emergency chute

[Sven Olivier]

What is best: a round or square chute? Do they differ in time to open? Are
previous experience or training jumps with a square chute mandatory? Is a
static line better - if so why?
(we have a packer at our club that has recommended square chutes, but
apparently two training jumps are mandatory - we are based in South Africa)

Sven
EY

[Don Johnstone]

I don't think you will find that there are any emergency
prachutes with square canopies, they are all round.
The criteria for emergency parachutes is that they
should open whatever the attitude of the person using
them. Square parachutes while offering more control
when open require the wearer to be in a stable position
when the chute is deployed, they are therefore less
reliable when deployed in anything other than a stable
attitude.
The Irvin EB** series were reputed to be the fastest
opening chutes in the world at one time and they certainly
use round canopies (I24). Maybe they still are, I hope
so cos that is what I have.




At 20:30 05 April 2005, Sven Olivier wrote:
>What is best: a round or square chute? Do they differ
>in time to open? Are
>previous experience or training jumps with a square
>chute mandatory? Is a
>static line better - if so why?
>(we have a packer at our club that has recommended
>square chutes, but
>apparently two training jumps are mandatory - we are
>based in South Africa)
>
>Sven
>EY
>
>
>

[Marc Ramsey]

Don Johnstone wrote:
> I don't think you will find that there are any emergency
> prachutes with square canopies, they are all round.

I know a number of glider pilots who have them, all experienced
skydivers. I believe they use square reserve canopies, which apparently
open every bit as quickly as round ones. When asked, the general
response is that they feel safer under a square chute...

[[email protected]]

I'm one of those glider pilots who switched air sports after 5000
skydives and you will never catch me with a round chute in my pilot
rig.

I don't know where Don got his info that square chutes require that the
person be in a stable position, but that's absolutely, 100% false.
Every skydiver I know uses square reserves precisely because they open
faster and more reliably than round reserves, regardless of attitude or
body position.

I obviously recommend square emergency chutes to pilots but only if
they take the time to at least visit a skydiving training center and
sit in the simulator with an instructor. Even better, make a tandem
jump or two -- it's fun and they let you fly the chute, all the way to
landing (they will provide "power steering").

I use a Rigging Innovations "Aviator" P-124, which has a ram-air
(square) chute designed for airmen who may have no prior jump
experience. The web page for the product is here:

http://www.rigginginnovations.com/products/aviator.html

Ted Wagner
Chandler, AZ
304CZ "2NO"

[[email protected]]

Square canopy will open as fast as the round. Square canopies are safer
then the round; they decent slower and you can flare them while
landing. You can control them better, they glide quite a bit, they will
penetrate into the wind. You can fly them into a clear of obstacles
area, fly away from power lines, rivers, lakes and such. However, I
would recommend that a person who is planning on using a square canopy
get some training. I would recommend that potential user of a square
rig will do a tandem jump and 1 or 2 static line jumps. Landing square
canopy downwind might be painful...not knowing how to fly it...well,
there is a set of brake lines that need to be released. You need to
know how to slow down, when to slow down, when to go to full
flight...if you take a static line class you will learn all that
stuff...is it worth it? You bet...it is worth every single penny and
some more and that experience will stay with you for rest of your
flying days. Square are safer...what makes me qualified to say that?
Besides being a pilot, power (every imaginable rating) glider
commercial, I am also a static line instructor and FAA parachute
rigger. There are a few manufacturers, one on them is Para-Phernalia,
and they have a systems with square emergency canopies. If you are in
South Africa there is manufacturer under the name PISA, which
manufactures a very good square canopy Tempo. Get yourself larger one,
for example Tempo 250. It is rated under TSO C23C- 254 lbs. max.
suspended weight. Hope this will help.

[[email protected]]

Ted,

Thanks for the response. My local rigger suggested a square, but only
if I was trained. I think it's important to remember that glider pilots
will bail out under not the best of circumstances, may take a while to
get oriented after the chute opens, and may even be partially
incapacitated by trauma resulting from a collision. Assuming you may
not be able to steer, which canopy would be better for a untrained,
hapless skydiver?


OC

[COLIN LAMB]

As I understand the comments, the "square" chute would allow the "pilot" to
fly the canopy. They can be directed and with the ability to flare at the
end of the flight, just like with any other aircraft, they would therefore
have the ability to cushion the landing.

So, anyone trained would prefer a "square" chute.

So, accepting this as true, there is still one concern that needs to be
addressed. In a 2 place sailplane, the passenger gets a parachute. Even
though the pilot may have the training, the chances are very high that not
all of the passengers will have the required training, and may not
understand about flaring. Would that mean that the passenger should have a
round chute and just accept their lumps, so to speak?

Colin N12HS

[[email protected]]

Still use the squre...as long as you are able to pull the handle you
will be O'K. In a case of square canopies there is a set of brake
lines...if you don't release them your forward speed is only about
1-1.5 MPH and descent speed is 12 feet per second as compare with
rounds of 17 feet per second. In addition, if you don't release the
brake lines the square canopy will turn into the wind by itself. So,
even as you are referring to not ideal circumstances your squre will
take you back to the ground with much higher degree of safety.

