Emergency Exit

[Dan Marotta]

Not to change Dave's thread on leaving the Arcus, I was intrigued by
Francois' mention of the slippery cockpit floor in the front cockpit of
the Numbus 4DM.Â* I've noticed that in most single seaters I've flown and
I'm happy to say that my Stemme is fully carpeted to the forward
bulkhead which makes for better traction when climbing out. It still
takes a lot of upper body strength and, at 70 years old, I'm working out
3 days per week to try to keep some of that.

Everyone, please make every exit after a flight a simulated exit. Locate
those jettison handles, but don't actuate them.Â* Raise the canopy
normally and then bail out.Â* Release that belt, rise up, and roll over
the side.Â* You should have enough slack in oxygen and water hoses to not
stretch them.Â* But please practice!
--
Dan, 5J

[Dave Walsh]

At 14:39 27 June 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:
>Not to change Dave's thread on leaving the Arcus, I was
intrigued by
>Francois' mention of the slippery cockpit floor in the front
cockpit of
>the Numbus 4DM.Â* I've noticed that in most single seaters
I've flown and
>I'm happy to say that my Stemme is fully carpeted to the
forward
>bulkhead which makes for better traction when climbing
out. It still
>takes a lot of upper body strength and, at 70 years old, I'm
working out
>3 days per week to try to keep some of that.
>
>Everyone, please make every exit after a flight a simulated
exit. Locate
>those jettison handles, but don't actuate them.Â* Raise the
canopy
>normally and then bail out.Â* Release that belt, rise up, and
roll over
>the side.Â* You should have enough slack in oxygen and
water hoses to not
>stretch them.Â* But please practice!
>--
>Dan, 5J
>
Or, of course, you could just fly a DG with their NOAH
system? It seems a pity that more manufacturers do not
offer NOAH given the age of many pilots...
I had one in a DG808C and although I never had cause to
use it I miss it.
Dave W

[kirk.stant]

Remember that if you still have an elevator, you may still be able to use negative G to get out of the glider: Jettison canopy, unstrap, the push the stick forward HARD and you should pop right out. If you have time you could even run the trim full forward.. ;^)

Might not work in a spin, but would probably work well in a wind-up hi-speed spiral.

Used a lot during WW2, there is even gun camera film of pilots "popping" out of their cockpits while under attack.

Kirk

[[email protected]]

Dan,

As you said, "Not to change Dave's thread on leaving the Arcus," On every flight, we have training opportunities.

I like your comment to make "every exit after a flight a simulated exit."

In that light, every release from tow can be a simulated PT3 maneuver.

Raul Boerner
DM

[son_of_flubber]

On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 8:49:32 PM UTC-4, wrote:

> In that light, every release from tow can be a simulated PT3 maneuver.

First step in PT3 is to push stick forward, then AFTER establishing stable airspeed, initiating a steep turn. People stall-spin on PT3 because they initiate the turn before establishing stable airspeed.

Pushing the stick forward after pulling the tow release, and before initiating the turn, is asking for trouble.

[[email protected]]

"Pushing the stick forward after pulling the tow release, and before initiating the turn, is asking for trouble."

You just contradicted yourself. What are you suggesting? Pull the stick BACK and then initiate a turn? Put the bong down.

[Dan Marotta]

An excellent idea!

On 6/28/2018 6:49 PM, wrote:
> Dan,
>
> As you said, "Not to change Dave's thread on leaving the Arcus," On every flight, we have training opportunities.
>
> I like your comment to make "every exit after a flight a simulated exit."
>
> In that light, every release from tow can be a simulated PT3 maneuver.
>
> Raul Boerner
> DM

--
Dan, 5J

[kirk.stant]

On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 8:15:54 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:

> First step in PT3 is to push stick forward, then AFTER establishing stable airspeed, initiating a steep turn. People stall-spin on PT3 because they initiate the turn before establishing stable airspeed.
>
> Pushing the stick forward after pulling the tow release, and before initiating the turn, is asking for trouble.

Huh? If you think of flying as pushing and pulling on the stick (unless doing aerobatics) you are already setup for a problem at some time in the future. Pressure, dude, pressure...

Establishing the appropriate airspeed after a release on tow may require lowering the nose (slow tow behind an Agcat), or raising the nose (the towplane loses his engine and starts going down before you release). Neither response requires any pulling or pushing, just using pressure on the stick to establish the appropriate angle of attack (nose position) to initiate a turn..

Rote responses to emergencies are not always the best solution - even a PTT at 200 ft gives you plenty of time to figure out what to do and do it right - not just blindly shove the controls around!

Next time you get a tow, brief the tow pilot to reduce power at the top of the tow (simulating engine failure), lower his nose to descend at glide speed, then rock you off - it is a LOT different from the usual release during a stabilized climb at normal tow speed. Also a good time to brief and practice open spoilers (at safe altitude) with towplane rudder waggle response..

Plus it's fun!

Kirk

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 5:15:06 PM UTC+1, Dave Walsh wrote:

> Or, of course, you could just fly a DG with their NOAH
> system? It seems a pity that more manufacturers do not
> offer NOAH given the age of many pilots...
> I had one in a DG808C and although I never had cause to
> use it I miss it.
> Dave W

Were there any downsides to the NOAH system in day to day use of the glider - comfort, thickness of the inflatable bag, space for the gas cylinder (I presume there is a cylinder) etc?

John Galloway

[Dave Walsh]

At 16:13 29 June 2018, wrote:
>On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 5:15:06 PM UTC+1, Dave
Walsh wrote:
>
>> Or, of course, you could just fly a DG with their NOAH
>> system? It seems a pity that more manufacturers do not
>> offer NOAH given the age of many pilots...
>> I had one in a DG808C and although I never had cause
to
>> use it I miss it.
>> Dave W
>
>Were there any downsides to the NOAH system in day to
day use of the glider
>- comfort, thickness of the inflatable bag, space for the gas
cylinder (I
>presume there is a cylinder) etc?
>
>John Galloway
>
No, no downsides to the system in daily use. There is one
extra cable to the pilots seat harness buckle; not really a
problem. There is also the "bag", un-inflated of course,
beneath the seat cushion, again no problem. In use this bag
is inflated by a gas bottle permanently fixed to the airframe
(in the DG it's behind the seat/oxygen bottle). The whole
system just requires the pilot to pull one handle.

