A thought on BRS

[Martin Gregorie]

New Scientist just picked up on two cases where Cirrus SR-20 drivers
pulled the BRS trick and 5 people came down safely and walked away
without injuries. Four in one aircraft and one in another. BRS works:
good. That was about the limit of that story.

However, I took a look at the Cirrus website,
http://www.cirrusdesign.com/, and a slightly different story emerges:
in the first case the pilot lost control during a night-time flight
over the Canadian Rockies in turbulent conditions and popped the BRS.
In the second case the pilot took off solo from a Florida airfield
with a 400 foot cloud base, lost it on IFR at about 1000 ft and also
pulled the BRS release. These guys could have both been highly
experienced pilots or low-timers - the Cirrus press release doesn't
say. But, looking at the report makes me wonder if the BRS is an
unmixed blessing: In both cases it sounds as if having the BRS could
have tempted pilots to fly in conditions when they maybe shouldn't
have. As I said above, its good that the BRS got them out of trouble,
I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.

Comments?


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

[David Kinsell]

"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message ...
> New Scientist just picked up on two cases where Cirrus SR-20 drivers
> pulled the BRS trick and 5 people came down safely and walked away
> without injuries. Four in one aircraft and one in another. BRS works:
> good. That was about the limit of that story.
>
> However, I took a look at the Cirrus website,
> http://www.cirrusdesign.com/, and a slightly different story emerges:
> in the first case the pilot lost control during a night-time flight
> over the Canadian Rockies in turbulent conditions and popped the BRS.
> In the second case the pilot took off solo from a Florida airfield
> with a 400 foot cloud base, lost it on IFR at about 1000 ft and also
> pulled the BRS release. These guys could have both been highly
> experienced pilots or low-timers - the Cirrus press release doesn't
> say. But, looking at the report makes me wonder if the BRS is an
> unmixed blessing: In both cases it sounds as if having the BRS could
> have tempted pilots to fly in conditions when they maybe shouldn't
> have. As I said above, its good that the BRS got them out of trouble,
> I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
> things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.
>
> Comments?
>

Sounds plausible. Anti-skid brakes on cars have become common-place,
but no one has proven a reduction in accident rates. Maybe one of those
compensating behaviors that we read about? If I had a structural failure
or midair in a glider, I wouldn't have a lot of faith that the shroud lines would
stay untangled, due to the almost certain spinning that would result. Maybe
others would.

[John Cochrane]

> I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
> things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.
>
> Comments?

Sam Pelzman, a fellow economist here at the University of Chicago,
once argued on similar grounds against seat belts in cars. He pointed
out, quite correctly, that long sharp steel spikes on the dashboard
would be far more effective at lowering the accident rate.

John Cochrane

[Michael]

Martin Gregorie > wrote
> As I said above, its good that the BRS got them out of trouble,
> I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
> things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.

This issue is the topic of much debate on the other groups in the
rec.aviation hierarchy. Check it out.

Realize that BRS is not new. Some huge chunk of ultralights and
ultralight-type two-seaters are BRS-equipped. These systems have
existed long before the Cirrus, and were not controversial. It took
the Cirrus to make them controversial, for exactly the reason you
pointed out.

Michael

[Martin Gregorie]

On 26 Apr 2004 11:20:49 -0700, (Michael) wrote:

>Martin Gregorie > wrote
>> As I said above, its good that the BRS got them out of trouble,
>> I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
>> things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.
>
>This issue is the topic of much debate on the other groups in the
>rec.aviation hierarchy. Check it out.
>
>Realize that BRS is not new. Some huge chunk of ultralights and
>ultralight-type two-seaters are BRS-equipped. These systems have
>existed long before the Cirrus, and were not controversial. It took
>the Cirrus to make them controversial, for exactly the reason you
>pointed out.
>

I knew that BRS has been around for a fair time. I suppose I got
fooled by the press release claiming that the three Cirrus uses were
the first, but I suppose they meant in a regular, certified aircraft -
with 300 hp in the front the Cirrus is no ultra light for sure.
However, it IS a pretty toy and I can imagine people with more money
than experience buying one and coming unstuck for exactly the same
reasons that would apply if they bought a Ferrari as a first sports
car.

In answer to an earlier poster: I personally don't think the
comparison of BRS and car seat belts is realistic: in a car there's no
close equivalent to flying into conditions you can't handle while
expecting the BRS / seat belt to give you an out. I grant you there is
evidence of seat belts making drivers more dangerous to pedestrians
and cyclists, but that is independent of the road conditions. closer
to the (apocryphal?) stories about Volvo drivers who, after years of
propaganda about driving the safest car on the road, think that they
are invulnerable no matter how badly they drive.
--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Tom Seim]

"David Kinsell" > wrote in message news:<kk8jc.41229$aQ6.2305255@attbi_s51>...
> "Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message ...
> > New Scientist just picked up on two cases where Cirrus SR-20 drivers
> > pulled the BRS trick and 5 people came down safely and walked away
> > without injuries. Four in one aircraft and one in another. BRS works:
> > good. That was about the limit of that story.
> >
> > However, I took a look at the Cirrus website,
> > http://www.cirrusdesign.com/, and a slightly different story emerges:
> > in the first case the pilot lost control during a night-time flight
> > over the Canadian Rockies in turbulent conditions and popped the BRS.
> > In the second case the pilot took off solo from a Florida airfield
> > with a 400 foot cloud base, lost it on IFR at about 1000 ft and also
> > pulled the BRS release. These guys could have both been highly
> > experienced pilots or low-timers - the Cirrus press release doesn't
> > say. But, looking at the report makes me wonder if the BRS is an
> > unmixed blessing: In both cases it sounds as if having the BRS could
> > have tempted pilots to fly in conditions when they maybe shouldn't
> > have. As I said above, its good that the BRS got them out of trouble,
> > I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
> > things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.
> >
> > Comments?
> >
>
> Sounds plausible. Anti-skid brakes on cars have become common-place,
> but no one has proven a reduction in accident rates. Maybe one of those
> compensating behaviors that we read about? If I had a structural failure
> or midair in a glider, I wouldn't have a lot of faith that the shroud lines would
> stay untangled, due to the almost certain spinning that would result. Maybe
> others would.