[[email protected]]

<snip> Would that mean that the passenger should have a round chute and
just accept their lumps, so to speak? </snip>

Colin: Yes, exactly.

OC: as the unidentified rigger said, the square. The chances of the
pilot being dazed and confused to the point of not even being able to
find and operate the brake/steering toggles are small, and if unable to
do so by injury or unconsciousness, I would still rather be under the
square.

2NO

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:

> Still use the squre...as long as you are able to pull the handle you
> will be O'K. In a case of square canopies there is a set of brake
> lines...if you don't release them your forward speed is only about
> 1-1.5 MPH and descent speed is 12 feet per second as compare with
> rounds of 17 feet per second.

Can't you just get a bigger round canopy to come down slower?


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[[email protected]]

How does a square know which way the wind is blowing?

I'll buy the rest of the argument for a square reserve (having a few
jumps, both static and freefall, under old military rounds), but I have
a hard time understanding how a free falling object can orient itself
with the wind - unless it is big enough (tall enough) to be affected by
wind shear.

Explanation, please?

66

[[email protected]]

OK, given the preference of those who know more than I do, I have to
ask the obvious question: Why are there still round chutes? If I order
a National or Softie from my local glider haberdasher... won't I get a
conical? I'm not disagreeing with the assessement of thems that knows.
But I would like to understand why we haven't seen a wholesale
conversion to the square.

Not a troll... though it has the earmarks, doesn't it?


wrote:
> <snip> Would that mean that the passenger should have a round chute
and
> just accept their lumps, so to speak? </snip>
>
> Colin: Yes, exactly.
>
> OC: as the unidentified rigger said, the square. The chances of the
> pilot being dazed and confused to the point of not even being able to
> find and operate the brake/steering toggles are small, and if unable
to
> do so by injury or unconsciousness, I would still rather be under the
> square.
>
> 2NO

[[email protected]]

fiveniner: it's simple. The round chutes are cheaper and require no
training (a lot less, anyway).

I *am* surprised, however, that the square chutes aren't a tad more
popular than they are. That's probably because of a simple lack of
knowledge and the institutional momemtum of using rounds/conicals for
so many years...

ted/2NO

[[email protected]]

66: not very many skydivers share this opinion (that squares turn into
the wind). I experimented with the theory a half dozen times when I was
jumping solo and not once did the canopy ever turn into the wind.

2NO

[Don Johnstone]

Reliability. Perhaps you should ask the experts on
emergency egress, in the case of the UK it is a company
called Martin Baker. Ask them how many of their seats
use square chutes. A canopy capable of opening safely
at the sort of speeds involved in ejections is good
enough for me.
If sport chutes are so reliable why do sky divers have
a reserve?

An emergency chute is designed to work even under adverse
conditions. A sport parachute has a completely different
design concept.


At 12:04 06 April 2005, wrote:
>OK, given the preference of those who know more than
>I do, I have to
>ask the obvious question: Why are there still round
>chutes? If I order
>a National or Softie from my local glider haberdasher...
>won't I get a
>conical? I'm not disagreeing with the assessement of
>thems that knows.
>But I would like to understand why we haven't seen
>a wholesale
>conversion to the square.
>
>Not a troll... though it has the earmarks, doesn't
>it?
>
>
wrote:
>> Would that mean that the passenger should have a
>>round chute
>and
>> just accept their lumps, so to speak?
>>
>> Colin: Yes, exactly.
>>
>> OC: as the unidentified rigger said, the square. The
>>chances of the
>> pilot being dazed and confused to the point of not
>>even being able to
>> find and operate the brake/steering toggles are small,
>>and if unable
>to
>> do so by injury or unconsciousness, I would still
>>rather be under the
>> square.
>>
>> 2NO
>
>

[[email protected]]

To Fiveniner: you can buy directly from Softie a square emergency
parachute.

To 66: it is called weathervaning...go and make a jump, don't release
your brakes and see what the canopy will do. Especially the big ones
like Raven IV.

To Eric Greenwell: no it doesn't work like that. Round/conical will
descent at that rate no matter what. There will be a small difference
in descent rate between suspended loads (heavy pilot versus light
pilot) but not a really significant number. If you would like I can
swing by the airport and drop you a book with explanations about
parachute desingns. I don't want to type the explanation because would
be to lenghty.

[[email protected]]

Yeah, thats the idea...use Martin Baker 0-0 seat and you have no issues.

[Shawn]

wrote:
> To Fiveniner: you can buy directly from Softie a square emergency
> parachute.
>
> To 66: it is called weathervaning...go and make a jump, don't release
> your brakes and see what the canopy will do. Especially the big ones
> like Raven IV.

You need a relative difference in speed to the wind to weather vane. An
uncontrolled parachute would match the wind speed as it descends. As
you drop through the typical wind shear near the ground, it seems to me
that you would turn to land down wind if you didn't actively steer the
chute.