There are of course maintenance and inspection costs, I
think the tank and the bag have a 10 year life?

In the unlikely event the pilot activates the system without
jettisoning the canopy the bag deflates. Plenty of detail and
videos on DG's website; just search NOAH.

The DG8800 designs have low cockpit walls. Some gliders
have significantly higher cockpit walls; I'd rate the rear seat
of a DuoDiscus as significantly more difficult to get out of
than a DG800; the front Duo seat is more difficult too.

For the older pilot I think NOAH might be a life saver.

Dave W

[[email protected]]

On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 7:00:07 PM UTC+1, Dave Walsh wrote:
> At 16:13 29 June 2018, wrote:
> >On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 5:15:06 PM UTC+1, Dave
> Walsh wrote:
> >
> >> Or, of course, you could just fly a DG with their NOAH
> >> system? It seems a pity that more manufacturers do not
> >> offer NOAH given the age of many pilots...
> >> I had one in a DG808C and although I never had cause
> to
> >> use it I miss it.
> >> Dave W
> >
> >Were there any downsides to the NOAH system in day to
> day use of the glider
> >- comfort, thickness of the inflatable bag, space for the gas
> cylinder (I
> >presume there is a cylinder) etc?
> >
> >John Galloway
> >
> No, no downsides to the system in daily use. There is one
> extra cable to the pilots seat harness buckle; not really a
> problem. There is also the "bag", un-inflated of course,
> beneath the seat cushion, again no problem. In use this bag
> is inflated by a gas bottle permanently fixed to the airframe
> (in the DG it's behind the seat/oxygen bottle). The whole
> system just requires the pilot to pull one handle.
>
> There are of course maintenance and inspection costs, I
> think the tank and the bag have a 10 year life?
>
> In the unlikely event the pilot activates the system without
> jettisoning the canopy the bag deflates. Plenty of detail and
> videos on DG's website; just search NOAH.
>
> The DG8800 designs have low cockpit walls. Some gliders
> have significantly higher cockpit walls; I'd rate the rear seat
> of a DuoDiscus as significantly more difficult to get out of
> than a DG800; the front Duo seat is more difficult too.
>
> For the older pilot I think NOAH might be a life saver.
>
> Dave W

Obviously in the case of accidental activation it is good that the Noah airbag deflates rapidly but I I guess that means that if you do activate it in an emergency and for some reason you don't get out of the cockpit immediately then the benefit is lost. Unlikely I know.

[Dave Walsh]

At 18:17 29 June 2018, wrote:
>On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 7:00:07 PM UTC+1, Dave
Walsh wrote:
>> At 16:13 29 June 2018, wrote:
>> >On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 5:15:06 PM UTC+1,
Dave=20
>> Walsh wrote:
>> >
>> >> Or, of course, you could just fly a DG with their
NOAH=20
>> >> system? It seems a pity that more manufacturers do
not=20
>> >> offer NOAH given the age of many pilots...
>> >> I had one in a DG808C and although I never had
cause=20
>> to=20
>> >> use it I miss it.
>> >> Dave W
>> >
>> >Were there any downsides to the NOAH system in day
to=20
>> day use of the glider
>> >- comfort, thickness of the inflatable bag, space for the
gas=20
>> cylinder (I
>> >presume there is a cylinder) etc?
>> >
>> >John Galloway
>> >
>> No, no downsides to the system in daily use. There is
one=20
>> extra cable to the pilots seat harness buckle; not really
a=20
>> problem. There is also the "bag", un-inflated of
course,=20
>> beneath the seat cushion, again no problem. In use this
bag=20
>> is inflated by a gas bottle permanently fixed to the
airframe=20
>> (in the DG it's behind the seat/oxygen bottle). The
whole=20
>> system just requires the pilot to pull one handle.
>>=20
>> There are of course maintenance and inspection costs,
I=20
>> think the tank and the bag have a 10 year life?
>>=20
>> In the unlikely event the pilot activates the system
without=20
>> jettisoning the canopy the bag deflates. Plenty of detail
and=20
>> videos on DG's website; just search NOAH.
>>=20
>> The DG8800 designs have low cockpit walls. Some
gliders =20
>> have significantly higher cockpit walls; I'd rate the rear
seat=20
>> of a DuoDiscus as significantly more difficult to get out
of=20
>> than a DG800; the front Duo seat is more difficult too.
>>=20
>> For the older pilot I think NOAH might be a life saver.
>>=20
>> Dave W
>
>Obviously in the case of accidental activation it is good that
the Noah
>air=
>bag deflates rapidly but I I guess that means that if you do
activate it
>in=
> an emergency and for some reason you don't get out of
the cockpit
>immediat=
>ely then the benefit is lost. Unlikely I know.

Look at the videos on DG's site: you'd be hard put to remain
in the cockpit when the bag inflates!
Dave W
>

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 1:00:07 PM UTC-5, Dave Walsh wrote:
> At 16:13 29 June 2018, wrote:
> >On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 5:15:06 PM UTC+1, Dave
> Walsh wrote:
> >
> >> Or, of course, you could just fly a DG with their NOAH
> >> system? It seems a pity that more manufacturers do not
> >> offer NOAH given the age of many pilots...
> >> I had one in a DG808C and although I never had cause
> to
> >> use it I miss it.
> >> Dave W
> >
> >Were there any downsides to the NOAH system in day to
> day use of the glider
> >- comfort, thickness of the inflatable bag, space for the gas
> cylinder (I
> >presume there is a cylinder) etc?
> >
> >John Galloway
> >
> No, no downsides to the system in daily use. There is one
> extra cable to the pilots seat harness buckle; not really a
> problem. There is also the "bag", un-inflated of course,
> beneath the seat cushion, again no problem. In use this bag
> is inflated by a gas bottle permanently fixed to the airframe
> (in the DG it's behind the seat/oxygen bottle). The whole
> system just requires the pilot to pull one handle.
>
> There are of course maintenance and inspection costs, I
> think the tank and the bag have a 10 year life?
>
> In the unlikely event the pilot activates the system without
> jettisoning the canopy the bag deflates. Plenty of detail and
> videos on DG's website; just search NOAH.
>
> The DG8800 designs have low cockpit walls. Some gliders
> have significantly higher cockpit walls; I'd rate the rear seat
> of a DuoDiscus as significantly more difficult to get out of
> than a DG800; the front Duo seat is more difficult too.
>
> For the older pilot I think NOAH might be a life saver.
>
> Dave W