Attitudes toward safety come from your training, years of experience
and knowledge of misfortunes that have befallen fellow pilots. I also
have ABS on both of my vehicles and am not tempted to drive faster (or
in worse conditions) than if I didn't have them. I do feel like I have
better odds of surviving a mishap with them. I definitely did avoid
one accident with them.

I also have a motorglider. But I would no more fly into unlandable
terrain, thinking I could bail myself out with the motor, as I would
have with my ASW-19.

The first accident was caused by flight into severe turbulence
(probably a rotor). Without knowing what weather briefing the pilot
got before the flight speculating that he was pushing the envelope
because he had a BRS is exactly that: pure speculation. The other
accident was, I believe, was an electrical failure in IMC conditions
shortly after takeoff. The pilot was instrument rated, so the
conditions were not abnormal.

AOPA says the accident rate of the SR20 is comparable to Cessna 172
and 182s.

Tom Seim
Richland, WA

[mm]

"John Cochrane" > wrote in message
om...
> > I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
> > things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.
> >
> > Comments?
>
> Sam Pelzman, a fellow economist here at the University of Chicago,
> once argued on similar grounds against seat belts in cars. He pointed
> out, quite correctly, that long sharp steel spikes on the dashboard
> would be far more effective at lowering the accident rate.
>
> John Cochrane

Or just remove the airbag and replace it with a 12 gauge shotgun shell fired
by the same sensors.

[Martin Gregorie]

On 26 Apr 2004 13:14:30 -0700, (Tom Seim) wrote:

>The first accident was caused by flight into severe turbulence
>(probably a rotor). Without knowing what weather briefing the pilot
>got before the flight speculating that he was pushing the envelope
>because he had a BRS is exactly that: pure speculation. The other
>accident was, I believe, was an electrical failure in IMC conditions
>shortly after takeoff. The pilot was instrument rated, so the
>conditions were not abnormal.
>
Thanks for the update. I'd agree that I was speculating in the first
case and now understand the Florida one a lot better.

I looked over the Cirrus site with interest. As I said, its a pretty
toy. I looked at the interior shots of the SR20 and was duly impressed
by glass cockpit but didn't notice any conventional instruments. The
report on the Cirrus website did not mention electrical failure (it
said he "began to experience conditions that he felt made the return
to the departure airport impossible" so I assume I didn't miss
anything). In the circumstances the use of a BRS is entirely
understandable!

Is there any indication of the state of the airframes after these
incidents?


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

[Vaughn]

"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
> ...But, looking at the report makes me wonder if the BRS is an
> unmixed blessing: In both cases it sounds as if having the BRS could
> have tempted pilots to fly in conditions when they maybe shouldn't
> have. As I said above, its good that the BRS got them out of trouble,
> I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
> things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.
>
> Comments?

Well...Since you asked...

Why don't we strike a huge blow for safety by simply taking all of the
safety features off of our gliders, starting with parachutes? And especially
those transponders! they just encourage us to fly where we might encounter
other airplanes. And don't forget those GPS units, they just encourage us to go
where we might get lost. Oh yes! lets get rid of those safety harnesses, they
just encourage us to fly in turbulence. As a final safety measure, we should
all saw part way through our main spars to force us all to fly more smoothly.
With all of these "safety improvements", all designed to make more honest pilots
out of us and force all of us to fly safer, we can surely look forward to a
quantum improvement in next year's soaring safety statistics.

(with a grin)
Vaughn

[Vaughn]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> It took
> the Cirrus to make them controversial, for exactly the reason you
> pointed out.

But the Cirrus gives you something (BRS) and then takes it away (safe
flying qualities). The only POH approved spin recovery for the Cirrus involves
pulling the BRS. Would we put up with that in a glider?

Vaughn


>
> Michael

[Tom Seim]

(John Cochrane) wrote in message >...
> > I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
> > things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.
> >
> > Comments?
>
> Sam Pelzman, a fellow economist here at the University of Chicago,
> once argued on similar grounds against seat belts in cars. He pointed
> out, quite correctly, that long sharp steel spikes on the dashboard
> would be far more effective at lowering the accident rate.
>
> John Cochrane

So I assume that Sam (and, by concurrence, you) had said spikes
installed on his car.

Tom Seim

[Marc Ramsey]

Tom Seim wrote:
> (John Cochrane) wrote...
>
>>>I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
>>>things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.
>>>
>>>Comments?
>>
>>Sam Pelzman, a fellow economist here at the University of Chicago,
>>once argued on similar grounds against seat belts in cars. He pointed
>>out, quite correctly, that long sharp steel spikes on the dashboard
>>would be far more effective at lowering the accident rate.
>>
>>John Cochrane
>
>
> So I assume that Sam (and, by concurrence, you) had said spikes
> installed on his car.

If you think about it for a second, you'll realize it only works if
*everyone* has the spikes installed 8^)

Marc

[Marc Ramsey]

Tom Seim wrote:
> (John Cochrane) wrote...
>
>>>I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
>>>things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.
>>>
>>>Comments?
>>
>>Sam Pelzman, a fellow economist here at the University of Chicago,
>>once argued on similar grounds against seat belts in cars. He pointed
>>out, quite correctly, that long sharp steel spikes on the dashboard
>>would be far more effective at lowering the accident rate.
>>
>>John Cochrane
>
>
> So I assume that Sam (and, by concurrence, you) had said spikes
> installed on his car.

If you think about it for a second, you'll realize it only works if
*everyone* has the spikes installed 8^)

Marc

[Michael]

(John Cochrane) wrote
> > I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
> > things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.
>
> Sam Pelzman, a fellow economist here at the University of Chicago,
> once argued on similar grounds against seat belts in cars. He pointed
> out, quite correctly, that long sharp steel spikes on the dashboard
> would be far more effective at lowering the accident rate.