Shawn

[[email protected]]

Don: Don't confuse "square" with "sport". Emergency/reserve "square"
parachutes are designed very differently than their main/sport
counterparts. Also, skydivers use a reserve for two reasons: (1)
main/sport parachutes are designed with flight performance as a major
design criteria; they are very reliable but not as reliable as
reserve/emergency chutes. (2) The FAA prohibits intentional parachute
jumps without a reserve. (3) It would be really dumb anyway :)

2NO

[[email protected]]

Aren't most BASE jumps done without a reserve? Do BASE jumpers prefer
the reserve square or the sport chute (since control into tight LZs is
a consideration)?

Just trying to get educated since we appear to have a group of folks
with useful information.

[[email protected]]

Interesting... is this an active myth in skydiving circles? That some
chutes turn naturally into the wind?

[Michael]

> Aren't most BASE jumps done without a reserve?

Yes. This may be changing - I no longer actively BASE jump so I have
not kept up.

> Do BASE jumpers prefer
> the reserve square or the sport chute (since control into tight LZs
is
> a consideration)?

BASE jumpers prefer a parachute designed for BASE. Before these were
available, most BASE jumpers used parachutes normally used as reserves
(the Raven series were quite popular). Some still use them. None used
anything even vaguely similar to the modern sport main canopy.

Michael

[Michael]

>I don't think you will find that there are any emergency
>prachutes with square canopies, they are all round.

Not true. Both Relative Workshop and Strong make emergency rigs that
will accept square reserve canopies, and will sell them to you if you
convince them you know what you are talking about when you ask for one.
They're the only kind I use.

>Square parachutes while offering more control
>when open require the wearer to be in a stable position
>when the chute is deployed, they are therefore less
>reliable when deployed in anything other than a stable
>attitude.

Not true. Square emergency parachutes are used with freebags (they
won't even have a bridle attach point), which allow deployment even if
the pilot chute or bridle entangles with the body of the jumper due to
an unstable opening. The same is not true of rounds, which are thus
more prone to 'horseshoe' malfunctions. Picture what that looks like -
if you really want to.

> The Irvin EB** series were reputed to be the fastest
> opening chutes in the world at one time and they certainly
> use round canopies (I24). Maybe they still are, I hope
> so cos that is what I have.

The primary factor affecting the speed of opening (assuming such
variables as airspeed, altitude, etc. are kept constant) is the volume
of air required to inflate the canopy. Square canopies need less air
to inflate, as they are smaller. The can be made smaller since they
generate lift, not just drag. Because of this, squares inflate much
quicker than rounds designed to carry the same loads - so quickly in
fact that all modern squares (other than those used for BASE jumping
from VERY low altitude - about 600 ft or less) are equipped with
sliders to slow the opening to something only a little faster than
rounds. Square sport canopies often have sliders that slow the opening
enough to make it 'comfortable' but the emergency parachutes have just
enough slider to keep you from breaking your back in a terminal
velocity opening.

There are actually only two advantages to rounds.

The first is cost - old obsolete technology is always cheaper. You can
pick up a serviceable round rig for a couple hundred dollars US; a
square rig will be newer and more expensive.

The second is the reduced need for training. The square parachute is a
wing. It must be flown and flared for a landing. Further, for various
reasons I will be happy to go into if anyone is interested, it doesn't
really fly and flare like a rigid wing. Finding yourself under one
with 30 seconds to figure out its flight characteristics and land it in
a suboptimal landing area is NOT the hot tip. Much as I dislike rules,
I would still recommend a training jump or two for anyone planning to
use a square rig without prior experience, as well as briefing from
someone who understands both ram-air wing and rigid wing aerodynamics
and can prepare you for the differences.

Michael

[Don Johnstone]

Thanks for that. It would seem therefore that the standard
conical chute is the only choice for the majority of
glider pilots on the grounds that it is likely that
we will only ever use it if we have to.As I have already
said, if it is good enough for Martin Baker it's good
enough for me.
I am firmly of the opinion that people who jump out
of perfectly serviceable aeroplanes are .........how
can I put it.......... lacking in some way. :-)