Why not just install a ballistic recovery chute in the glider? That's a lot cleaner solution and saves your butt at a lot lower altitude than bailing out.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

I believe there is also a cable to the canopy jettison lever, you can't "fire the NOAH" until it's armed by dumping the canopy.

[[email protected]]

> Why not just install a ballistic recovery chute in the glider? That's a lot cleaner solution and saves your butt at a lot lower altitude than bailing out.

Because "just installing" a ballistic recovery chute for a particular airframe takes a very large amount of structural analysis, determination of proper attach points, modification of the fuselage for installation of the rocket extraction system, blow-off panels to allow for chute extraction, actuation cable routing, FAA approvals for certified aircraft or approvals from an IA to determine the feasibility and installation of a system that very few certified aircraft mechanics (IA or A&P) have any familiarity with. This also applies to sailplanes certified as Experimental.

It's not just strapping a pack to your glider. It is WAY more complex and has to be done right.

I started flying hang gliders with a Ballistic Recovery System (BRS) in 1993. I have had two systems from BRS Inc. and one gas propelled unit from (now defunct) Second Chantz. Never had to actually use either one, but I see the advantages for sailplanes. Unfortunately, the mechanics and complex design issues pretty much eliminate practical retrofits to existing airframes.

It is sad that sailplane manufacturers do not seem to be interested in providing the guidance and engineering to incorporate ballistic recovery systems in current designs.

The only glider I know of that has a factory installed BRS system is the TsT-14 Bonus, which operates in the US with a Desert Aerospace installed retractable jet engine capable of self launch and in-flight engine extension and startup. (www.desertaerospace.com)

There may be other sailplanes incorporating ballistic recovery systems, but I have no knowledge of them. If there are others, perhaps RAS participants can offer their input.

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 9:27:10 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > Why not just install a ballistic recovery chute in the glider? That's a lot cleaner solution and saves your butt at a lot lower altitude than bailing out.
>
> Because "just installing" a ballistic recovery chute for a particular airframe takes a very large amount of structural analysis, determination of proper attach points, modification of the fuselage for installation of the rocket extraction system, blow-off panels to allow for chute extraction, actuation cable routing, FAA approvals for certified aircraft or approvals from an IA to determine the feasibility and installation of a system that very few certified aircraft mechanics (IA or A&P) have any familiarity with. This also applies to sailplanes certified as Experimental.
>
> It's not just strapping a pack to your glider. It is WAY more complex and has to be done right.
>
> I started flying hang gliders with a Ballistic Recovery System (BRS) in 1993. I have had two systems from BRS Inc. and one gas propelled unit from (now defunct) Second Chantz. Never had to actually use either one, but I see the advantages for sailplanes. Unfortunately, the mechanics and complex design issues pretty much eliminate practical retrofits to existing airframes..
>
> It is sad that sailplane manufacturers do not seem to be interested in providing the guidance and engineering to incorporate ballistic recovery systems in current designs.
>
> The only glider I know of that has a factory installed BRS system is the TsT-14 Bonus, which operates in the US with a Desert Aerospace installed retractable jet engine capable of self launch and in-flight engine extension and startup. (www.desertaerospace.com)
>
> There may be other sailplanes incorporating ballistic recovery systems, but I have no knowledge of them. If there are others, perhaps RAS participants can offer their input.

I totally agree that retrofitting a BRS system in a glider is a major undertaking. I am baffled why someone like DG would be screwing around with cockpit extraction systems rather than making a BRS system available for their gliders.

One example of a manufacturer who has their act together is the Phoenix Motorglider. It comes standard with a BRS system.

[Charlie Quebec]

Beacause floating around out of control under a parachute is safer?
BRS sounds good, but in practice I would prefer a personal chute every time.

[Tango Whisky]

Schempp-Hirth does offer a BRS for the Ventus.

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 11:49:33 PM UTC-5, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> Beacause floating around out of control under a parachute is safer?
> BRS sounds good, but in practice I would prefer a personal chute every time.

If you are in a midair 500 ft above the ground, a BRS will save you. You'd never make it trying to bail out with a personal chute.

[Dave Walsh]

I have seen no data for the reliability of ballistic recovery
systems in sailplanes (or, indeed, in ULM/Microlights) but the
German data for survivability of conventional parachute bail-
outs from gliders makes very sobering reading.
I'd be very surprised if ballistic recovery chutes didn't turn out
to have a better record than conventional parachutes.
A majority of ULM/Microlights here in France have ballistic
recovery systems; you don't here of malfunctions very often,
but again I have no data.
I know three glider pilots who have had mid-airs, all three
bailed out, only one is still alive.
Dave W

[Tim Newport-Peace[_5_]]

At 05:32 30 June 2018, Mike Schumann wrote:
>On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 11:49:33 PM UTC-5, Charlie Quebec wrote:
>> Beacause floating around out of control under a parachute is safer?
>> BRS sounds good, but in practice I would prefer a personal chute every
>time.
>
>If you are in a midair 500 ft above the ground, a BRS will save you.
You'd
>never make it trying to bail out with a personal chute.
>
A Personal Chute assumes you are still a going concern. A friend of mine
was hit by a piece of wreckage as he left the aircraft. Had he had a BRS he
would still be with us.

