chute diameters and descent rates.
> >
> > Bill Daniels
>
> Hi, Bill.
>
> Too many variables there to calculate for me, but I did visit the BRS
> site to gather some data. Their 680 kg. capacity system is 13.5m in
> diameter, weighs 16kg, and claims 7.6 m/sec descent rate @ 5000' density
> altitude. So in your proposed situation you're going to land with about
> a 15kt vertical component and a 15kt horizontal component. Translating
> that into G-forces and survivability I'll leave up to someone more
> knowledgeable...

> Dave Houlton
>
>
OK, Dave, good numbers.

This asks me to add 16 Kilo's (35 pounds) to the non-flying parts of the
glider for which I get a 15 knot descent rate when deployed (Maybe less
since I will be dumping ballast like crazy.) With a 15 knot wind I would
probably whack an obstacle at 20 knots. (Probably survivable - with
injuries.)

BTW, if I'm getting dragged by an open 'chute in that 15 knot wind, how do I
dump the 'chute?

I seem to recall that the price of this system is about $3500 - presumably
not installed. What would be the installed price?

Bill Daniels

[Mike Borgelt]

On 11 Feb 2004 08:50:00 -0800, (Jim Harper) wrote:

>Mike Borgelt > wrote in message >...
>
><some snippage>
>> The whole ship chute concept is a bit of a worry. There you are in a
>> large heavy object with absolutely no control. With a personal chute
>> you do have steering on most rigs nowadays.
>>
>> With a whole ship chute would it just ruin your day to have save and
>> then hit the high voltage lines, fall out of a tree, fall over a cliff
>> etc?
><some MORE snippage>
>
>> Mike Borgelt
>
>Actually, Mike, on that we disagree.
>
>Unless you are using a square canopy for your personal chute, you have
>very little choice on where you are gonna land...and hitting the tree,
>high voltage lines or over the cliff are gonna suck less if you have
>some aluminum or fiberglass around you. Well, that was my decision for
>sure.
>
>Oh, and keep in mind that as I disagree with you, I do it with all due
>deference to someone as distinguished in our sport as yourself (no
>sarcasm, I meant that!)
>
>Jim


I figure that the choice with a personal chute is small but with a
whole ship chute it is zero.

The guy who taught me to pack a chute gave me escape instructions from
the glider and then said "enjoy the ride" as you were likely to be
confused and shocked anyway. He wouldn't have been as his real job not
long before had been giving the Viet Cong a hard time as a member of
the Australian SAS.

The other problem with whole ship chutes is that there is no room for
them - the engine occupies that space!

I once saw a movie of the BRS drop test on a C150 simulating its
arrival under a deployed BRS chute. I doubt that the Cessna was
useable again even though it was a symmetrical level attitude when it
hit with no drift. I'd hate to hit at a similar descent rate in a
glider. In Oz we've had a few people do hard landings in the last
couple of years. Some are considered lucky to be walking but the
gliders are repairable. Air bags may be essential.

Are your gliding club members smart enough to avoid inadvertent
deployment of a ballistic chute in the hangar? At one club I used to
belong to the new ASW20B got wheeled up twice in a month or so - in
the hangar as people said "what does this lever do?". In the chute
case you would hope nobody else was standing behind the wing looking
into the cockpit.

About 12 years ago we did a precision altimeter project for an RAAF
test project. The chief aero engineer of the research and development
unit was building an ultralight of his own design. I asked if he was
fitting a BRS chute. He said he was designing the aircraft basically
to high enough standards that like a FAR 23 power plane it was
reliable enough in its structure and control systems that flying
without a chute was a good risk. His opinion was that the whole ship
chutes at the time couldn't meet their claimed descent rates with the
chute sizes used. His first job had been with a parachute manufacturer
so I had to take some notice of his opinion.

Mike Borgelt

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> OK, crank these numbers. Consider my Nimbus 2C (Experimental, so I
could
> install a BRS) at 650 Kilos with water (which takes 5 minutes to dump). The
> gear strut will give 30mm on impact and the tire will give 50mm more. The
> cockpit shell is just fiberglass with no crush structure.
>
> I pop a BRS at 300 meters AGL with the surface wind at 15 knots. What are
> my chances? Give BRS weights, 'chute diameters and descent rates.

My understanding is the "whole glider" German rescue systems will lower
the glider nose down at about 40 degrees or so. If it is more level, it
is likely to oscillate wildly so much the descent and impact can't be
controlled. So, the landing gear is irrelevant, but the cockpit
structure is extremely important. The nose must absorb the "landing".

A Nimbus 2 might be a poor candidate for installing a system that won't
be tested, except when you really need it. Your safety might be better
served by selling the Nimbus and buying newer glider with a more crash
tolerant cockpit. At least in the US, crashing while landing (meaning
the last 100' of altitude) still claims more pilots than unsuccessful
bailouts.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bill Daniels]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Daniels wrote:
> > OK, crank these numbers. Consider my Nimbus 2C (Experimental, so I
> could
> > install a BRS) at 650 Kilos with water (which takes 5 minutes to dump).
The
> > gear strut will give 30mm on impact and the tire will give 50mm more.
The
> > cockpit shell is just fiberglass with no crush structure.
> >
> > I pop a BRS at 300 meters AGL with the surface wind at 15 knots. What
are
> > my chances? Give BRS weights, 'chute diameters and descent rates.
>
> My understanding is the "whole glider" German rescue systems will lower
> the glider nose down at about 40 degrees or so. If it is more level, it
> is likely to oscillate wildly so much the descent and impact can't be
> controlled. So, the landing gear is irrelevant, but the cockpit
> structure is extremely important. The nose must absorb the "landing".
>
> A Nimbus 2 might be a poor candidate for installing a system that won't
> be tested, except when you really need it. Your safety might be better
> served by selling the Nimbus and buying newer glider with a more crash
> tolerant cockpit. At least in the US, crashing while landing (meaning
> the last 100' of altitude) still claims more pilots than unsuccessful
> bailouts.

> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

OK, good info Eric - now we are getting down to it.

To summarize the thread so far:

The BRS requires a reinforced cockpit to absorb the non-trivial landing
impact forces. Most accidents involve premature termination of tow or
landing errors where a BRS 'chute wouldn't help anyway. Or perhaps,
mid-air collisions at an altitude where a personal 'chute is the equal for a
BRS for survivability.

A BRS is likely to require non-trivial pilot training and discipline in its
operation and maintenance. Injuries should be expected with the used of
either personal or BRS 'chutes.

On the other hand, taking the 'chute off the back of the pilot and putting
it on the glider adds significantly to ergonomics and comfort. The BRS can
be deployed at low altitudes where a pilot with a personal 'chute is
unlikely to make a successful egress. This altitude band favoring a BRS
probably expands where the pilot is old or infirm.

Maybe it's something to think about on a new glider but retrofitting an
older glider is problematical. A BRS is perhaps a useful option but not a
panacea. I remain skeptical but open to ideas.

Bill Daniels

[Mark James Boyd]

Dave Houlton > wrote:
>Jim Harper wrote:
>
>> Dave Houlton > wrote in message >...
>>
>> I believe that my parachute will lower me relatively nose-down, and as
>> such, my legs will protect me to some extent on landing. I feel safer
>> surrounded by the aluminum and plexiglass than if I were on my own
>> under canopy, given that I'll likley not be descending into a prepared
>> drop zone, more likely trees or worse...and I have around 500 sport
>> parachute and military jumps, so I speak from knowledge there.
>>
>> Jim
>
>It does help - thanks, Jim! I'm flying club gliders now, but I expect
>I'll eventually be an owner - and based on this discussion I'll quite
>likely opt for an experimental. It just makes sense to me that if
>you're trying to leave yourself an out for when things go Really Bad,
>you want that out to be usable in as many phases of flight as possible -
>including low on tow or in the pattern. BRS seems like the only game in
>town in those situations.

http://brsparachutes.com/PI_saves.mgi

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>Dave Houlton wrote:
>> This parachute discussion has me thinking about the rocket-deployed
>> chutes we used to have for hang gliding, and the BRS systems now in
>> Cirrus (Cirrii?) and small Cessnas. Probably no improvement w.r.t
>> weight or cost considerations, but for convenience, comfort, and "always
>> there when you need it" they would seem ideal. I don't actually know
>> the repack requirements, but I would guess they're annually or even longer.
>>
>> Are there any gliders out there today with whole-ship BRS-type chutes?
>
>Some of the Russia AC-4 gliders in the US are equipped with them, and
>the SparrowHawk has it available as a $2200 option. At least one
>SparrowHawk has it installed. Neither the Russia nor the SparrowHawk
>people have tested the BRS in a glider yet.

From reading the saves on
http://brsparachutes.com/PI_saves.mgi

I'd say glider construction is so well done compared to
some ultralights that we are unlikely to see a glider
use for some time...

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Ian MacArthur > wrote:
>Just wondering...
>
>Do Americans wear parachutes whilst flying in competitions?

I believe the chutes aren't just worn in competitions
(regional and national), but they are required for sanction
of the contest.

Is this true? I don't have references...

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Daniels wrote:
>>Eric Greenwell wrote
>>My understanding is the "whole glider" German rescue systems will lower
>>the glider nose down at about 40 degrees or so. If it is more level, it
>>is likely to oscillate wildly so much the descent and impact can't be
>>controlled. So, the landing gear is irrelevant, but the cockpit
>>structure is extremely important. The nose must absorb the "landing".
>>
>>A Nimbus 2 might be a poor candidate for installing a system that won't
>>be tested, except when you really need it. Your safety might be better
>>served by selling the Nimbus and buying newer glider with a more crash
>>tolerant cockpit. At least in the US, crashing while landing (meaning
>>the last 100' of altitude) still claims more pilots than unsuccessful
>>bailouts.
>
> To summarize the thread so far:
>
> The BRS requires a reinforced cockpit to absorb the non-trivial landing
> impact forces. Most accidents involve premature termination of tow or
> landing errors where a BRS 'chute wouldn't help anyway. Or perhaps,
> mid-air collisions at an altitude where a personal 'chute is the equal for a
> BRS for survivability.
>
> A BRS is likely to require non-trivial pilot training and discipline in its
> operation and maintenance. Injuries should be expected with the used of
> either personal or BRS 'chutes.
>
> On the other hand, taking the 'chute off the back of the pilot and putting
> it on the glider adds significantly to ergonomics and comfort. The BRS can
> be deployed at low altitudes where a pilot with a personal 'chute is
> unlikely to make a successful egress. This altitude band favoring a BRS
> probably expands where the pilot is old or infirm.
>
> Maybe it's something to think about on a new glider but retrofitting an
> older glider is problematical. A BRS is perhaps a useful option but not a
> panacea. I remain skeptical but open to ideas.

I think that's a good summary. For me, it's not possible because I have
a motor glider. That also excludes about half the German production.