And so it would. Accident rates have been on the rise for years.
However, fatality and serious injury rates have been falling. Seat
belts, airbags, crumple zones, and other safety devices that operate
outside the driver's control make driving safer for the occupants -
not the vehicle.

It takes a much worse accident than it used to in order to cause
fatalities or serious injuries, but a lot less to total out a vehicle
- which was more expensive to begin with because of all the safety
features.

I'm not saying this is a good tradeoff or a poor one, but it's
disingenuous to pretend it's not there. It's equally disingenuous to
pretend that we couldn't prevent 95% of highway fatalities quite
easily. All it would take is a 35 mph speed limit for divided
highways and a 17 mph speed limit for other roads - and draconian
enforcement. It wouldn't prevent the accidents, but it would
eliminate most of the fatalities. Of course we don't do this because
we want to get where we are going quickly.

Michael

[Martin Gregorie]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 01:29:15 GMT, "Vaughn"
> wrote:

>
>"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
>> ...But, looking at the report makes me wonder if the BRS is an
>> unmixed blessing: In both cases it sounds as if having the BRS could
>> have tempted pilots to fly in conditions when they maybe shouldn't
>> have. As I said above, its good that the BRS got them out of trouble,
>> I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
>> things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.
>>
>> Comments?
>
> Well...Since you asked...
>
> Why don't we strike a huge blow for safety by simply taking all of the
>safety features off of our gliders, starting with parachutes? And especially
>those transponders! they just encourage us to fly where we might encounter
>other airplanes. And don't forget those GPS units, they just encourage us to go
>where we might get lost. Oh yes! lets get rid of those safety harnesses, they
>just encourage us to fly in turbulence. As a final safety measure, we should
>all saw part way through our main spars to force us all to fly more smoothly.
>With all of these "safety improvements", all designed to make more honest pilots
>out of us and force all of us to fly safer, we can surely look forward to a
>quantum improvement in next year's soaring safety statistics.
>
>(with a grin)
>Vaughn
>
Well put. Love it!

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

[iPilot]

:-)

Nailhitter



>
> Well...Since you asked...
>
> Why don't we strike a huge blow for safety by simply taking all of the
> safety features off of our gliders, starting with parachutes? And especially
> those transponders! they just encourage us to fly where we might encounter
> other airplanes. And don't forget those GPS units, they just encourage us to go
> where we might get lost. Oh yes! lets get rid of those safety harnesses, they
> just encourage us to fly in turbulence. As a final safety measure, we should
> all saw part way through our main spars to force us all to fly more smoothly.
> With all of these "safety improvements", all designed to make more honest pilots
> out of us and force all of us to fly safer, we can surely look forward to a
> quantum improvement in next year's soaring safety statistics.
>
> (with a grin)
> Vaughn
>
>

[Michael]

"Vaughn" > wrote
> But the Cirrus gives you something (BRS) and then takes it away (safe
> flying qualities). The only POH approved spin recovery for the Cirrus involves
> pulling the BRS. Would we put up with that in a glider?

No, but a Cirrus is not a glider. A glider is NORMALLY flown just a
few knots over stall in turbulent air, and thus at (relatively) high
risk of spinning. I certainly would not accept a glider that could
not recover from at least a one-turn spin. A cirrus is an IFR
cruiser, and there is no reason to have it flying less than 20% over
stall unless you are within a few feet of the ground. The spin
characteristics of most 200+ mph 4+ person IFR cruisers are pretty
iffy.

Did you know that the F-104 Starfighter not only would not recover
from a spin, but would not recover from a stall either? A stall would
immediately lead to a departure from controlled flight, generally
unrecoverable. Yet it had quite a career.

Michael

[Tom Seim]

> I'm not saying this is a good tradeoff or a poor one, but it's
> disingenuous to pretend it's not there. It's equally disingenuous to
> pretend that we couldn't prevent 95% of highway fatalities quite
> easily. All it would take is a 35 mph speed limit for divided
> highways and a 17 mph speed limit for other roads - and draconian
> enforcement. It wouldn't prevent the accidents, but it would
> eliminate most of the fatalities. Of course we don't do this because
> we want to get where we are going quickly.
>
> Michael

This has been the argument against raising the speed limits on our
highways, ever since they were lowered by that benevolent dictator
Jimmy Carter. The only problem, the argument is wrong! We learned that
after raising the limits and watched the fatality rates continue to
drop.

Common wisdom is, sometimes, uncommon nonsense.

I think the problem is tunnel vision safety analysis by "experts" that
vastly overrate their abilities. Part of the problem with the speed
limits is that drivers weren't obeying the limits to begin with.
Raising the limits merely reflected the reality of the situation.
Draconian enforcement simply won't work, at least not (fortunately) in
the U.S., because law enforcement works only by voluntary compliance.
There simply are not enough cops and jails out there to impose a law
that the vast majority of the population won't accept. This clearly
happened with the poorly thought out national speed limit. But there
still is a group that, even with all of the evidence to the contrary,
thinks that it will work.

Instead, we should put the effort into things that do work. The most
dramatic example of this is mandatory seat belt usage. In Washington
state this became a primary law (you can be stopped for it), which
resulted in compliance rates in the 85-90% range (instead of 15-20%
before there was any law). No changes were required to cars since the
belts were already there. Most people have accepted the law, but there
is still a vociferous minority that reject it. Everybody benefits,
besides being safer, with lower insurance rates.

Tom Seim

[Marc Ramsey]

Tom Seim wrote:
> by that benevolent dictator Jimmy Carter.

I miss the days when we had benevolent dictators,
rather than a not so benevolent one...