[[email protected]]

The Genesis-2 was designed for a BRS system, but production was stopped before testing was done. I have installed 36' BRS (1050) systems in a couple of G-2's. Several years back, I came close to a mid-air in the pattern..............I believe a BRS would have offered my only chance of surviving that day, had we hit. Having the little red handle available, gives me a great sense of confidence! At 84, I can hardly climb out of the cockpit, no way wearing a parachute! Add G forces that would be present in a hard-over rudder situation...........? BRS claims their system will work as low as 350'.
Wishing everyone, happy landings,
JJ

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Part of why some (me included) feel a static line is good. If you hit the tail after getting out, you may be unconscious (similar to your ship hitting the bottom of another, etc.).

Yes, you may get tangled in the line and it slows/prevents chute deployment.

I believe ours is usually 20' or so, enough to clear the tail. It is in a small coil (enough slack from cabin mount to rip cord of maybe 4') with a single wrap of electrical tape to maintain the coil until needed.

[Dan Marotta]

To me the major advantages of a BRS over a personal parachute are the
speed and certainty of deployment.Â* Of course either system may fail or
malfunction, but with the BRS, you lose the difficulty of getting out
into space and deploying at in unfavorable position. Simply pull the
handle and enjoy the ride.

But, upon landing in a windy situation, you run the very real risk of
being killed in a tumbling, disintegrating wreck being dragged along the
ground.Â* Is there a jettison capability that could be armed by the
sudden deceleration of landing?Â* Perhaps an automatic jettison?Â* Might
that malfunction at 500' and give you a last thrilling ride?

On 6/29/2018 10:49 PM, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> Beacause floating around out of control under a parachute is safer?
> BRS sounds good, but in practice I would prefer a personal chute every time.

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 3:33:11 PM UTC+1, Dan Marotta wrote:
> To me the major advantages of a BRS over a personal parachute are the
> speed and certainty of deployment.Â* Of course either system may fail or
> malfunction, but with the BRS, you lose the difficulty of getting out
> into space and deploying at in unfavorable position. Simply pull the
> handle and enjoy the ride.
>
> But, upon landing in a windy situation, you run the very real risk of
> being killed in a tumbling, disintegrating wreck being dragged along the
> ground.Â* Is there a jettison capability that could be armed by the
> sudden deceleration of landing?Â* Perhaps an automatic jettison?Â* Might
> that malfunction at 500' and give you a last thrilling ride?
>
> On 6/29/2018 10:49 PM, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> > Beacause floating around out of control under a parachute is safer?
> > BRS sounds good, but in practice I would prefer a personal chute every time.
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

For several glider types its a choice between an engine or a BRS chute (or neither!)

[Paul Agnew]

I'm curious about BRS system deployed when the aircraft/glider is spinning. Structural failures or loss of flight controls/wings in a midair could lead to an unrecoverable spin. Would it be better to eject or to hope the BRS won't get tangled by virtue of the rocket pulling the canopy clear of the spinning airframe. I must assume the manufacturers have already considered this.

https://youtu.be/OOl7Zg4Dyi4 Low deployment in a light sport aircraft on a test flight. (Why no emergency parachute for the test pilot?)

Paul A.

[Dave Walsh]

At 14:33 30 June 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:
>To me the major advantages of a BRS over a personal
parachute are the
>speed and certainty of deployment.Â* Of course either
system may fail or
>malfunction, but with the BRS, you lose the difficulty of
getting out
>into space and deploying at in unfavorable position. Simply
pull the
>handle and enjoy the ride.
>
>But, upon landing in a windy situation, you run the very
real risk of
>being killed in a tumbling, disintegrating wreck being
dragged along the
>ground.Â* Is there a jettison capability that could be armed
by the
>sudden deceleration of landing?Â* Perhaps an automatic
jettison?Â* Might
>that malfunction at 500' and give you a last thrilling ride?
>
>On 6/29/2018 10:49 PM, Charlie Quebec wrote:
>> Beacause floating around out of control under a
parachute is safer?
>> BRS sounds good, but in practice I would prefer a
personal chute every
>time.
>
>--
>Dan, 5J
>
Of course you could be struck by lightening as you descend
under your BRS canopy but has anyone ever died being
"dragged along the ground" after a successful BRS escape?
Plenty have died following a conventional parachute mal-
function.
The bottom line is that BRS will work at a lower height but is
hardly available in any common sailplane on sale today.
Retro fitting a BRS to an EASA sailplane would be a
expensive, possibly impossible, task. With ultra-light
sailplanes it's different.
The other major problem, as clearly explained on DG's
website, is that "safety does not sell sailplanes". The
majority of DG sailplanes sold were NOT equipped with the
NOAH system: the new buyers simply did not order the
NOAH system. Even if BRS was available today how many
buyers would buy it?
Dave W

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 1:45:05 PM UTC-5, Dave Walsh wrote:
> At 14:33 30 June 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:
> >To me the major advantages of a BRS over a personal
> parachute are the
> >speed and certainty of deployment.Â* Of course either
> system may fail or
> >malfunction, but with the BRS, you lose the difficulty of
> getting out
> >into space and deploying at in unfavorable position. Simply
> pull the
> >handle and enjoy the ride.
> >
> >But, upon landing in a windy situation, you run the very
> real risk of
> >being killed in a tumbling, disintegrating wreck being
> dragged along the
> >ground.Â* Is there a jettison capability that could be armed
> by the
> >sudden deceleration of landing?Â* Perhaps an automatic
> jettison?Â* Might
> >that malfunction at 500' and give you a last thrilling ride?
> >
> >On 6/29/2018 10:49 PM, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> >> Beacause floating around out of control under a
> parachute is safer?
> >> BRS sounds good, but in practice I would prefer a
> personal chute every
> >time.
> >
> >--
> >Dan, 5J
> >
> Of course you could be struck by lightening as you descend
> under your BRS canopy but has anyone ever died being
> "dragged along the ground" after a successful BRS escape?
> Plenty have died following a conventional parachute mal-
> function.
> The bottom line is that BRS will work at a lower height but is
> hardly available in any common sailplane on sale today.
> Retro fitting a BRS to an EASA sailplane would be a
> expensive, possibly impossible, task. With ultra-light
> sailplanes it's different.
> The other major problem, as clearly explained on DG's
> website, is that "safety does not sell sailplanes". The
> majority of DG sailplanes sold were NOT equipped with the
> NOAH system: the new buyers simply did not order the
> NOAH system. Even if BRS was available today how many
> buyers would buy it?
> Dave W

If a BRS system were available factory installed at a reasonable price, I suspect that a very large percentage of buyers would sign up. It's a huge selling point if you are trying to get the OK from your spouse to upgrade to a new glider.