I don't think the on-ground safety aspects are difficult - remember,
these units have been used successfully (BRS lists 159 saves so far) in
ultralight aircraft for many years and they have systems for the Cessna
150, 172, 180, and Cirrus, so it's not like the basic system is new.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Jim Harper]

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message >...
> OK, crank these numbers. Consider my Nimbus 2C (Experimental, so I could
> install a BRS) at 650 Kilos with water (which takes 5 minutes to dump). The
> gear strut will give 30mm on impact and the tire will give 50mm more. The
> cockpit shell is just fiberglass with no crush structure.
>
> I pop a BRS at 300 meters AGL with the surface wind at 15 knots. What are
> my chances? Give BRS weights, 'chute diameters and descent rates.
>
> Bill Daniels


Hi, Bill. Please don't take what follows in any sort of argumentitive
way. I've played out the scenario you describe in making my decision
to buy the BRS. As I reread it, it sounds harsh, but it certainly
isn't meant harshly...just heart-felt. Thanks for taking it in the
spirit it is intended...Dave answered the primary question you had...a
15 knot collision with the earth is gonna hurt for sure. However let's
put you in your Nimbus, busted...at around 980 feet, plummeting
earthward at...oh, let's just say...80 mph. You need to pull your
ripcord at a minimum of, what, 350 feet? That would be
borderline...I'd rather try it at 500 feet. Ok, you have (117 fps
down) 3-4 seconds to open (jettison) your canopy, unfasten your belts
and get out of and away from your glider and pull the ripcord. Pretty
much half the amount of time it took to read that last sentence out
loud. Do you really think you can? Add the g-forces associated with
any significant damage and just making the decision...If you can, you
are a better man than I.

Put me in the same position in my BRS equipped glider...I need to
reach over my right shoulder and pull...much the same move as your
first move to jettison the canopy...but in a different direction, of
course :-). I am now under canopy. I am hanging nose down (I figure
around 45 degrees or so) I've got (around 22 fps down) 20 seconds
(assuming I wind up under canopy at 500 feet) to get my landing gear
down, tighten my straps, brace and take the impact. The glider hits
nose first (with an impact which is a significant fraction of the
total force...let's call it 75% of the force...so about what I would
get by running into a brick wall at 12 mph), and the rest of the force
is dissipated by the glider rotating down to the landing gear...one
would expect that it would take the rest with minimum loading on my
body.

I'm hurting but alive, most likely. You're dead, most likely. God
forbid either one of us explore this scenario...but I prefer my
chances over the non-BRS equipped glider.

Jim

[GMC]

>
> Are there any gliders out there today with whole-ship BRS-type chutes?
>
Every SparrowHawk built has been fitted with a BRS. Every customer
has selected this option so far. We expect this to continue. Number
10 will fly in a couple of weeks and will have a BRS.
Regards
Greg Cole

[Wayne Paul]

Here is a link that shows Jim's HP-16 BRS installation.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-16/N8DC/BRS/BRS_in_HP-16.htm

The HP-16's stub box spar across the fuselage is ideal for a BRS
application.

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder


"Jim Harper" > wrote in message
om...
> "Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
>...
> > OK, crank these numbers. Consider my Nimbus 2C (Experimental, so I
could
> > install a BRS) at 650 Kilos with water (which takes 5 minutes to dump).
The
> > gear strut will give 30mm on impact and the tire will give 50mm more.
The
> > cockpit shell is just fiberglass with no crush structure.
> >
> > I pop a BRS at 300 meters AGL with the surface wind at 15 knots. What
are
> > my chances? Give BRS weights, 'chute diameters and descent rates.
> >
> > Bill Daniels
>
>
> Hi, Bill. Please don't take what follows in any sort of argumentitive
> way. I've played out the scenario you describe in making my decision
> to buy the BRS. As I reread it, it sounds harsh, but it certainly
> isn't meant harshly...just heart-felt. Thanks for taking it in the
> spirit it is intended...Dave answered the primary question you had...a
> 15 knot collision with the earth is gonna hurt for sure. However let's
> put you in your Nimbus, busted...at around 980 feet, plummeting
> earthward at...oh, let's just say...80 mph. You need to pull your
> ripcord at a minimum of, what, 350 feet? That would be
> borderline...I'd rather try it at 500 feet. Ok, you have (117 fps
> down) 3-4 seconds to open (jettison) your canopy, unfasten your belts
> and get out of and away from your glider and pull the ripcord. Pretty
> much half the amount of time it took to read that last sentence out
> loud. Do you really think you can? Add the g-forces associated with
> any significant damage and just making the decision...If you can, you
> are a better man than I.
>
> Put me in the same position in my BRS equipped glider...I need to
> reach over my right shoulder and pull...much the same move as your
> first move to jettison the canopy...but in a different direction, of
> course :-). I am now under canopy. I am hanging nose down (I figure
> around 45 degrees or so) I've got (around 22 fps down) 20 seconds
> (assuming I wind up under canopy at 500 feet) to get my landing gear
> down, tighten my straps, brace and take the impact. The glider hits
> nose first (with an impact which is a significant fraction of the
> total force...let's call it 75% of the force...so about what I would
> get by running into a brick wall at 12 mph), and the rest of the force
> is dissipated by the glider rotating down to the landing gear...one
> would expect that it would take the rest with minimum loading on my
> body.
>
> I'm hurting but alive, most likely. You're dead, most likely. God
> forbid either one of us explore this scenario...but I prefer my
> chances over the non-BRS equipped glider.
>
> Jim

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
GMC > wrote:
>>
>> Are there any gliders out there today with whole-ship BRS-type chutes?
>>
>Every SparrowHawk built has been fitted with a BRS. Every customer
>has selected this option so far. We expect this to continue. Number
>10 will fly in a couple of weeks and will have a BRS.
>Regards
>Greg Cole

Greg Cole!

<bows down again and again, "we are not worthy" chanted...etc :->

Outstanding! It seems to make a TON of sense both from
the customer AND manufacturer perspective. I don't want
to take up to much of your time (you SHOULD be in the
shop building a twin-jet Sparrowhawk ;).