At 21:30 06 April 2005, Michael wrote:
>>I don't think you will find that there are any emergency
>>prachutes with square canopies, they are all round.
>
>Not true. Both Relative Workshop and Strong make emergency
>rigs that
>will accept square reserve canopies, and will sell
>them to you if you
>convince them you know what you are talking about when
>you ask for one.
> They're the only kind I use.
>
>>Square parachutes while offering more control
>>when open require the wearer to be in a stable position
>>when the chute is deployed, they are therefore less
>>reliable when deployed in anything other than a stable
>>attitude.
>
>Not true. Square emergency parachutes are used with
>freebags (they
>won't even have a bridle attach point), which allow
>deployment even if
>the pilot chute or bridle entangles with the body of
>the jumper due to
>an unstable opening. The same is not true of rounds,
>which are thus
>more prone to 'horseshoe' malfunctions. Picture what
>that looks like -
>if you really want to.
>
>> The Irvin EB** series were reputed to be the fastest
>> opening chutes in the world at one time and they certainly
>> use round canopies (I24). Maybe they still are, I
>>hope
>> so cos that is what I have.
>
>The primary factor affecting the speed of opening (assuming
>such
>variables as airspeed, altitude, etc. are kept constant)
>is the volume
>of air required to inflate the canopy. Square canopies
>need less air
>to inflate, as they are smaller. The can be made smaller
>since they
>generate lift, not just drag. Because of this, squares
>inflate much
>quicker than rounds designed to carry the same loads
>- so quickly in
>fact that all modern squares (other than those used
>for BASE jumping
>from VERY low altitude - about 600 ft or less) are
>equipped with
>sliders to slow the opening to something only a little
>faster than
>rounds. Square sport canopies often have sliders that
>slow the opening
>enough to make it 'comfortable' but the emergency parachutes
>have just
>enough slider to keep you from breaking your back in
>a terminal
>velocity opening.
>
>There are actually only two advantages to rounds.
>
>The first is cost - old obsolete technology is always
>cheaper. You can
>pick up a serviceable round rig for a couple hundred
>dollars US; a
>square rig will be newer and more expensive.
>
>The second is the reduced need for training. The square
>parachute is a
>wing. It must be flown and flared for a landing.
>Further, for various
>reasons I will be happy to go into if anyone is interested,
>it doesn't
>really fly and flare like a rigid wing. Finding yourself
>under one
>with 30 seconds to figure out its flight characteristics
>and land it in
>a suboptimal landing area is NOT the hot tip. Much
>as I dislike rules,
>I would still recommend a training jump or two for
>anyone planning to
>use a square rig without prior experience, as well
>as briefing from
>someone who understands both ram-air wing and rigid
>wing aerodynamics
>and can prepare you for the differences.
>
>Michael
>
>

[Charlie Lite]

I'd consider installing a ballastic parachute and riding the damaged
glider to the ground surrounded by the cockpit.

Charlie "Lite"

[Charlie Lite]

I'd consider installing a ballastic parachute and riding the damaged
glider to the ground surrounded by the cockpit.

Charlie "Lite"

[Ted Wagner]

It's an active myth in non-skydiving circles.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Interesting... is this an active myth in skydiving circles? That some
> chutes turn naturally into the wind?
>

[Ted Wagner]

BASE (Building, Antenna, Span, and Earth) jumps are done without a reserve
because they would be useless. (Main didn't open? Prepare to die, or get
seriously b0rke.) BASE jumpers prefer reserve/emergency chutes for obvious
reasons: they don't want to die.

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Aren't most BASE jumps done without a reserve? Do BASE jumpers prefer
> the reserve square or the sport chute (since control into tight LZs is
> a consideration)?
>
> Just trying to get educated since we appear to have a group of folks
> with useful information.
>

[[email protected]]

How can a chute weathervane if it is freely drifting with the wind?
This sounds like the old "downwind turn" myth of general aviation fame.

I can see that if the chute is descending rapidly through a strong wind
velocity gradient, it would tend to orient into or out of the wind (not
sure which) due to the height of the chute/risers/chutist stack.

If that is the effect being described, how much of a wind gradient is
required?

Just curious,

66

[Michael]

> Thanks for that.

You're welcome.

> It would seem therefore that the standard
> conical chute is the only choice for the majority of
> glider pilots on the grounds that it is likely that
> we will only ever use it if we have to.

If by that you mean that you won't train to use your emergency
equipment, then you are correct. Stick with the round. Just don't be
surprised if it lands you in the hospital. Remember - those maximum
loadings are based on a fit man in his 20's wearing boots with ankle
support. For a middle aged man wearing tennis shoes, they really ought
to be reduced by 30% or so. Not so the weights on squares - they are,
if anything, conservative if you know how to land one.

> I am firmly of the opinion that people who jump out
> of perfectly serviceable aeroplanes are .........how
> can I put it.......... lacking in some way. :-)

As opposed to the spectacular good sense exhibited by those who fly
airplanes that don't even have engines :)
Glass houses, stones, etc.

Michael

[Stefan]

Michael wrote:

> If by that you mean that you won't train to use your emergency
> equipment, then you are correct. Stick with the round. Just don't be
> surprised if it lands you in the hospital. Remember - those maximum
> loadings are based on a fit man in his 20's wearing boots with ankle
> support. For a middle aged man wearing tennis shoes, they really ought
> to be reduced by 30% or so.

I personally know two pilots who had to jump. One broke a leg on
landing, the other sprayed an ankle. But believe it or not: Neither of
them complained.

Stefan

[Don Johnstone]

Michael, I get your point however like many others
I hope that I will never have to use my parachute and
if I do I will take my chances. The only thing that
I want from it is that it works so how do I judge that?
I look at one of the most sucessful canopies there
is and think to myself, OK that works I want that one.
In my case it is the same canopy that is pressed into
the headbox of every MB ejector seat, an Irvin conical,
an identical canopy to the one in my pack. I am sure
that other canopies are just as good but to my way
of thinking, as I never intend to test it I will go
with something that will save my life even though I
am stupid enough not to get any training in it's use.
How do I know the canopy works, take a look at this.

http://www.joe-ks.com/Multi_Media/HarrierEjection.htm

The pilot was a tad unlucky, he broke his ankle when
he landed on his aircraft. I know that the actions
of the seat contribute but just look at the rate of
descent when the seat clears the cockpit. The seat
was actually outside it's required sucess envelope
but still the canopy deployed and saved the pilots
life.