Offering a BRS system standard on all of their airplanes is probably the #1 reason that Cirrus is now the largest piston engine aircraft manufacturer in the world.

[Dave Walsh]

At 19:04 30 June 2018, Mike Schumann wrote:
>On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 1:45:05 PM UTC-5, Dave
Walsh wrote:
>> At 14:33 30 June 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> >To me the major advantages of a BRS over a
personal=20
>> parachute are the=20
>> >speed and certainty of deployment.=C2=A0 Of course
either=20
>> system may fail or=20
>> >malfunction, but with the BRS, you lose the difficulty
of=20
>> getting out=20
>> >into space and deploying at in unfavorable position.
Simply=20
>> pull the=20
>> >handle and enjoy the ride.
>> >
>> >But, upon landing in a windy situation, you run the
very=20
>> real risk of=20
>> >being killed in a tumbling, disintegrating wreck
being=20
>> dragged along the=20
>> >ground.=C2=A0 Is there a jettison capability that could
be armed=20
>> by the=20
>> >sudden deceleration of landing?=C2=A0 Perhaps an
automatic=20
>> jettison?=C2=A0 Might=20
>> >that malfunction at 500' and give you a last thrilling
ride?
>> >
>> >On 6/29/2018 10:49 PM, Charlie Quebec wrote:
>> >> Beacause floating around out of control under a=20
>> parachute is safer?
>> >> BRS sounds good, but in practice I would prefer
a=20
>> personal chute every
>> >time.
>> >
>> >--=20
>> >Dan, 5J
>> >
>> Of course you could be struck by lightening as you
descend=20
>> under your BRS canopy but has anyone ever died
being=20
>> "dragged along the ground" after a successful BRS
escape?
>> Plenty have died following a conventional parachute mal-
>> function.
>> The bottom line is that BRS will work at a lower height
but is=20
>> hardly available in any common sailplane on sale today.
>> Retro fitting a BRS to an EASA sailplane would be a=20
>> expensive, possibly impossible, task. With ultra-light=20
>> sailplanes it's different.
>> The other major problem, as clearly explained on
DG's=20
>> website, is that "safety does not sell sailplanes". The=20
>> majority of DG sailplanes sold were NOT equipped with
the=20
>> NOAH system: the new buyers simply did not order
the=20
>> NOAH system. Even if BRS was available today how
many=20
>> buyers would buy it?
>> Dave W
>
>If a BRS system were available factory installed at a
reasonable price, I
>s=
>uspect that a very large percentage of buyers would sign
up. It's a huge
>s=
>elling point if you are trying to get the OK from your
spouse to upgrade
>to=
> a new glider. =20
>
>Offering a BRS system standard on all of their airplanes is
probably the
>#1=
> reason that Cirrus is now the largest piston engine aircraft
manufacturer
>=
>in the world.

Yes you're probably quite right about the Cirrus BUT in a
Cirrus you might well have wife and kids along for the ride.
The fact remains that the majority of DG customers do not
specify the NOAH system; it's actually relatively cheap
compared to the new cost of a DG808C or DG1000x. Why is
that?
Dave W
>

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 4:00:18 PM UTC-5, Dave Walsh wrote:
> At 19:04 30 June 2018, Mike Schumann wrote:
> >On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 1:45:05 PM UTC-5, Dave
> Walsh wrote:
> >> At 14:33 30 June 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:
> >> >To me the major advantages of a BRS over a
> personal=20
> >> parachute are the=20
> >> >speed and certainty of deployment.=C2=A0 Of course
> either=20
> >> system may fail or=20
> >> >malfunction, but with the BRS, you lose the difficulty
> of=20
> >> getting out=20
> >> >into space and deploying at in unfavorable position.
> Simply=20
> >> pull the=20
> >> >handle and enjoy the ride.
> >> >
> >> >But, upon landing in a windy situation, you run the
> very=20
> >> real risk of=20
> >> >being killed in a tumbling, disintegrating wreck
> being=20
> >> dragged along the=20
> >> >ground.=C2=A0 Is there a jettison capability that could
> be armed=20
> >> by the=20
> >> >sudden deceleration of landing?=C2=A0 Perhaps an
> automatic=20
> >> jettison?=C2=A0 Might=20
> >> >that malfunction at 500' and give you a last thrilling
> ride?
> >> >
> >> >On 6/29/2018 10:49 PM, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> >> >> Beacause floating around out of control under a=20
> >> parachute is safer?
> >> >> BRS sounds good, but in practice I would prefer
> a=20
> >> personal chute every
> >> >time.
> >> >
> >> >--=20
> >> >Dan, 5J
> >> >
> >> Of course you could be struck by lightening as you
> descend=20
> >> under your BRS canopy but has anyone ever died
> being=20
> >> "dragged along the ground" after a successful BRS
> escape?
> >> Plenty have died following a conventional parachute mal-
> >> function.
> >> The bottom line is that BRS will work at a lower height
> but is=20
> >> hardly available in any common sailplane on sale today.
> >> Retro fitting a BRS to an EASA sailplane would be a=20
> >> expensive, possibly impossible, task. With ultra-light=20
> >> sailplanes it's different.
> >> The other major problem, as clearly explained on
> DG's=20
> >> website, is that "safety does not sell sailplanes". The=20
> >> majority of DG sailplanes sold were NOT equipped with
> the=20
> >> NOAH system: the new buyers simply did not order
> the=20
> >> NOAH system. Even if BRS was available today how
> many=20
> >> buyers would buy it?
> >> Dave W
> >
> >If a BRS system were available factory installed at a
> reasonable price, I
> >s=
> >uspect that a very large percentage of buyers would sign
> up. It's a huge
> >s=
> >elling point if you are trying to get the OK from your
> spouse to upgrade
> >to=
> > a new glider. =20
> >
> >Offering a BRS system standard on all of their airplanes is
> probably the
> >#1=
> > reason that Cirrus is now the largest piston engine aircraft
> manufacturer
> >=
> >in the world.
>
> Yes you're probably quite right about the Cirrus BUT in a
> Cirrus you might well have wife and kids along for the ride.
> The fact remains that the majority of DG customers do not
> specify the NOAH system; it's actually relatively cheap
> compared to the new cost of a DG808C or DG1000x. Why is
> that?
> Dave W
> >

Maybe people think that the NOAH system is a half baked solution. Cirrus and Phoenix think that BRS systems are important enough that they make them standard and a significant part of their marketing.