But did you use the 8" or 7" diameter systems? And how did the
weight and balance work out? Is it true you get a
weight increase on the "ultralight" definition from using a
BRS? Older FAA docs seemed to indicate this weight
increase was only for "powered" ultralights. Is the
weight increase 24 pounds, or what?

Great stuff. I hope you sell two dozen more Sparrowhawks
this year. I can't wait to touch one in person...

[tango4]

Dave

Your post struct a note with me. My son is 8 years old and is desperate to
'go gliding with dad'.
I have considered buying a Caproni or Silene ( both side by side two
seaters) to ensure that I could get him out with me and I have investigated
static line triggered chutes ( throw him out knowing it would deploy ) but I
realised whilst reading your post that it has never crossed my mind to fly
without 'chutes. Thinking about it now I might consider it just for a flip
on a quite day with little other traffic but I simply couldn't do it on a
regular basis.

Personally I think the BRS is a good idea.

Ian



"Dave Houlton" > wrote in message
...

> It does help - thanks, Jim! I'm flying club gliders now, but I expect
> I'll eventually be an owner - and based on this discussion I'll quite
> likely opt for an experimental. It just makes sense to me that if
> you're trying to leave yourself an out for when things go Really Bad,
> you want that out to be usable in as many phases of flight as possible -
> including low on tow or in the pattern. BRS seems like the only game in
> town in those situations.
>
> I never put on a chute at all during training (including full-turn
> spins, of course), but I started thinking more about it this fall when I
> took my 8-yr-old son for his first glider ride. Along the lines of "I
> should grab us some parachutes. But I'm not confident he'd be able to
> get out and deploy, and I'm obviously not leaving without him...
> Anyway, this is just a pattern tow and a sled ride - we'll never be high
> enough to use them anyway." Perfectly reasoned but not very reassuring.
>
> Dave Houlton

[Pete Zeugma]

just out of interest, how many of those of us who wear
chutes, use a deployment line attached to that odd
looking ring usually found by your left shoulder?

[Martin Gregorie]

On 12 Feb 2004 08:10:23 GMT, Pete Zeugma
> wrote:

>just out of interest, how many of those of us who wear
>chutes, use a deployment line attached to that odd
>looking ring usually found by your left shoulder?
>
Once. In an ASK-23 at the Wasserkuppe: I believe a 5 m static line is
mandated for German club gliders. Before you ask, I did remember to
take the chute off before walking away from the cockpit.

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Jim Vincent]

>just out of interest, how many of those of us who wear
>chutes, use a deployment line attached to that odd
>looking ring usually found by your left shoulder?

Be very careful about this. The parachutes we use in gliders are not designed
for static line deployment; they're designed for the pull of a hand in a
particular direction. If you rig a static line directly to the ripcord, you
risk a very good chance of just ripping off the handle.

On a parachute, the container is kept closed by little cones and rings. The
ring goes through the cone, and in the case of a ripcord, there is a pin going
through a hole in the cone to keep the cone in place. For static line, a piece
of line is wrapped around the static line and then through the hole in the
cone. When you jump out, the pull of the static line breaks the thin piece of
line, releasing the pilot chute.

Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

[Jim Harper]

Mike Borgelt > wrote in message >...
<snip>
> I once saw a movie of the BRS drop test on a C150 simulating its
> arrival under a deployed BRS chute. I doubt that the Cessna was
> useable again even though it was a symmetrical level attitude when it
> hit with no drift. I'd hate to hit at a similar descent rate in a
> glider. In Oz we've had a few people do hard landings in the last
> couple of years. Some are considered lucky to be walking but the
> gliders are repairable. Air bags may be essential.

Of course I would expect that the glider wouldn't be reusable after
using the BRS...I would only pull the thing is a situation that would
lead to me leaving the airplane, should I have had a parachute. In
that case, the airplane is a write-off. As I have previously
recounted, I have the thing set up to lower the airplane nose down
somewhat...one hopes that the forces will be somewhat dissipated by
the landing attitude. Of course the risk of injury exists for a
successful bail-out as well. It's interesting that in this dialogue
folks worry about hitting under canopy IN the glider, and don't
discuss the myriad of risks associated with hitting under canopy OUT
of the glider.

I parachuted in the military and in sport. I have seen more than a few
broken bones, broken backs, internal injuries and others. And those
were with trained parachutists jumping under controlled situations and
the best possible conditions, with prepared...or at least
planned...drop-zones. I don't think that to be the case for the
typical emergency bail-out from a broken glider.

We've had this debate on this board more than once and in each case,
it seems to me that we set a double standard...somehow we assume that
the guy who leaves the glider and deploys a round canopy for his first
parachute jump ever will arrive on the ground unscathed...and the guy
who pulls the BRS lever is subjecting himself to an extraordinary
amount of risk, because he _might_ hit the ground in a manner that
_might_ lead to injury.

The reality is that when the decision to deploy either your personal
canopy OR the BRS is made, your only other option is very likely
death. If I can fly the airplane, I am going to fly the airplane. If
my airplane is damaged beyond the point that I can fly it, I am going
to deploy. If when I land I am injured, I still firmly believe that I
am going to be far better off than if I had ridden the glider to the
ground without a parachute. And no question...if I had room in the
cockpit/no weight constraints, I would ALSO wear a square emergency
parachute for those cases where I AM high enough to choose that
egress. I think that I would STILL have the BRS, though, for the
collision in the pattern or the like. And I have far more experience
under a parachute canopy than 99% of glider pilots.