At 19:30 07 April 2005, Michael wrote:
>> Thanks for that.
>
>You're welcome.
>
>> It would seem therefore that the standard
>> conical chute is the only choice for the majority
>>of
>> glider pilots on the grounds that it is likely that
>> we will only ever use it if we have to.
>
>If by that you mean that you won't train to use your
>emergency
>equipment, then you are correct. Stick with the round.
> Just don't be
>surprised if it lands you in the hospital. Remember
>- those maximum
>loadings are based on a fit man in his 20's wearing
>boots with ankle
>support. For a middle aged man wearing tennis shoes,
>they really ought
>to be reduced by 30% or so. Not so the weights on
>squares - they are,
>if anything, conservative if you know how to land one.
>
>> I am firmly of the opinion that people who jump out
>> of perfectly serviceable aeroplanes are .........how
>> can I put it.......... lacking in some way. :-)
>
>As opposed to the spectacular good sense exhibited
>by those who fly
>airplanes that don't even have engines :)
>Glass houses, stones, etc.
>
>Michael
>
>

[Marc Ramsey]

Don Johnstone wrote:
> http://www.joe-ks.com/Multi_Media/HarrierEjection.htm

So, did he get reprimanded for hovering that close to a beach crowded
with people?

[Wayne Paul]

In my book, the MB ejection seat and Irvin chute are a winning combination.

http://www.soaridaho.com/Family_Pictures/Wayne/Cat_Club.jpg

Wayne
(Harold Wayne Paul)
HP-14 N990 "6F"




"Don Johnstone" > wrote in
message ...
> I look at one of the most sucessful canopies there
> is and think to myself, OK that works I want that one.
> In my case it is the same canopy that is pressed into
> the headbox of every MB ejector seat, an Irvin conical,
> an identical canopy to the one in my pack. I am sure
> that other canopies are just as good but to my way
> of thinking, as I never intend to test it I will go
> with something that will save my life even though I
> am stupid enough not to get any training in it's use.
> How do I know the canopy works, take a look at this.
>
> http://www.joe-ks.com/Multi_Media/HarrierEjection.htm
>
> The pilot was a tad unlucky, he broke his ankle when
> he landed on his aircraft. I know that the actions
> of the seat contribute but just look at the rate of
> descent when the seat clears the cockpit. The seat
> was actually outside it's required sucess envelope
> but still the canopy deployed and saved the pilots
> life.
>

[Don Johnstone]

No it was an air display at Lowestoft, I was there
when it happened. The crowd were impressed.

At 22:30 07 April 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>Don Johnstone wrote:
>> http://www.joe-ks.com/Multi_Media/HarrierEjection.htm
>
>So, did he get reprimanded for hovering that close
>to a beach crowded
>with people?
>

[Michael]

> I personally know two pilots who had to jump. One broke a leg on
> landing, the other sprayed an ankle.

My informal survey suggests that about a quarter of those who make
emergency bailouts on round parachutes go to the hospital afterwards,
so I'm not surprised. I've never heard of anyone bailing out on a
square parachute and getting hurt, but that doesn't mean much because
(a) they are still new, expensive, and relatively rare and (b) are
generally used by trained parachutists (everyone I know who uses one at
least went through some ground school and made a training jump) so how
much of this is gear and how much is training is hard to determine.

> But believe it or not: Neither of them complained.

It's a matter of perspective. If a power pilot has to land off airport
and he walks away, even needing stitches, he feels great about the
experience because it's something he will do only in a dire emergency,
and probably never. If a glider pilot walks away from an off airport
landing with a trashed aircraft and stitches, he feels it was a pretty
bad outcome, and wonders what he should have done differently. This is
more of the same.

Sport parachute jumpers pretty much accept that they will eventually
use that emergency parachute they wear as a backup. Therefore, they
expect a certain level of performance. That's why when they wear a
bailout rig, they want a square. Glider pilots don't see it that way.

It's not right or wrong. It's your choice to accept an emergency
parachute that has a high probability of putting you in the hospital if
you use it. I simply feel it should be an informed choice.

Michael

[Jack]

Michael wrote:

> My informal survey suggests that about a
> quarter of those who make emergency
> bailouts on round parachutes go to
> the hospital afterwards....

> It's your choice to accept an emergency
> parachute that has a high probability of
> putting you in the hospital if you use it.

One in four is no kind of "probability" at all, let alone a high one.

I'd be much more interested in seeing even an informal analysis of
unsuccessful attempts to bail out.


Jack

[Michael]

Jack wrote:
> One in four is no kind of "probability" at all, let alone a high one.

Actuqally, it's 3 of 11. But that's not exactly a statistical
powerhouse either. That's why I said "informal survey suggests" rather
than "study shows."

> I'd be much more interested in seeing even an informal analysis of
> unsuccessful attempts to bail out.