[[email protected]]

The biggest negative for the BRS is cost. Ongoing with inspections/repacking and timed replacements
Also I have seen a video testing it with a Discus and there are certainly issues with speed and attitudes.
Tom
....

[Chris Rowland[_2_]]

At 21:22 01 July 2018, Mike Schumann wrote:
>
>Maybe people think that the NOAH system is a half baked solution.
>
Do people really think that not having a solution at all is better than a
partial one?

[Dave Walsh]

>It's tricky, perhaps impossible, to retro fit a BRS to a
DG1001M or DG808C type sailplane with a pylon mounted
engine. So I'd say the NOAH system was a sensible alternative
given the pilot(s) would be wearing conventional parachutes.
In the absence of BRS equipped sailplanes for sale NOAH
seems to me a very desirable option.
Clearly if the major glider manufacturers offered BRS this
would be better still.
Whether DG purchasers see NOAH as "half baked" is an
interesting question. My guess is that the majority of
purchasers never believe they will have a mid-air collision or
structural failure and so just choose to save themselves
8,000€.

The idea that "cost" is a significant factor in fitting BRS
systems in gliders is simply woefully ill-informed.
A new single seat sailplane is perhaps 100K€ - 200K€?
A new two seat self launch is perhaps 180K€ - 300K€?
A new BRS is perhaps 7K€? This is less than the cost of an
upmarket variometer system!
And the true cost of one life lost is...well look it up on the
internet, it's a surprisingly high figure.
Dave W>
>
>
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

I had the opportunity to fly with a Ventus 2BXR (R for Recovery) at Saint-Auban (France). With that experience, I'd say a BRS in a glider is not a very practical solution as far as I'm concerned.

Due to the ballistic extractor being placed under the fuselage skin between the wings, it could shoot out exactly where your head would be when pushing the glider. Therefore, there are multiple safety systems to verify, a separate electrical circuit, a safety pin to extract just before taking off, and to put back in place after landing before exiting the glider. Sure as hell, you are bound to forget something if you do not strictly follow a written checklist every time.

At Saint-Auban, I had to sign a specific document stating my knowledge of the system before being allowed to fly the glider. The CNVV ended up selling the glider because these limitations made it financially uninteresting.

I once forgot to take the safety pin out (you still can do it in flight, fortunately), once to put it back (really a bad idea, but I'm not used to a check-list before exiting a glider)...