> Are your gliding club members smart enough to avoid inadvertent
> deployment of a ballistic chute in the hangar? At one club I used to
> belong to the new ASW20B got wheeled up twice in a month or so - in
> the hangar as people said "what does this lever do?". In the chute
> case you would hope nobody else was standing behind the wing looking
> into the cockpit.

The BRS system has a remove before flight safety pin. With the pin in
place, the BRS cannot be deployed. If some yahoo starts playing with
my glider and REMOVES the safety tag/pin and then pulls the handle? I
would, under those circumstances, hope he DOES have his face in front
of it. He will certainly have exceeded any reasonable "what does THIS
lever do" level of curiosity in my book.

> About 12 years ago we did a precision altimeter project for an RAAF
> test project. The chief aero engineer of the research and development
> unit was building an ultralight of his own design. I asked if he was
> fitting a BRS chute. He said he was designing the aircraft basically
> to high enough standards that like a FAR 23 power plane it was
> reliable enough in its structure and control systems that flying
> without a chute was a good risk. His opinion was that the whole ship
> chutes at the time couldn't meet their claimed descent rates with the
> chute sizes used. His first job had been with a parachute manufacturer
> so I had to take some notice of his opinion.
>
> Mike Borgelt

One hopes one's glider isn't going to go poof in flight. However,
certificated gliders HAVE gone poof in flight. Further, our sport has
a much higher (at least theoretical) risk of collision in the air than
the usual spam-can. My glider is better built than most of them out
there, and I don't carry the BRS in expectation of a wing
spontaneously folding up. Nor do I plan on running into someone in a
gaggle. But if it happens, I am comforted in knowing that it's there.

BRS parachutes DO meet their claimed descent rates. Look at their
data. They have tested these things extensively. I would suggest that
an aero engineer who had worked for a parachute manufacturer may have
had a bias just like any other fellow...and that WAS 12 years ago. I
guess that if you are making a decision based on one person's opinion
during the last millenium, no matter how experienced, well, more power
to you. I prefer doing a bit more research than that. Once again, with
all due respect, and no offense intended.

Jim

[Bert Willing]

There are parachutes for static lines used in gliders (although less and
less) and manual ones.

To this whole discussion :
- it's almost impossible to retrofit a BRS to a glider
- that means that BRS will only be installed in gliders with a "crashworthy"
cockpit
- the only thing I'm really afraid of in soaring are midairs. Having a
midair in the Alps in the vivinity of a ridge, a BRS is basically the only
option to survive.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Jim Vincent" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> >just out of interest, how many of those of us who wear
> >chutes, use a deployment line attached to that odd
> >looking ring usually found by your left shoulder?
>
> Be very careful about this. The parachutes we use in gliders are not
designed
> for static line deployment; they're designed for the pull of a hand in a
> particular direction. If you rig a static line directly to the ripcord,
you
> risk a very good chance of just ripping off the handle.
>
> On a parachute, the container is kept closed by little cones and rings.
The
> ring goes through the cone, and in the case of a ripcord, there is a pin
going
> through a hole in the cone to keep the cone in place. For static line, a
piece
> of line is wrapped around the static line and then through the hole in the
> cone. When you jump out, the pull of the static line breaks the thin
piece of
> line, releasing the pilot chute.
>
> Jim Vincent
> CFIG
> N483SZ
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Jim Harper wrote:

>>Are your gliding club members smart enough to avoid inadvertent
>>deployment of a ballistic chute in the hangar? At one club I used to
>>belong to the new ASW20B got wheeled up twice in a month or so - in
>>the hangar as people said "what does this lever do?". In the chute
>>case you would hope nobody else was standing behind the wing looking
>>into the cockpit.
>
>
> The BRS system has a remove before flight safety pin. With the pin in
> place, the BRS cannot be deployed. If some yahoo starts playing with
> my glider and REMOVES the safety tag/pin and then pulls the handle? I
> would, under those circumstances, hope he DOES have his face in front
> of it. He will certainly have exceeded any reasonable "what does THIS
> lever do" level of curiosity in my book.

THe BRS web site says it is a 35-40 pound pull, a rather stout effort,
and well beyond what you need to collapse the gear on an ASW20B. A key
lock could be used to prevent removal of the safety tag and pin, if one
is really concerned.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Chris OCallaghan]

The group demonstrates the spectrum of opinions on this subject from
"Not me, brother," to "Anyone opposed should be held criminally
liable."

Gerhard Waibel said it best (paraphrase): "If I can get the parachute
off the pilot's back, I have the space I need to build a cockpit that
will protect him."

In the under 2000 ft agl realm, a rocket deployed chute is very, very
desirable. Or if the pilot is incapacitated as a result of collision.
Or if the pilot is physically unable to exit the aircraft due to
infirmity or high g loading. Or if the pilot would prefer to stay with
his significantly more visible glider and its reliable ELT.

Control is also very desirble. In mountainess terrain, it might be
better to have a square on your back. Nice to have options. Including
deploying your recovery system, then taking your time to decide if and
how to evacuate the cockpit.

Schempp Hirth has put BRSs in several gliders during the past year. My
order was a little too early, or I'd have had one myself.

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Andreas Maurer > wrote:
>
>Not to mention the possible extremely high (>220 kts) speed of a
>glider with a missing tail or wing. The deployment speed of the BRS of
>the Cirrus is limited to a pretty low speed (iirc 150 kts IAS).

Several BRS saves were quite a bit faster than the "rated"
system velocity.

Like parachute repack recommendations and Vne, the velocity recommendations
are primarily to protect the manufacturer from liability, and
are generously safesided to be far within the
actual limits of the equipment.

[Andreas Maurer]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 06:29:51 +1000, Mike Borgelt
> wrote:

>I figure that the choice with a personal chute is small but with a
>whole ship chute it is zero.