The attempts were not unsuccessful. These people all bailed out and
saved their lives. The injuries were sustained on landing. They were
not life-threatening. In every case, the parachute loading was more
than I would recommend for a middle aged person wearing shoes with no
ankle protection, and the training was less than what I would recommend
for anyone (none, actually). But that was the case for the other 8 as
well. They got by with bumps and bruises.

I think the informal analysis reads like this:

Round parachute loadings are based on the old military tables. These
presuppose several factors, none of which are true for the average
glider pilot bailing out:
Healthy, strong, conditioned soldiers, usually in their 20's.
Jump boots providing ankle protection.
Very intense, very regular training in parachute landing falls.

Maximum allowable TSO loadings are even higher - they're based on the
ability to sustain opening shock at maximum altitude/airspeed, and
descent rate doesn't figure into it at all.

For the average middle aged (or older) glider pilot wearing typical
soaring footwear, using a round parachute at anything close to the
manufacturer's recommended maximum loading is asking for a landing
injury. That weight should be derated by at least 30%. Note that the
weight includes the weight of the rig.

For those who are light in weight, a 26 or 28 ft diameter canopy is
adequate. Round emergency parachutes are not made in sizes larger than
28 ft. In fact, I wouldn't know where to get a 28' rig anymore. For
those who are over 200 lbs (including the rig), there are no
appropriately sized round rigs. Their options include using a reserve
that is likely to put them in the hospital, or getting a square rig and
the training required to use it.

Michael

[Stefan]

Michael wrote:

> It's not right or wrong. It's your choice to accept an emergency
> parachute that has a high probability of putting you in the hospital if
> you use it. I simply feel it should be an informed choice.

My informedly cose between a chute which is fool proof albeit I might
break a leg on landing and one which is much better but which I might
not be able to handle. The choice seems obvious for a pilot who has no
parachute training at all and most probably will never have. (And who
doesn't know in which state his mind will be if -shudder- he really
needs that thing one day.)

Stefan

[Stefan]

Michael wrote:

> It's not right or wrong. It's your choice to accept an emergency
> parachute that has a high probability of putting you in the hospital
> if you use it. I simply feel it should be an informed choice.

I've informedly chosen between a chute which is fool proof albeit I
might break a leg on landing and one which is much better but which I
might not be able to handle. The choice seems obvious for a pilot who
has no parachute training at all and most probably will never have. (And
who doesn't know in which state his mind will be if -shudder- he really
needs that thing one day.)

Stefan

[Eric Greenwell]

Jack wrote:

> Michael wrote:
>
>> My informal survey suggests that about a
>
> > quarter of those who make emergency
> > bailouts on round parachutes go to
> > the hospital afterwards....
>
>> It's your choice to accept an emergency
>> parachute that has a high probability of
>
> > putting you in the hospital if you use it.
>
> One in four is no kind of "probability" at all, let alone a high one.
>
> I'd be much more interested in seeing even an informal analysis of
> unsuccessful attempts to bail out.

I think this is the bigger problem. Those that don't get out of the
glider usually die. Once most pilots have Roeger hooks on their gliders
and the muscle strength to lift themselves out of the cockpit easily,
then it might be worthwhile trying to minimize the landing injuries.

Even better is to avoid the collision in the first place. The Europeans
now have an additional choice beyond "see and avoid": the "Flight Alarm"
device from www.flarm.com. Over 450 of these devices have been
delivered, and 2000 more are scheduled for delivery this year.

However, if a couple of jumps appeal to a pilot, it sounds like learning
to use a square reserve would be enjoyable and, in addition, provide
some slight additional safety for soaring.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Stefan]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Even better is to avoid the collision in the first place. The Europeans
> now have an additional choice beyond "see and avoid": the "Flight Alarm"
> device from www.flarm.com. Over 450 of these devices have been
> delivered, and 2000 more are scheduled for delivery this year.

But this device (whether useful or not, we will see) will never be sold
in the USA. An excerpt from the manual, translated from German:

FLARM must not be used in the USA or in Canada or by US or Canadian
pilots or in aircraft which are immatriculated or insured in the USA or
in Canada. The use of FLARM is forbidden when there are persons on board
who live in the USA or in Canada or who are citizens of the USA or
Canada. The use of FLARM is forbidden when the place of departure,
destination or of any intermediate landing is in the USA or in Canada.

Guess why!

Stefan

[Don Johnstone]

I think we are getting off the point here. I accept
that a square chute gives a descent speed of less than
the 18-22fps of a conical chute but the square chute
requires training.
If we compare the number of bailouts to the number
of flights undertaken in gliders we come up with a
very small statisical chance of ever having to resort
to using them.
If every glider pilot was trained using a square chute,
bearing in mind the age and fitness of all pilots are
we able to say that the chances of injury would be
reduced. I suspect not, in fact the chances of accidental
injury could rise dramitically. Every jump carries
the chance of injury, not jumping does not carry that
risk.
The question is therefore, given the unlikehood of
needing to abandon the glider is it sensible to undergo
that training? Remember that if only 1 in 4 people
are injured so 3 in four abandon and land with no injury
at all. If all glider pilots trained then the number
of injuries caused by parachute descents can only rise,
more jumps more injuries. Statistcally the chances
of injury are much less if we only jump the once ie
when we have to undergoing training could be a case
where the cure is worse than the disease.