Stephane


Le samedi 30 juin 2018 21:04:53 UTC+2, Mike Schumann a écritÂ*:
> On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 1:45:05 PM UTC-5, Dave Walsh wrote:
> > At 14:33 30 June 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > >To me the major advantages of a BRS over a personal
> > parachute are the
> > >speed and certainty of deployment.Â* Of course either
> > system may fail or
> > >malfunction, but with the BRS, you lose the difficulty of
> > getting out
> > >into space and deploying at in unfavorable position. Simply
> > pull the
> > >handle and enjoy the ride.
> > >
> > >But, upon landing in a windy situation, you run the very
> > real risk of
> > >being killed in a tumbling, disintegrating wreck being
> > dragged along the
> > >ground.Â* Is there a jettison capability that could be armed
> > by the
> > >sudden deceleration of landing?Â* Perhaps an automatic
> > jettison?Â* Might
> > >that malfunction at 500' and give you a last thrilling ride?
> > >
> > >On 6/29/2018 10:49 PM, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> > >> Beacause floating around out of control under a
> > parachute is safer?
> > >> BRS sounds good, but in practice I would prefer a
> > personal chute every
> > >time.
> > >
> > >--
> > >Dan, 5J
> > >
> > Of course you could be struck by lightening as you descend
> > under your BRS canopy but has anyone ever died being
> > "dragged along the ground" after a successful BRS escape?
> > Plenty have died following a conventional parachute mal-
> > function.
> > The bottom line is that BRS will work at a lower height but is
> > hardly available in any common sailplane on sale today.
> > Retro fitting a BRS to an EASA sailplane would be a
> > expensive, possibly impossible, task. With ultra-light
> > sailplanes it's different.
> > The other major problem, as clearly explained on DG's
> > website, is that "safety does not sell sailplanes". The
> > majority of DG sailplanes sold were NOT equipped with the
> > NOAH system: the new buyers simply did not order the
> > NOAH system. Even if BRS was available today how many
> > buyers would buy it?
> > Dave W
>
> If a BRS system were available factory installed at a reasonable price, I suspect that a very large percentage of buyers would sign up. It's a huge selling point if you are trying to get the OK from your spouse to upgrade to a new glider.
>
> Offering a BRS system standard on all of their airplanes is probably the #1 reason that Cirrus is now the largest piston engine aircraft manufacturer in the world.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 2:22:38 PM UTC-7, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 4:00:18 PM UTC-5, Dave Walsh wrote:
> > At 19:04 30 June 2018, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > >On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 1:45:05 PM UTC-5, Dave
> > Walsh wrote:
> > >> At 14:33 30 June 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > >> >To me the major advantages of a BRS over a
> > personal=20
> > >> parachute are the=20
> > >> >speed and certainty of deployment.=C2=A0 Of course
> > either=20
> > >> system may fail or=20
> > >> >malfunction, but with the BRS, you lose the difficulty
> > of=20
> > >> getting out=20
> > >> >into space and deploying at in unfavorable position.
> > Simply=20
> > >> pull the=20
> > >> >handle and enjoy the ride.
> > >> >
> > >> >But, upon landing in a windy situation, you run the
> > very=20
> > >> real risk of=20
> > >> >being killed in a tumbling, disintegrating wreck
> > being=20
> > >> dragged along the=20
> > >> >ground.=C2=A0 Is there a jettison capability that could
> > be armed=20
> > >> by the=20
> > >> >sudden deceleration of landing?=C2=A0 Perhaps an
> > automatic=20
> > >> jettison?=C2=A0 Might=20
> > >> >that malfunction at 500' and give you a last thrilling
> > ride?
> > >> >
> > >> >On 6/29/2018 10:49 PM, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> > >> >> Beacause floating around out of control under a=20
> > >> parachute is safer?
> > >> >> BRS sounds good, but in practice I would prefer
> > a=20
> > >> personal chute every
> > >> >time.
> > >> >
> > >> >--=20
> > >> >Dan, 5J
> > >> >
> > >> Of course you could be struck by lightening as you
> > descend=20
> > >> under your BRS canopy but has anyone ever died
> > being=20
> > >> "dragged along the ground" after a successful BRS
> > escape?
> > >> Plenty have died following a conventional parachute mal-
> > >> function.
> > >> The bottom line is that BRS will work at a lower height
> > but is=20
> > >> hardly available in any common sailplane on sale today.
> > >> Retro fitting a BRS to an EASA sailplane would be a=20
> > >> expensive, possibly impossible, task. With ultra-light=20
> > >> sailplanes it's different.
> > >> The other major problem, as clearly explained on
> > DG's=20
> > >> website, is that "safety does not sell sailplanes". The=20
> > >> majority of DG sailplanes sold were NOT equipped with
> > the=20
> > >> NOAH system: the new buyers simply did not order
> > the=20
> > >> NOAH system. Even if BRS was available today how
> > many=20
> > >> buyers would buy it?
> > >> Dave W
> > >
> > >If a BRS system were available factory installed at a
> > reasonable price, I
> > >s=
> > >uspect that a very large percentage of buyers would sign
> > up. It's a huge
> > >s=
> > >elling point if you are trying to get the OK from your
> > spouse to upgrade
> > >to=
> > > a new glider. =20
> > >
> > >Offering a BRS system standard on all of their airplanes is
> > probably the
> > >#1=
> > > reason that Cirrus is now the largest piston engine aircraft
> > manufacturer
> > >=
> > >in the world.
> >
> > Yes you're probably quite right about the Cirrus BUT in a
> > Cirrus you might well have wife and kids along for the ride.
> > The fact remains that the majority of DG customers do not
> > specify the NOAH system; it's actually relatively cheap
> > compared to the new cost of a DG808C or DG1000x. Why is
> > that?
> > Dave W
> > >
>
> Maybe people think that the NOAH system is a half baked solution. Cirrus and Phoenix think that BRS systems are important enough that they make them standard and a significant part of their marketing.

The NOAH system is far from "half baked". DG actually developed a system that works, and they are the only ones that have for a glider. Approximately two thirds of the non-motor gliders sold, have sustainers engines where the BRS would go, hence the NOAH. This is an emergency assist. The chance of needing such a device is as rare as needing to jump, yet DG stepped up to the plate and designed and tested a solution, that is affordable (about 4,000 euro before installation). Comparing Phoenix and Cirrus aircraft, with their marketing, design, customers base, and funding sources, to gliding is with all due respect "half baked".

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Monday, July 2, 2018 at 7:45:06 AM UTC-5, Dave Walsh wrote:
> >It's tricky, perhaps impossible, to retro fit a BRS to a
> DG1001M or DG808C type sailplane with a pylon mounted
> engine. So I'd say the NOAH system was a sensible alternative
> given the pilot(s) would be wearing conventional parachutes.
> In the absence of BRS equipped sailplanes for sale NOAH
> seems to me a very desirable option.
> Clearly if the major glider manufacturers offered BRS this
> would be better still.
> Whether DG purchasers see NOAH as "half baked" is an
> interesting question. My guess is that the majority of
> purchasers never believe they will have a mid-air collision or
> structural failure and so just choose to save themselves
> 8,000€.
>
> The idea that "cost" is a significant factor in fitting BRS
> systems in gliders is simply woefully ill-informed.
> A new single seat sailplane is perhaps 100K€ - 200K€?
> A new two seat self launch is perhaps 180K€ - 300K€?
> A new BRS is perhaps 7K€? This is less than the cost of an
> upmarket variometer system!
> And the true cost of one life lost is...well look it up on the
> internet, it's a surprisingly high figure.
> Dave W>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

I think that the lack of enthusiasm for NOAH isn't the cost, but the lack of a perceived advantage. If you have a midair or a control problem at a high enough altitude where bailing out is an option, many pilots don't think they'll have a problem getting out of the cockpit.

If you have a midair in the pattern, you're so low that NOAH isn't going to help. A BRS system on the other hand can save you. If you look at accident statistics, a lot of midairs occur at these altitudes. Pilots understand this, and manufacturers like Cirrus and Phoenix have demonstrated that they are willing to pay to improve their odds in these types of accidents.