>I once saw a movie of the BRS drop test on a C150 simulating its
>arrival under a deployed BRS chute. I doubt that the Cessna was
>useable again even though it was a symmetrical level attitude when it
>hit with no drift. I'd hate to hit at a similar descent rate in a
>glider. In Oz we've had a few people do hard landings in the last
>couple of years. Some are considered lucky to be walking but the
>gliders are repairable. Air bags may be essential.

I know an FK-9 ultralight that has already survived three (!)
parachute landings (and is still flying - here's the photo:
http://www.fk-lightplanes.com/FK-History/9Mk3_3_57.jpg), and I read
about one SR-20 or 22 that is also flying again after a chute landing.

The problem of a glider that my butt is two inches from the ground in
a worst-case impact at 20 ft/sec (but the BRS systems for gliders are
designed in order to get an impact at 45 degrees nose down attitude,
maximizing the energy absorption of the fuselage nose).

Not to mention the possible extremely high (>220 kts) speed of a
glider with a missing tail or wing. The deployment speed of the BRS of
the Cirrus is limited to a pretty low speed (iirc 150 kts IAS).

In Germany BRS systems are mandatory for ultralight aircraft (some of
these little planes reach cruise speeds in excess of 140 kts (limited
by the maximum deployment speed of the BRS) at a weight of about 1.000
pounds. Each year there are a couple of successful BRS savings.


Bye
Andreas

[Andreas Maurer]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:19:58 +0100, "Bert Willing"
> wrote:

>There are parachutes for static lines used in gliders (although less and
>less) and manual ones.
>
>To this whole discussion :
>- it's almost impossible to retrofit a BRS to a glider
>- that means that BRS will only be installed in gliders with a "crashworthy"
>cockpit
>- the only thing I'm really afraid of in soaring are midairs. Having a
>midair in the Alps in the vivinity of a ridge, a BRS is basically the only
>option to survive.

Right on the spot.

I have to admit that I'd prefer the Soteira system (a rocket that
pulls the pilot out of the glider). There's a cause why ejection seats
are used and not parachutes to save a complete B-52...


Bye
Andreas

[Pete Zeugma]

I dont think this is as great a problem as Jim made
out.

All the chutes ive worn have the cable from the handle
channelled through a flexible steel pipe which is secured
to the shoulder strap through to the release pin inside
the chute. The pipe ensures that the direction of pull
is always the same, irrispective of the way you pull
the handle. The force to pull out the pin is not too
great, certainly considerably less than it would take
to tear the steel hose off the shoulder strap, or break
the swage that holds the handle onto the release wire.
The static line just simply acts as your hand as you
go over the side or get thrown clear.

How many seconds would we waste in free fall before
we got to pull the handle (let alone find it again!)?

What happens if in a mid air collision, you have your
arms injured such you can bearly just release the buckles
and canopy?

I think it would be great if those amongst us wrote
up their glider bail-out experiences...........

At 16:24 12 February 2004, Bert Willing wrote:
>There are parachutes for static lines used in gliders
>(although less and
>less) and manual ones.
>
>To this whole discussion :
>- it's almost impossible to retrofit a BRS to a glider
>- that means that BRS will only be installed in gliders
>with a 'crashworthy'
>cockpit
>- the only thing I'm really afraid of in soaring are
>midairs. Having a
>midair in the Alps in the vivinity of a ridge, a BRS
>is basically the only
>option to survive.
>
>--
>Bert Willing
>
>ASW20 'TW'
>
>
>'Jim Vincent' a écrit dans le message de
...
>> >just out of interest, how many of those of us who
>>>wear
>> >chutes, use a deployment line attached to that odd
>> >looking ring usually found by your left shoulder?
>>
>> Be very careful about this. The parachutes we use
>>in gliders are not
>designed
>> for static line deployment; they're designed for the
>>pull of a hand in a
>> particular direction. If you rig a static line directly
>>to the ripcord,
>you
>> risk a very good chance of just ripping off the handle.
>>
>> On a parachute, the container is kept closed by little
>>cones and rings.
>The
>> ring goes through the cone, and in the case of a ripcord,
>>there is a pin
>going
>> through a hole in the cone to keep the cone in place.
>> For static line, a
>piece
>> of line is wrapped around the static line and then
>>through the hole in the
>> cone. When you jump out, the pull of the static line
>>breaks the thin
>piece of
>> line, releasing the pilot chute.
>>
>> Jim Vincent
>> CFIG
>> N483SZ
>>
>
>
>

[d b]

I'm a bit miffed with the obtuse information about BRS chutes. Name one, just
one, save done by a BRS chute in an airplane, or glider, that was NOT an
ultralight or hang glider, and was done from an out-of-control situation.



In article <402c2ce4$1@darkstar>, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:
>In article >,
>Andreas Maurer > wrote:
>>
>>Not to mention the possible extremely high (>220 kts) speed of a
>>glider with a missing tail or wing. The deployment speed of the BRS of
>>the Cirrus is limited to a pretty low speed (iirc 150 kts IAS).
>
>Several BRS saves were quite a bit faster than the "rated"
>system velocity.
>
>Like parachute repack recommendations and Vne, the velocity recommendations
>are primarily to protect the manufacturer from liability, and
>are generously safesided to be far within the
>actual limits of the equipment.

[nafod40]

d b wrote:
> I'm a bit miffed with the obtuse information about BRS chutes. Name one, just
> one, save done by a BRS chute in an airplane, or glider, that was NOT an
> ultralight or hang glider, and was done from an out-of-control situation.

There's the Cirrus save, and the Cirrus is a four seater airplane, but
it was done from controlled flight.

At the same time, I don't know of any failed BRS attempts, from
controlled flight or otherwise. Anybody have stats on that? That'd be
good data to have too.