Marc

[Eric Greenwell]

Vaughn wrote:

> "Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>...But, looking at the report makes me wonder if the BRS is an
>>unmixed blessing: In both cases it sounds as if having the BRS could
>>have tempted pilots to fly in conditions when they maybe shouldn't
>>have. As I said above, its good that the BRS got them out of trouble,
>>I hope we don't see a rash of similar stories as low-timers do silly
>>things 'knowing' that the BRS can save their bacon.
>>
>>Comments?
>
>
> Well...Since you asked...
>
> Why don't we strike a huge blow for safety by simply taking all of the
> safety features off of our gliders, starting with parachutes?

This might make me safer, as I would be less inclined to fly in
contests, especially large ones.

> And especially
> those transponders! they just encourage us to fly where we might encounter
> other airplanes.

Without a transponder, I wouldn't fly in the Minden area. It does give
me a small improvement in safety where I normally fly, and more so in
the Southern California area. So, maybe the transponder, overall, has me
just as safe as I would be without one.

> And don't forget those GPS units, they just encourage us to go
> where we might get lost.

Before GPS, I used higher altitude margins, because I couldn't be sure
of where I was. I suspect I over-compensated, so I think most of the
time I did have higher margins. Once in a while, I probably misjudged
badly enough, my margins were lower than they are with a GPS. So,
perhaps a wash with respective to safety.

> Oh yes! lets get rid of those safety harnesses, they
> just encourage us to fly in turbulence.

We'd fly slower, but this probably wouldn't help, as our accidents are
rarely breakups in turbulence.

> As a final safety measure, we should
> all saw part way through our main spars to force us all to fly more smoothly.

Same as above: we'd just fly slower, so not likely to help.

Here's another one: make everyone fly without hull insurance. Pilots
would be more careful when they flew if they knew any damage came
entirely out of their wallet. The same for caring for the glider on the
ground: more gliders would be put away in the trailer instead of tied
out, and canopies would be protected better.

> With all of these "safety improvements", all designed to make more honest pilots
> out of us and force all of us to fly safer, we can surely look forward to a
> quantum improvement in next year's soaring safety statistics.

I know Vaughn wrote this tongue-in-cheek, but it does illustrate the
compensation that happens whenever there is a change in equipment.
People are always making trade-offs between safety and functionality,
but I think they usually take a middle path: a bit more safety and a bit
more functionality. Problems arise if they think more safety has been
provided than is actually the case.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Tony Verhulst]

> Did you know that the F-104 Starfighter not only would not recover
> from a spin, but would not recover from a stall either? A stall would
> immediately lead to a departure from controlled flight, generally
> unrecoverable.

About what you'd expect from a 20,000+ pound fuselage with a 7.5 foot
long wing stuck on each side.

> Yet it had quite a career.

Especially in the German airforce. "What's the best way to see a German
F104?". "You buy a lawn chair and a hectare of land and wait."

Tony V.

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Tom Seim" > wrote in message
om...
<snip>
> Instead, we should put the effort into things that do work. The most
> dramatic example of this is mandatory seat belt usage. In Washington
> state this became a primary law (you can be stopped for it), which
> resulted in compliance rates in the 85-90% range (instead of 15-20%
> before there was any law). No changes were required to cars since the
> belts were already there. Most people have accepted the law, but there
> is still a vociferous minority that reject it. Everybody benefits,
> besides being safer, with lower insurance rates.
>
> Tom Seim

Noticed the $94 seatbelt fine in Oregon and the $101 fine posted for
Washington (with the cost on a replaceable tag for both states). Here in
Weld County Colorado, the vast majority of fatal accidents are rollover
ejections where no seat/shoulder belt was in use by driver and additional
occupants.

Seatbelts are still a secondary offense in Colorado.

Frank Whiteley

[Don Johnstone]

At 13:12 27 April 2004, Michael wrote:
>'Vaughn' wrote

>Did you know that the F-104 Starfighter not only would
>not recover
>from a spin, but would not recover from a stall either?
> A stall would
>immediately lead to a departure from controlled flight,
>generally
>unrecoverable. Yet it had quite a career.
>
>Michael

As does the Jaguar still and it suffers from the same
problem. The Tornado would be the same if not for SPILLS
(a system that will not allow the aircraft to stall/spin)
and I believe an F16 is not flyable if the computer
system fails, it is so unstable the only way of keeping
it flying is with the computer system. Unstable = very
manoeuverable. All the above are combat aircraft, different
concept entirely.
>

[Don Johnstone]

Speed limits, seat belts, ABS, airbags, crumple zones,
roll over bars, BRS, parachutes, and ejector seats
have nothing whatsoever to do with preventing accidents,
they are only there to mitigate the outcome. Every
accident has the potential to cause death or serious
injury, whether that occurs is really a matter of pure
blind chance. People are the cause of accidents and
the only way to prevent them is to edjucate so that
they do not happen. All the gadgets do is reduce the
chance of injury when we screw up.
Far too often the outcome of the accident is considered
the priority in any investigation instead of the cause.