[[email protected]]

I have flown with a a 1050-BRS for about 10 years in two Genesis-2 sailplanes (sold one, missed it, so I bought another one and the BRS availability was a big part of deciding to buy another one), I can provide some basic info. The deployment max airspeed is 138 mph and 1050# G/W with no stated max or minimum altitude, but saves have been obtained as low as 350 feet! Repack every 6 years for $1000 bucks and replace rocket fuel every 12 years (cost unknown, but estimate the 12 year repack and new fuel should come in under $1500. Initial cost is $5000+ 1000 installation (in a Genesis-2). The Genesis is the most comfortable ship I have ever flown because the personal chute was replaced by a 4" pad with only lap belt and shoulder harness. No way to jettison the chute, but that's also true with most back-packs used in sailplanes. I believe it would take a good 40 knot wind to drag the whole sailplane on the ground, after landing..........and if that were to happen, I believe I would just wait for the ship to hang up on something.
The system is well engineered with safety pin used on the ground and even if the red handle were accidentally kicked with pin out, it takes a 35# pull about 6" to fire the rocket! I take great comfort in my ability to just pull the little red handle should it ever become necessary.
Hope this helps,
JJ

[[email protected]]

On Monday, July 2, 2018 at 8:00:44 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> I have flown with a a 1050-BRS for about 10 years in two Genesis-2 sailplanes (sold one, missed it, so I bought another one and the BRS availability was a big part of deciding to buy another one), I can provide some basic info. The deployment max airspeed is 138 mph and 1050# G/W with no stated max or minimum altitude, but saves have been obtained as low as 350 feet! Repack every 6 years for $1000 bucks and replace rocket fuel every 12 years (cost unknown, but estimate the 12 year repack and new fuel should come in under $1500. Initial cost is $5000+ 1000 installation (in a Genesis-2). The Genesis is the most comfortable ship I have ever flown because the personal chute was replaced by a 4" pad with only lap belt and shoulder harness. No way to jettison the chute, but that's also true with most back-packs used in sailplanes. I believe it would take a good 40 knot wind to drag the whole sailplane on the ground, after landing..........and if that were to happen, I believe I would just wait for the ship to hang up on something.
> The system is well engineered with safety pin used on the ground and even if the red handle were accidentally kicked with pin out, it takes a 35# pull about 6" to fire the rocket! I take great comfort in my ability to just pull the little red handle should it ever become necessary.
> Hope this helps,
> JJ

What is the structural path from parachute risers to pilots seat/seatbelts? That seems to me to be the weakest link with BRS implementation.

[[email protected]]

The "bridle" consists of 4 straps that attach to the 4 lift fittings, which are 2" wide webbing. On deployment, they exit through the 15X24 BRS hatch, then up to a giant carabiner that attaches them to one big riser coming from the 36' parachute. Rocket is about 4" below this hatch and aimed at the forward end. Hatch Is secured with 1/2" tape and will separate with a good wack...........I taped it up, then gave it a good wack with a rubber mallet..
JJ

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

I think the NOAH system is a great product.

Below is a note from DG in regard to installations in gliders not made by DG/LS.

“In general it is possible and certified to install NOAH in LS/DG single seaters and Schempp-Hirth (discus/ventus, all fuselages except “a�). We could provide the material kits for those, to be installed in an authorized workshop in the US. For Schleicher (Asw-27, Asg-29 and ASH-26/31) prototypes have been installed, but the installation has not been certified as yet. However we could provide kits as well, only to be installed in “experimental� ships.

All customers who are interested can send us an inquiry and then we will find a solution to deliver the NOAH kit to the USA. We are currently checking availability, installation documentation and prices of the Schempp-Hirth and Schleicher installations.�

Let me know if you want a quote on an NOAH system for your sailplane.

Best Regards,

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.

On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 9:39:40 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Not to change Dave's thread on leaving the Arcus, I was intrigued by
> Francois' mention of the slippery cockpit floor in the front cockpit of
> the Numbus 4DM.Â* I've noticed that in most single seaters I've flown and
> I'm happy to say that my Stemme is fully carpeted to the forward
> bulkhead which makes for better traction when climbing out. It still
> takes a lot of upper body strength and, at 70 years old, I'm working out
> 3 days per week to try to keep some of that.
>
> Everyone, please make every exit after a flight a simulated exit. Locate
> those jettison handles, but don't actuate them.Â* Raise the canopy
> normally and then bail out.Â* Release that belt, rise up, and roll over
> the side.Â* You should have enough slack in oxygen and water hoses to not
> stretch them.Â* But please practice!
> --
> Dan, 5J

[Wade G]

Regarding a static line, do they just hook to the D-ring?
I’m interested.

A few days ago I fired off an email to Softie for guidance but have not gotten a response.

WG

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Generally, yes. Something solid in the aircraft so if you get hit on the way out, the line/cord comes tight and pulls the chute release.

[TND]

In Australia, the late Paul Mander designed and manufactured a self-contained gas-inflated bladder. One simply unrolls it and places it on the seat of any glider one flies. Just find a spot to secrete the gas bottle, and ensure that the activation toggle is to hand. Because the device is not integrated with the aircraft in any way, it does not need certification.

The device, universally known as "Paul's whoopee cushion", is well engineered and seems to work reliably. Inadvertent inflation in flight is, I understand, uncomfortable rather than disastrous, and the bladder self-deflates in a few seconds.

Paul sold quite a few of them down under. His son Henry was mainly conducting the business, but I don't know where that is at, following Paul's untimely passing early this year.

Digressing slightly, it should be noted that this initiative was one of many contributions that Paul made to gliding in Australia. Sometimes irascible, sometimes divisive, Paul was nevertheless a wonderful person who would give anyone a hand, or offer advice, as well as being an accomplished, record-holding pilot. He was not one dimensional, either, having had many achievements outside gliding, in business and in other pastimes.

--

This
message is intended for the addressee named and may contain

confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please

delete it and notify the sender. Views expressed in this message are
those
of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of
their
organisation.

[[email protected]]

Is this the one that used a lawn tractor inner tube or similar folded in half? I remember one posted here on RAS that looked simple, cheap and effective - a rare combination.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 12:30:14 AM UTC+10, wrote:
> Is this the one that used a lawn tractor inner tube or similar folded in half? I remember one posted here on RAS that looked simple, cheap and effective - a rare combination.

You know, I never thought to ask Paul what the bladder came from. I assumed it was folded up from rubber sheets and glued. But Paul did own an industrial vehicle related business, so it could well have adapted an inner tube of some kind.

The last time I saw him demo it was with him sitting in a PIK-20. Up he went to just about the sill of the cockpit, then just rolled out.

I know that the gas bottles were something commonly available - drink syphon refills I think.

--

This
message is intended for the addressee named and may contain

confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please

delete it and notify the sender. Views expressed in this message are
those
of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of
their
organisation.