The original question was, should we use round or square
chutes. The answer is simple, unless you feel the need
to parachute jump the square is not a sensible option.
Given that many people only ever take one ride in a
glider and may have to use a parachute then round is
the only sensible answer. As having two types of parachute
available presents the opportunity of someone wearing
the wrong one there really is no choice.
Sorry if your business is parachute training.


At 21:00 08 April 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Jack wrote:
>
>> Michael wrote:
>>
>>> My informal survey suggests that about a
>>
>> > quarter of those who make emergency
>> > bailouts on round parachutes go to
>> > the hospital afterwards....
>>
>>> It's your choice to accept an emergency
>>> parachute that has a high probability of
>>
>> > putting you in the hospital if you use it.
>>
>> One in four is no kind of 'probability' at all, let
>>alone a high one.
>>
>> I'd be much more interested in seeing even an informal
>>analysis of
>> unsuccessful attempts to bail out.
>
>I think this is the bigger problem. Those that don't
>get out of the
>glider usually die. Once most pilots have Roeger hooks
>on their gliders
>and the muscle strength to lift themselves out of the
>cockpit easily,
>then it might be worthwhile trying to minimize the
>landing injuries.
>
>Even better is to avoid the collision in the first
>place. The Europeans
>now have an additional choice beyond 'see and avoid':
>the 'Flight Alarm'
>device from www.flarm.com. Over 450 of these devices
>have been
>delivered, and 2000 more are scheduled for delivery
>this year.
>
>However, if a couple of jumps appeal to a pilot, it
>sounds like learning
>to use a square reserve would be enjoyable and, in
>addition, provide
>some slight additional safety for soaring.
>
>--
>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Stefan wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>> Even better is to avoid the collision in the first place. The
>> Europeans now have an additional choice beyond "see and avoid": the
>> "Flight Alarm" device from www.flarm.com. Over 450 of these devices
>> have been delivered, and 2000 more are scheduled for delivery this year.
>
>
> But this device (whether useful or not, we will see) will never be sold
> in the USA. An excerpt from the manual, translated from German:
>
> FLARM must not be used in the USA or in Canada or by US or Canadian
> pilots or in aircraft which are immatriculated or insured in the USA or
> in Canada.

My contact with the FLARM people suggests the liability question can be
resolved. After all, we already use similar devices in North America,
but they are effective only if the other aircraft has a transponder.

A bigger problem, I think, is getting enough people in the US excited
about the value of the Flarm device. In fact, it may not have much value
here, except in the one or two places where glider traffic is very
dense. This would include the White Mountains near Minden, and perhaps
the Allegheny ridges near the East coast.

If the Flarm device was also an IGC approved flight recorder, as they
have considered doing, this would make it more likely to find use in the
USA.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[David Walsh]

So, all this talk of how dangerous a round chute is.

In the last 8 years I've been back in soaring, I only recall hearing of
3 saves. I'm sure there are others.

Are there any statistics on how many people in America have been able to
save themselves with a parachute, over the last 10, 20, 30 years? Any
numbers on unsuccessful attempts? By unsuccessful attempts, I mean,
situations where it looked like the pilot was attempting to bail but ran
out of time.

Sincerely,
David Walsh


Sven Olivier wrote:
> What is best: a round or square chute? Do they differ in time to open? Are
> previous experience or training jumps with a square chute mandatory? Is a
> static line better - if so why?
> (we have a packer at our club that has recommended square chutes, but
> apparently two training jumps are mandatory - we are based in South Africa)
>
> Sven
> EY
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> I think this is the bigger problem. Those that don't get out of the
> glider usually die. Once most pilots have Roeger hooks on their gliders
> and the muscle strength to lift themselves out of the cockpit easily,
> then it might be worthwhile trying to minimize the landing injuries.

I should point out if the pilot installs a NOAH system, he can reduce
the muscle strength requirement considerably.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bruce]