At 14:12 27 April 2004, Tom Seim wrote:
>> I'm not saying this is a good tradeoff or a poor one,
>>but it's
>> disingenuous to pretend it's not there. It's equally
>>disingenuous to
>> pretend that we couldn't prevent 95% of highway fatalities
>>quite
>> easily. All it would take is a 35 mph speed limit
>>for divided
>> highways and a 17 mph speed limit for other roads
>>- and draconian
>> enforcement. It wouldn't prevent the accidents, but
>>it would
>> eliminate most of the fatalities. Of course we don't
>>do this because
>> we want to get where we are going quickly.
>>
>> Michael
>
>This has been the argument against raising the speed
>limits on our
>highways, ever since they were lowered by that benevolent
>dictator
>Jimmy Carter. The only problem, the argument is wrong!
>We learned that
>after raising the limits and watched the fatality rates
>continue to
>drop.
>
>Common wisdom is, sometimes, uncommon nonsense.
>
>I think the problem is tunnel vision safety analysis
>by 'experts' that
>vastly overrate their abilities. Part of the problem
>with the speed
>limits is that drivers weren't obeying the limits to
>begin with.
>Raising the limits merely reflected the reality of
>the situation.
>Draconian enforcement simply won't work, at least not
>(fortunately) in
>the U.S., because law enforcement works only by voluntary
>compliance.
>There simply are not enough cops and jails out there
>to impose a law
>that the vast majority of the population won't accept.
>This clearly
>happened with the poorly thought out national speed
>limit. But there
>still is a group that, even with all of the evidence
>to the contrary,
>thinks that it will work.
>
>Instead, we should put the effort into things that
>do work. The most
>dramatic example of this is mandatory seat belt usage.
>In Washington
>state this became a primary law (you can be stopped
>for it), which
>resulted in compliance rates in the 85-90% range (instead
>of 15-20%
>before there was any law). No changes were required
>to cars since the
>belts were already there. Most people have accepted
>the law, but there
>is still a vociferous minority that reject it. Everybody
>benefits,
>besides being safer, with lower insurance rates.
>
>Tom Seim
>

[Shawn Curry]

Marc Ramsey wrote:

> Tom Seim wrote:
> > by that benevolent dictator Jimmy Carter.
>
> I miss the days when we had benevolent dictators,
> rather than a not so benevolent one...
>
> Marc

LOL
not that its funny, really :-(

[Bill Daniels]

I still have reservations about BRS, not because of the philosophy, but I'm
not sure the engineers have all the bugs out of it. Any system that will
lower a disabled aircraft and its occupant(s) to the ground safely is a very
good thing. The short history of the Cirrus BRS is very encouraging, at
least I haven't heard of any injuries to the passengers.

I know BRS has a long and exemplary record with ultralights but they are
slow and light and usually flown by the young and able. The idea of hitting
the ground in a seated position at 20 FPS is disturbing to a 60 something
glider pilot. I know using a personal 'chute is just as problematic but I
would land with my legs under me. A broken leg is vastly better than a
broken back.

For now, personal 'chutes with egress aids like DG's NOAH look better to me.
At least this idea could be retrofitted to an older glider. The 35 pounds
or so the BRS adds to the non-flying part of the glider bothers me too.

Bill Daniels

[Martin Gregorie]

On 27 Apr 2004 06:02:52 -0700, (Michael) wrote:

....snippage...

>Did you know that the F-104 Starfighter not only would not recover
>from a spin, but would not recover from a stall either? A stall would
>immediately lead to a departure from controlled flight, generally
>unrecoverable. Yet it had quite a career.
>
I thought I'd read that it would recover, but needed around 15,000 ft
to do so and that there was a placard on the panel saying to punch out
if you spun it below 15,000.


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

[Martin Gregorie]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:59:39 -0400, Tony Verhulst
> wrote:

>
>> Did you know that the F-104 Starfighter not only would not recover
>> from a spin, but would not recover from a stall either? A stall would
>> immediately lead to a departure from controlled flight, generally
>> unrecoverable.
>
>About what you'd expect from a 20,000+ pound fuselage with a 7.5 foot
>long wing stuck on each side.
>
>> Yet it had quite a career.
>
>Especially in the German airforce. "What's the best way to see a German
>F104?". "You buy a lawn chair and a hectare of land and wait."
>
...... from an album by Captain Lockheed and the Star Fighters (aka
Hawkwind) IIRC. Great cover art too.

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

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> I still have reservations about BRS, not because of the philosophy, but I'm
> not sure the engineers have all the bugs out of it. Any system that will
> lower a disabled aircraft and its occupant(s) to the ground safely is a very
> good thing. The short history of the Cirrus BRS is very encouraging, at
> least I haven't heard of any injuries to the passengers.
>
> I know BRS has a long and exemplary record with ultralights but they are
> slow and light and usually flown by the young and able. The idea of hitting
> the ground in a seated position at 20 FPS is disturbing to a 60 something
> glider pilot. I know using a personal 'chute is just as problematic but I
> would land with my legs under me. A broken leg is vastly better than a
> broken back.

I believe the current designs lower the glider nose down, and the
cockpit has to be properly designed to avoid injury to the pilot, as it
must absorb the impact. It's not a simple problem, and gliders that
aren't designed for it from the start almost surely won't be suitable
for retrofitting.

>
> For now, personal 'chutes with egress aids like DG's NOAH look better to me.
> At least this idea could be retrofitted to an older glider.

Certainly a much more practical addition!

The 35 pounds
> or so the BRS adds to the non-flying part of the glider bothers me too.

It would likely reduce the allowable cockpit load.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Finbar]

Pretty interesting that rescue-the-aircraft parachutes have been
considered basic-responsibility common sense in the ultralight
community, while the presumptively far more properly trained pilots of
presumptively far more airworthy certificated aircraft consider them
controversial and possibly dangerous.

To me, the objections to these systems keeps reminding me of the World
War I debate about allowing pilots to carry parachutes. They don't
always work, you will have people taking unnecessary risks because
they know they have them, people will bail out of damaged but landable
aircraft, and anyway real men don't need that sort of thing. Maybe
the powers that prohibited parachutes back then were onto something!

Mind you, I'll never forget the look on a hang glider pilot's face
when her sailplane-ride pilot explained that a) you have to bail out
of the aircraft to use the parachute and b) there are no parachutes
anyway!

Just to nitpick with John Cochrane, I don't know that Pelzman actually
proved that spikes in the dashboard lower the accident rate (this
would require doing the experiment, which I didn't think he had done),
although it seems likely they would! I think his point was that the
primary effect of safety equipment in cars is to increase speeds:
essentially, drivers limit their speed to keep their fatality risk to
an acceptable level, so increase the safety equipment and they can
increase their speed while keeping the same or lower fatality risk.
Their priorities are correct: limit risk first, THEN drive as fast as
possible. What is counter-intuitive is that with those priorities,
safety equipment will alter the speed, not the safety. Speed is not
the issue in aircraft, but there is indeed a similar question: when
the safety margins are improved, will light aircraft travelers consume
the benefit as higher safety margins or as increased utility of the
aircraft? Even if it's the latter, they still gain from having the
BRS on board, and all that remains is to determine whether it's worth
the cost.