[Vaughn Simon]

"d b" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I'm a bit miffed with the obtuse information about BRS chutes. Name one,
just
> one, save done by a BRS chute in an airplane, or glider, that was NOT an
> ultralight or hang glider, and was done from an out-of-control situation.

Easy, the BRS "saves" list is right here:
http://brsparachutes.com/PI_saves.mgi?page=2 and I believe it is up to 159.
You are correct in that the list is populated almost exclusively with hang
gliders and ultralights, but it does include one real glider (Alpin TST-1)
and one real airplane (Cirrus SR-22). The Alpin was a loss of control and
the SR22 was a structural failure.

Vaughn

[Eric Greenwell]

d b wrote:
> I'm a bit miffed with the obtuse information about BRS chutes. Name one, just
> one, save done by a BRS chute in an airplane, or glider, that was NOT an
> ultralight or hang glider, and was done from an out-of-control situation.

THe number installed in registered aircraft is still very small and has
only begun in the last few years, so we should not expect many uses yet.

It will take a long time for experience with _certified_ installations
to be acquired, because these are only just now being offered. While the
BRS system has been tested many times, most of the installations in
sailplanes are in "experimental" category gliders, and the installation
hasn't been tested.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Stephen Haley]

Interesting comment on BRS in the DG website -
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/rettungssystem-e.html

Not qualified to respond but does appear to make some sense.


"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> d b wrote:
> > I'm a bit miffed with the obtuse information about BRS chutes. Name one,
just
> > one, save done by a BRS chute in an airplane, or glider, that was NOT an
> > ultralight or hang glider, and was done from an out-of-control
situation.
>
> THe number installed in registered aircraft is still very small and has
> only begun in the last few years, so we should not expect many uses yet.
>
> It will take a long time for experience with _certified_ installations
> to be acquired, because these are only just now being offered. While the
> BRS system has been tested many times, most of the installations in
> sailplanes are in "experimental" category gliders, and the installation
> hasn't been tested.
> --
> -----
> change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>

[Marc Ramsey]

Vaughn Simon wrote:

> "d b" > wrote in message
>
>>one, save done by a BRS chute in an airplane, or glider, that was NOT an
>>ultralight or hang glider, and was done from an out-of-control situation.
>
> Easy, the BRS "saves" list is right here:
> http://brsparachutes.com/PI_saves.mgi?page=2 and I believe it is up to 159.
> You are correct in that the list is populated almost exclusively with hang
> gliders and ultralights, but it does include one real glider (Alpin TST-1)
> and one real airplane (Cirrus SR-22). The Alpin was a loss of control and
> the SR22 was a structural failure.

The Cirrus accident doesn't quite count as "out of control", according
to the NTSB report. One aileron was jammed (and ultimately lost), and
the pilot was able to maintain level flight long enough to deploy the
BRS. I suspect it may well have been landable in the state it was in,
but if I had a BRS (or a parachute) under those circumstances, I'd use it...

Marc

[Shawn Curry]

Marc Ramsey wrote:

> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>
>> "d b" > wrote in message
>>
>>> one, save done by a BRS chute in an airplane, or glider, that was NOT an
>>> ultralight or hang glider, and was done from an out-of-control
>>> situation.
>>
>>
>> Easy, the BRS "saves" list is right here:
>> http://brsparachutes.com/PI_saves.mgi?page=2 and I believe it is up to
>> 159.
>> You are correct in that the list is populated almost exclusively with
>> hang
>> gliders and ultralights, but it does include one real glider (Alpin
>> TST-1)
>> and one real airplane (Cirrus SR-22). The Alpin was a loss of control
>> and
>> the SR22 was a structural failure.
>
>
> The Cirrus accident doesn't quite count as "out of control", according
> to the NTSB report. One aileron was jammed (and ultimately lost), and
> the pilot was able to maintain level flight long enough to deploy the
> BRS. I suspect it may well have been landable in the state it was in,
> but if I had a BRS (or a parachute) under those circumstances, I'd use
> it...
>
> Marc
IIRC another Cirrus pilot tried to deploy the BRS, but the handle pull
was too great to activate. Landed safely, resulted in an AD for the
pull force on the handle.

Shawn

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

>>Every SparrowHawk built has been fitted with a BRS. Every customer
>>has selected this option so far. We expect this to continue. Number
>>10 will fly in a couple of weeks and will have a BRS.
>>Regards
>>Greg Cole
>
>
> Greg Cole!
>
> <bows down again and again, "we are not worthy" chanted...etc :->
>
> Outstanding! It seems to make a TON of sense both from
> the customer AND manufacturer perspective. I don't want
> to take up to much of your time (you SHOULD be in the
> shop building a twin-jet Sparrowhawk ;).
>
> But did you use the 8" or 7" diameter systems?

While it would be more satisfying to get answers from Greg, he doesn't
routinely monitor the group, so I will attempt some answers.

I don't know the diameter of the system currently used, but diameter
doesn't seem to important to the pilot!

And how did the
> weight and balance work out?

CG is not a problem, as it is mounted very close to the CG. It does
reduce the allowed cockpit weight by the weight of the BRS system (about
30 pounds in the one I flew). The pilot could elect to fly without a
personal parachute, making the net loss in cockpit payload about 20 pounds.

Is it true you get a
> weight increase on the "ultralight" definition from using a
> BRS?

Yes, I'm told the FAA doesn't count a BRS system in the "empty weight".

> Older FAA docs seemed to indicate this weight
> increase was only for "powered" ultralights. Is the
> weight increase 24 pounds, or what?

The one I flew was about 30 pounds, due to using the "high speed" chute,
rather than the lower speed chutes an ultralight would typically use.