Michael wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>
>>One in four is no kind of "probability" at all, let alone a high one.
>
>
> Actuqally, it's 3 of 11. But that's not exactly a statistical
> powerhouse either. That's why I said "informal survey suggests" rather
> than "study shows."
>
>
>>I'd be much more interested in seeing even an informal analysis of
>>unsuccessful attempts to bail out.
>
>
> The attempts were not unsuccessful. These people all bailed out and
> saved their lives. The injuries were sustained on landing. They were
> not life-threatening. In every case, the parachute loading was more
> than I would recommend for a middle aged person wearing shoes with no
> ankle protection, and the training was less than what I would recommend
> for anyone (none, actually). But that was the case for the other 8 as
> well. They got by with bumps and bruises.
>
> I think the informal analysis reads like this:
>
> Round parachute loadings are based on the old military tables. These
> presuppose several factors, none of which are true for the average
> glider pilot bailing out:
> Healthy, strong, conditioned soldiers, usually in their 20's.
> Jump boots providing ankle protection.
> Very intense, very regular training in parachute landing falls.
>
> Maximum allowable TSO loadings are even higher - they're based on the
> ability to sustain opening shock at maximum altitude/airspeed, and
> descent rate doesn't figure into it at all.
>
> For the average middle aged (or older) glider pilot wearing typical
> soaring footwear, using a round parachute at anything close to the
> manufacturer's recommended maximum loading is asking for a landing
> injury. That weight should be derated by at least 30%. Note that the
> weight includes the weight of the rig.
>
> For those who are light in weight, a 26 or 28 ft diameter canopy is
> adequate. Round emergency parachutes are not made in sizes larger than
> 28 ft. In fact, I wouldn't know where to get a 28' rig anymore. For
> those who are over 200 lbs (including the rig), there are no
> appropriately sized round rigs. Their options include using a reserve
> that is likely to put them in the hospital, or getting a square rig and
> the training required to use it.
>
> Michael
>
Funny, I have a Pioneer tri-conical (round) chute of 29' diameter. It is 19
years old and never been open except in the riggers for checking. Pretty much
the way I like it.

At 235lbs with an already weak leg It's going to hurt if I ever use it...

[Bill Zaleski]

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:27:13 +0200, Bruce > wrote:

>Michael wrote:
>> Jack wrote:
>>
>>>One in four is no kind of "probability" at all, let alone a high one.
>>
>>
>> Actuqally, it's 3 of 11. But that's not exactly a statistical
>> powerhouse either. That's why I said "informal survey suggests" rather
>> than "study shows."
>>
>>
>>>I'd be much more interested in seeing even an informal analysis of
>>>unsuccessful attempts to bail out.
>>
>>
>> The attempts were not unsuccessful. These people all bailed out and
>> saved their lives. The injuries were sustained on landing. They were
>> not life-threatening. In every case, the parachute loading was more
>> than I would recommend for a middle aged person wearing shoes with no
>> ankle protection, and the training was less than what I would recommend
>> for anyone (none, actually). But that was the case for the other 8 as
>> well. They got by with bumps and bruises.
>>
>> I think the informal analysis reads like this:
>>
>> Round parachute loadings are based on the old military tables. These
>> presuppose several factors, none of which are true for the average
>> glider pilot bailing out:
>> Healthy, strong, conditioned soldiers, usually in their 20's.
>> Jump boots providing ankle protection.
>> Very intense, very regular training in parachute landing falls.
>>
>> Maximum allowable TSO loadings are even higher - they're based on the
>> ability to sustain opening shock at maximum altitude/airspeed, and
>> descent rate doesn't figure into it at all.
>>
>> For the average middle aged (or older) glider pilot wearing typical
>> soaring footwear, using a round parachute at anything close to the
>> manufacturer's recommended maximum loading is asking for a landing
>> injury. That weight should be derated by at least 30%. Note that the
>> weight includes the weight of the rig.
>>
>> For those who are light in weight, a 26 or 28 ft diameter canopy is
>> adequate. Round emergency parachutes are not made in sizes larger than
>> 28 ft. In fact, I wouldn't know where to get a 28' rig anymore. For
>> those who are over 200 lbs (including the rig), there are no
>> appropriately sized round rigs. Their options include using a reserve
>> that is likely to put them in the hospital, or getting a square rig and
>> the training required to use it.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>Funny, I have a Pioneer tri-conical (round) chute of 29' diameter. It is 19
>years old and never been open except in the riggers for checking. Pretty much
>the way I like it.
>
>At 235lbs with an already weak leg It's going to hurt if I ever use it...

I have landed under the same canopy at 230#. It hurts unless you do a
good PLF.

[Ian Forbes]

Hi

While it is clear that square reserves are a good idea for the few
glider pilots who have some parachuting experience, there was a good
posting which pointed out that far more injuries would happen if all
glider pilots had to undergo even minimal parachute training then
currently occur when pilots bail out under round reserves with no
training, which fortunately does not happen very often.

I have a hypothetical question for for those with parachuting
experience, if your hands were tied to each other and to your waste,
(withjust enough movement to operate the rip cord) and you were thrown
out of an airplane strapped into your glider reserver, would you prefer
to have a round canopy or a square one?

It seems some chutes, like this one

> I use a Rigging Innovations "Aviator" P-124, which has a ram-air
> (square) chute designed for airmen who may have no prior jump
> experience. The web page for the product is here:
>
> http://www.rigginginnovations.com/products/aviator.html

might be no worse that a round one, but what about a more typical square
reserve chute that we are likely come across in South Africa, like this
one?

> If you are in South Africa there is manufacturer under the name PISA,
> which manufactures a very good square canopy Tempo.


Thanks


Ian

[Michael]

Bruce wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > Round emergency parachutes are not made in sizes larger than
> > 28 ft.

> Funny, I have a Pioneer tri-conical (round) chute of 29' diameter. It
is 19
> years old

I am well aware of the Pioneer. It's a fine canopy. My understanding
is that none have been manufactured this century. I could be wrong.

> At 235lbs with an already weak leg It's going to hurt if I ever use
it...

Yes it is.

Michael