[Martin Gregorie]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:07:37 -0700, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:

>Bill Daniels wrote:
..../....

> The 35 pounds
>> or so the BRS adds to the non-flying part of the glider bothers me too.
>
>It would likely reduce the allowable cockpit load.

Surely, as the BRS would be installed on or just behind the CG, it
would be more like carrying a turbo in that the cockpit load would
remain as before but the permitted amount of water ballast would be
decreased.

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

[Eric Greenwell]

Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:07:37 -0700, Eric Greenwell
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Bill Daniels wrote:
>
> ..../....
>
>
>> The 35 pounds
>>
>>>or so the BRS adds to the non-flying part of the glider bothers me too.
>>
>>It would likely reduce the allowable cockpit load.
>
>
> Surely, as the BRS would be installed on or just behind the CG, it
> would be more like carrying a turbo in that the cockpit load would
> remain as before but the permitted amount of water ballast would be
> decreased.

I simplified it a bit too much, perhaps. It would come out of the
"non-lifting parts" limit (basically the fuselage and everything in it).
Generally, the effect would be to reduce the cockpit allowed load, but
not always, depending on the exact weight of fuselage and installed
equipment. The amount of water ballast allowed would not likely change,
since it is carried by the wing (a lifting part), not the fuselage.

A glider designed to carry a motor will have a higher "non-lifting
parts" limit (perhaps from more structure, stronger lift pins, etc) than
a similar non-motorized one, in order to preserve the cockpit load.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Andreas Maurer]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:17:51 -0400, Todd Pattist
> wrote:


>Their slow speeds and light
>weight make the "rescue-the-aircraft parachutes" closer to a
>sailplane "rescue the pilot only" parachute in terms of cost
>and design difficulty.

Current ultralight aircraft like Impulse and Fascination have cruise
speeds of up to 270 kp/h and a weight of 472.5 kg... please compare
this to a typical glider... ;)

The problem is the impact. Having one inch betweenmy butt and the
ground is a pretty short way to get rid of my 30 ft/sec sink rate.
This alone is the cause why I'd prefer a bailout help like Soteira in
a glider.



Bye
Andreas

[Tom Seim]

Marc Ramsey > wrote in message >...
> Tom Seim wrote:
> > by that benevolent dictator Jimmy Carter.
>
> I miss the days when we had benevolent dictators,
> rather than a not so benevolent one...
>

Ah yes, those days of gas shortages, 15% inflation and international
humiliation at the hands of a bunch of rabid teenagers. Such fond
memories...

Tom

[Michael]

(Tom Seim) wrote
> I think the problem is tunnel vision safety analysis by "experts" that
> vastly overrate their abilities. Part of the problem with the speed
> limits is that drivers weren't obeying the limits to begin with.

I would suggest that this wasn't part of the problem but all of it.
You're right - speed limits were consistently ignored. Still are.

> Draconian enforcement simply won't work, at least not (fortunately) in
> the U.S., because law enforcement works only by voluntary compliance.
> There simply are not enough cops and jails out there to impose a law
> that the vast majority of the population won't accept.

I call bull****. What are you going to do - try to outrun the cop?
Not pay your ticket? Keep driving without a license when it gets
suspended? Join a militia? Get real. You will pay the first few
tickets, and then, when it's a matter of losing your license, you will
comply.

In any case, my point was not that we should have a 35 mph speed
limit. I'm in favor of no speed limit at all on the interstates, just
like the Germans have on the Autobahn. If that ever happens, I will
buy a sportscar again. My point was that a tradeoff between safety
and convenience/fun is reasonable, and anyone who says otherwise is
simply not being honest with himself.

Michael

[Martin Gregorie]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:39:27 -0700, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:

>Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:07:37 -0700, Eric Greenwell
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bill Daniels wrote:
>>
>> ..../....
>>
>>
>>> The 35 pounds
>>>
>>>>or so the BRS adds to the non-flying part of the glider bothers me too.
>>>
>>>It would likely reduce the allowable cockpit load.
>>
>>
>> Surely, as the BRS would be installed on or just behind the CG, it
>> would be more like carrying a turbo in that the cockpit load would
>> remain as before but the permitted amount of water ballast would be
>> decreased.
>
>I simplified it a bit too much, perhaps. It would come out of the
>"non-lifting parts" limit (basically the fuselage and everything in it).
>Generally, the effect would be to reduce the cockpit allowed load, but
>not always, depending on the exact weight of fuselage and installed
>equipment. The amount of water ballast allowed would not likely change,
>since it is carried by the wing (a lifting part), not the fuselage.
>
>A glider designed to carry a motor will have a higher "non-lifting
>parts" limit (perhaps from more structure, stronger lift pins, etc) than
>a similar non-motorized one, in order to preserve the cockpit load.

Thanks for the explanation.