A prospective purchaser should not take my remarks as definitive, but
should contact Windward Performance for the latest figures. I do talk to
Greg from time to time, most recently at the Convention, but I don't
follow the details closely.

> Great stuff. I hope you sell two dozen more Sparrowhawks
> this year. I can't wait to touch one in person...

You ought to come to the SparrowHawk Flyin, starting May 15, where you
can touch at least 5 (with more likely) of them! Bring your glider and
do some soaring in Eastern Oregon. Check their website for details.
Besides seeing the SparrowHawks, I think you'd enjoy seeing how they are
constructed, along the impressive array of molds and fixtures.

I'll be there with my glider to join the festivities and attempt some
state motorglider records (and maybe some records in a SparrowHawk, if I
can persuade an owner to get out his long enough).

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

In article et>,
d b > wrote:
>I'm a bit miffed with the obtuse information about BRS chutes. Name one, just
>one, save done by a BRS chute in an airplane, or glider, that was NOT an
>ultralight or hang glider, and was done from an out-of-control situation.
>
>In article <402c2ce4$1@darkstar>, (Mark James Boyd)
>wrote:
>>In article >,
>>Andreas Maurer > wrote:
>>>
>>>Not to mention the possible extremely high (>220 kts) speed of a
>>>glider with a missing tail or wing. The deployment speed of the BRS of
>>>the Cirrus is limited to a pretty low speed (iirc 150 kts IAS).
>>
>>Several BRS saves were quite a bit faster than the "rated"
>>system velocity.
>>
>>Like parachute repack recommendations and Vne, the velocity recommendations
>>are primarily to protect the manufacturer from liability, and
>>are generously safesided to be far within the
>>actual limits of the equipment.

LOL...if my glider is missing a tail or wing and the
ASI is pegged, I'm gonna pull the BRS chute anyway.
If it does shred, at least it'll make a nice easy to see
marker on the splat point...

As far as saves already happened, these things just ain't been around that
long, and structural failures of gliders and planes are
REALLY very rare compared to ultralights...

So structural failure doesn't seem to be a big reason to
put on a BRS. Inadvertent IFR, mid-air, control surface (spoilers, elevator)
not hooked up, over unlandable terrain (15 knots impact is better
than 40), unrecoverable spin, student holding stick back or
forward in panic/suicide, etc. seem quite possible.

Would I rather have a BRS with a more crashworthy cockpit vs
a personal chute and flimsy cockpit? Personally, yes.
Would I want both? Personally, no. Would I prefer one
6 year repack vs. repacking a personal chute
18 times? Absolutely...

hmmm...I wonder how much the repacks cost (tightwad hat on)

..........

In fact I just got off the phone with BRS, and asked them about
repack of the 900 sealed canister, and they said it was
$600 (every 6 years). You mail them the canister,
then they mail you a repack...

Looks like about even for repack price, but convenience seems
a lot better than 12-18 repacks of a personal chute...

Perhaps a lot of this is moot, because they're
probably almost impossible to retrofit, and with
most new gliders being motorgliders, the space isn't
there, but for a new "pure" glider (sparrowhawk, AC-4,
etc), it loks good on paper at least...

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
>>>Every SparrowHawk built has been fitted with a BRS. Every customer
>>>has selected this option so far. We expect this to continue. Number
>>>10 will fly in a couple of weeks and will have a BRS.
>>>Regards
>>>Greg Cole
>>
>>
>> Greg Cole!
>>
>> <bows down again and again, "we are not worthy" chanted...etc :->
>>
>> Outstanding! It seems to make a TON of sense both from
>> the customer AND manufacturer perspective. I don't want
>> to take up to much of your time (you SHOULD be in the
>> shop building a twin-jet Sparrowhawk ;).
>>
>> But did you use the 8" or 7" diameter systems?
>
>While it would be more satisfying to get answers from Greg, he doesn't
>routinely monitor the group, so I will attempt some answers.
>
>I don't know the diameter of the system currently used, but diameter
>doesn't seem to important to the pilot!

I talked to BRS and they said the 8" option was mostly so
folks could install an 8" of a certain weight rating, and
then switch to a higher "weight" canister later if
desired, without the diameter dimension changing...

Seems raesonable, since a higher "weight" rating I'd guess also
means "softer landing at a lower weight"

[Vaughn]

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:402d3ccf$1@darkstar...
> Perhaps a lot of this is moot, because they're
> probably almost impossible to retrofit, and with
> most new gliders being motorgliders, the space isn't
> there, but for a new "pure" glider (sparrowhawk, AC-4,
> etc), it loks good on paper at least...

Actually, a motor and a BRS are apparently not an impossible
combination because the Alpin TST1 glider that was saved by the BRS system
happened to be a motor glider. All aircraft are a bunch of compromises
flying in close formation. If the soaring world demanded motorgliders with
BRS systems, manufacturers would find a way to make them. I agree that
retrofit is a whole different deal.

The below is from the BRS site about that incident:

Flying his Czech-built Alpin TST1 ultralight motorglider, the pilot
could not exit a spin which went inverted. Though G forces were high, the
pilot successfully deployed his parachute to a satisfactory conclusion.

"I turned off the engine, slowly pulled back on the stick, and kicked
in left rudder. My plane went into the spin for the practice I wanted, but
it went inverted and I could not exit. At 2,000 feet I launched the chute
and I am alive. Thank you and you can chalk up another one, BRS!"



Vaughn

[Doug Taylor]

The BRS in the SparrowHawk is a BRS 900 soft pack. The large 'chute
is used because it allows a higher deployment speed. With a maximum
415 lb. glider on a 'chute made for up to 900 lbs., I would expect
descent rates to be slow.