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

[Pete Reinhart]

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
news:Jxvjc.42417$GR.5925024@attbi_s01...
> I still have reservations about BRS, not because of the philosophy, but
I'm
> not sure the engineers have all the bugs out of it. Any system that will
> lower a disabled aircraft and its occupant(s) to the ground safely is a
very
> good thing. The short history of the Cirrus BRS is very encouraging, at
> least I haven't heard of any injuries to the passengers.
>
> I know BRS has a long and exemplary record with ultralights but they are
> slow and light and usually flown by the young and able. The idea of
hitting
> the ground in a seated position at 20 FPS is disturbing to a 60 something
> glider pilot. I know using a personal 'chute is just as problematic but I
> would land with my legs under me. A broken leg is vastly better than a
> broken back.
>
> For now, personal 'chutes with egress aids like DG's NOAH look better to
me.
> At least this idea could be retrofitted to an older glider. The 35 pounds
> or so the BRS adds to the non-flying part of the glider bothers me too.
>
> Bill Daniels
> Bill,
I talked to the BRS people at the SSA convention a couple of years ago
regarding fitting one of their syatems to the Nimbus. They said no dice
because the energy absorption characteristics of the cockpit configuration,
descent rate, etc., etc., just wouldn't work.
Just as you said.
Streifeneder has been doing some certificatoin work in Germany on a retrofit
package for some ship but I do'nt remember the details. It looks like some
of the newer gliders may be taking the BRS sytem into account in in their
initial design now however.Too bad there's not an off the shelf retrofit
package.
Cheers!, Pete

[Roger Kelly]

Andreas Maurer > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:17:51 -0400, Todd Pattist
> > wrote:
>
.... snip

> The problem is the impact. Having one inch betweenmy butt and the
> ground is a pretty short way to get rid of my 30 ft/sec sink rate.
> This alone is the cause why I'd prefer a bailout help like Soteira in
> a glider.
>
>
>
> Bye
> Andreas

How about the BRS plus an automotive type air bag under your butt that
could be deployed at the same time as the BRS?


--
Roger Kelly
to reply replace the IP address above with cgisenior.com

[Andreas Maurer]

On 28 Apr 2004 13:36:04 GMT, Roger Kelly ]> wrote:


>How about the BRS plus an automotive type air bag under your butt that
>could be deployed at the same time as the BRS?

An air bag under the butt is a good idea - but where?
Between butt and fuselage shell there is not enough space, and I doubt
that an airbag under the fuselage (opening through a hatch) will work
reliably.



Bye
Andreas

[Roelant van der Bos]

Actually such a system is available at DG Flugzeugbau. The NOAH system
works with a compressed air cilinder and a bag located under the cushion in
the glider. It lifts to over the canopy rim and lets you just roll out of
the cockpit

See:

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

Roelant van der Bos


Andreas Maurer wrote:

> On 28 Apr 2004 13:36:04 GMT, Roger Kelly ]> wrote:
>
> >How about the BRS plus an automotive type air bag under your butt that
> >could be deployed at the same time as the BRS?
>
> An air bag under the butt is a good idea - but where?
> Between butt and fuselage shell there is not enough space, and I doubt
> that an airbag under the fuselage (opening through a hatch) will work
> reliably.
>
> Bye
> Andreas

[Roelant van der Bos]

Not really. For allmost every turbo equipped glider the max. total weight is
the same as the one for the pure glider, and in some cases the turbo has one
even lower. The discus 1 for example has a MTOW of 525 kg without the engine,
but with the turbo it reduced to 450 kg.

Roelant van der Bos


>
> >
> >I simplified it a bit too much, perhaps. It would come out of the
> >"non-lifting parts" limit (basically the fuselage and everything in it).
> >Generally, the effect would be to reduce the cockpit allowed load, but
> >not always, depending on the exact weight of fuselage and installed
> >equipment. The amount of water ballast allowed would not likely change,
> >since it is carried by the wing (a lifting part), not the fuselage.
> >
> >A glider designed to carry a motor will have a higher "non-lifting
> >parts" limit (perhaps from more structure, stronger lift pins, etc) than
> >a similar non-motorized one, in order to preserve the cockpit load.
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
>
> --
> martin@ : Martin Gregorie
> gregorie : Harlow, UK
> demon :
> co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
> uk :

[Martin Gregorie]

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:37:23 +0200, Roelant van der Bos
> wrote:

>Actually such a system is available at DG Flugzeugbau. The NOAH system
>works with a compressed air cilinder and a bag located under the cushion in
>the glider. It lifts to over the canopy rim and lets you just roll out of
>the cockpit
>
>See:
>
>http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/noah-e.html
>
>Roelant van der Bos
>
I think Roger was thinking of something like an automotive crash bag.
Unlike the DG Noah-e it would need to inflate just before impact so it
would lift the pilot off the seat and then absorb the impact forces as
it deflates.

There are problems:

- it must inflate just before the glider hits the ground, not when the
BRS deploys, but how would its inflation be triggered?

- would there be space in a closed cockpit for it to deploy?

- a cockpit is MUCH smaller than even the smallest car interior so
might it injure the pilot anyway, e.g. by breaking his eardrums as a
result of its explosive deployment in a confined space?

Its a nice idea, but I think its a non-starter inside the cockpit.

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

[Roger Kelly]

Martin Gregorie > wrote in
:

....snip

> I think Roger was thinking of something like an automotive crash bag.
> Unlike the DG Noah-e it would need to inflate just before impact so it
> would lift the pilot off the seat and then absorb the impact forces as
> it deflates.
>
> There are problems:
>
> - it must inflate just before the glider hits the ground, not when the
> BRS deploys, but how would its inflation be triggered?
>
> - would there be space in a closed cockpit for it to deploy?
>
> - a cockpit is MUCH smaller than even the smallest car interior so
> might it injure the pilot anyway, e.g. by breaking his eardrums as a
> result of its explosive deployment in a confined space?
>
> Its a nice idea, but I think its a non-starter inside the cockpit.
>

I was thinking that it would be recessed in the underside of the glider,
and covered with thin material that would match the outside contour. When
it deploys it would puncture the bottom and be a big bubble on the OUTSIDE.
I don't see why it couldn't inflate at the same time as the BRS.

--
Roger Kelly
to reply replace the IP address above with cgisenior.com

[Eric Greenwell]

Roger Kelly wrote:

>>Its a nice idea, but I think its a non-starter inside the cockpit.
>>
>
>
> I was thinking that it would be recessed in the underside of the glider,
> and covered with thin material that would match the outside contour. When
> it deploys it would puncture the bottom and be a big bubble on the OUTSIDE.
> I don't see why it couldn't inflate at the same time as the BRS.

Perhaps a system that automatically extended and locked the landing gear
when the BRS activated would be simpler. The extended gear on modern
gliders is designed to absorb significant energy, so it, plus a well
designed cockpit, should be adequate to protect the pilot.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Roelant van der Bos wrote:
>
>>>I simplified it a bit too much, perhaps. It would come out of the
>>>"non-lifting parts" limit (basically the fuselage and everything in it).
>>>Generally, the effect would be to reduce the cockpit allowed load, but
>>>not always, depending on the exact weight of fuselage and installed
>>>equipment. The amount of water ballast allowed would not likely change,
>>>since it is carried by the wing (a lifting part), not the fuselage.
>>>
>>>A glider designed to carry a motor will have a higher "non-lifting
>>>parts" limit (perhaps from more structure, stronger lift pins, etc) than
>>>a similar non-motorized one, in order to preserve the cockpit load.

> Not really. For allmost every turbo equipped glider the max.
> total weight is the same as the one for the pure glider, and in some
> cases the turbo has one even lower. The discus 1 for example has a
> MTOW of 525 kg without the engine, but with the turbo it reduced to
> 450 kg.

An increased "non-lifting parts" limit would not necessarily increase
the total allowed weight, which depends on several factors (landing gear
strength and tow hook mounting come to mind as possibilities).

I don't know why the Discus 1 turbo has such a lower MTOW, but I'd guess
the major effect is you would fly it with a lot less water ballast -
about 100 liters less! I don't think this reduction has anything to do
with the "non-lifting parts" limit, but might be related to required
climb rates or other regulation.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Shawn Curry]

Andreas Maurer wrote:
> On 28 Apr 2004 13:36:04 GMT, Roger Kelly ]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>How about the BRS plus an automotive type air bag under your butt that
>>could be deployed at the same time as the BRS?
>
>
> An air bag under the butt is a good idea - but where?
> Between butt and fuselage shell there is not enough space, and I doubt
> that an airbag under the fuselage (opening through a hatch) will work
> reliably.
>
>
>
> Bye
> Andreas

It could deploy forward from the gear well. I thought it was a great idea.

Shawn

[Shawn Curry]

Roger Kelly wrote:

> Martin Gregorie > wrote in
> :
>
> ...snip
>
>
>>I think Roger was thinking of something like an automotive crash bag.
>>Unlike the DG Noah-e it would need to inflate just before impact so it
>>would lift the pilot off the seat and then absorb the impact forces as
>>it deflates.
>>
>>There are problems:
>>
>>- it must inflate just before the glider hits the ground, not when the
>>BRS deploys, but how would its inflation be triggered?
>>
>>- would there be space in a closed cockpit for it to deploy?
>>
>>- a cockpit is MUCH smaller than even the smallest car interior so
>>might it injure the pilot anyway, e.g. by breaking his eardrums as a
>>result of its explosive deployment in a confined space?
>>
>>Its a nice idea, but I think its a non-starter inside the cockpit.
>>
>
>
> I was thinking that it would be recessed in the underside of the glider,
> and covered with thin material that would match the outside contour. When
> it deploys it would puncture the bottom and be a big bubble on the OUTSIDE.
> I don't see why it couldn't inflate at the same time as the BRS.
>

It wouldn't have to fill with gas either. Some type of foam, even a
fast polymerizing solid (heat could be a problem with this) could fill
the bag. Lots of possibilities.

Shawn

Shawn

[Roelant van der Bos]

The reason is quite simple. Even if it doesn't seen logical, water in the wings
increase the stresses in the spar of the wing. This because the water is
situated at the root of the wing. The effect is smaller that an increase in the
non lifting parts. The original wing of the discus was desinged to be a pure
glider. To make the turbo they had to reduce the ammount of water in the wing
by so much that the stresses in the wing would not exceed those of the pure
glider. Therefore they reduced the ammount of water you are allowed to carry by
reducing the MTOW. If you remove the turbo from the glider the MTOW goes back
to 525 kg., indicating that the wing for a Discus T is the same as the pure
glider. New glider are desinged from the start to carry turbo's because
everybody want's them in their new expensive glider. Therefore the wings of the
pure glider may be (do not read : are !) stronger then necessary. MTOW is
determined by the some factors as stall speed and landing gear forces. For
example the new DG 808B ompetition required a new landing gear to be allowed to
carry the new 600 kg MTOW. see
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/dg-808-modellpflege-e.html#competition for more
info on that aspect. Also you can read there that they had to move the ballast
bags further out in the wing, to reduce the stresses on the wing.

Roelant

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Roelant van der Bos wrote:
> >
> >>>I simplified it a bit too much, perhaps. It would come out of the
> >>>"non-lifting parts" limit (basically the fuselage and everything in it).
> >>>Generally, the effect would be to reduce the cockpit allowed load, but
> >>>not always, depending on the exact weight of fuselage and installed
> >>>equipment. The amount of water ballast allowed would not likely change,
> >>>since it is carried by the wing (a lifting part), not the fuselage.
> >>>
> >>>A glider designed to carry a motor will have a higher "non-lifting
> >>>parts" limit (perhaps from more structure, stronger lift pins, etc) than
> >>>a similar non-motorized one, in order to preserve the cockpit load.
>
> > Not really. For allmost every turbo equipped glider the max.
> > total weight is the same as the one for the pure glider, and in some
> > cases the turbo has one even lower. The discus 1 for example has a
> > MTOW of 525 kg without the engine, but with the turbo it reduced to
> > 450 kg.
>
> An increased "non-lifting parts" limit would not necessarily increase
> the total allowed weight, which depends on several factors (landing gear
> strength and tow hook mounting come to mind as possibilities).
>
> I don't know why the Discus 1 turbo has such a lower MTOW, but I'd guess
> the major effect is you would fly it with a lot less water ballast -
> about 100 liters less! I don't think this reduction has anything to do
> with the "non-lifting parts" limit, but might be related to required
> climb rates or other regulation.
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA