Stay in, or get out? [Archive]

September 11th 07, 03:16 AM

> That depends. The chute is very reliable..super high tech yet very simply
> elegant. How reliable are you? Have you ever jumped before? Would you be
> stable in free fall, and have your wits about you to pull the ripcord in a
> stable position?

Jim, while I appreciate your concern about being stable in freefall
(having tried it myself, long long time ago), I think you overestimate
the need to get into a stable free fall in an emergency bailout
situation. In most cases, there will be no need to delay opening
until lower altitude (wave flights excepted). So the real task is to
successfully exit the glider, find the ripcord (not any of the other
hard shiny things on the harness), then pulling it with enough
altitude to get a good chute. Tens of thousands of military aircrew
managed to do this for real and survive, and I am pretty sure 99.9%
didn't have ANY training in getting into a stable arch before pulling!

My concern is that someone with only a little training might be more
concerned with "style points" and delay opening too late - especially
back east where a lot of time is spent below 3000' agl, and a midair
with another glider or a spamcan is a real risk.

I know I'm not going to even think about getting into a nice hard arch
- I'm getting clear of the glider as fast as I can, looking for the D-
ring, grabbing it with both hands, and yanking that sucker ASAP! If
it hurts the old nads during opening, so be it - I can deal with that
later.

Absolutely agree that every glider pilot who wears a chute should try
to experience a tandem or static line jump, if possible - great
confidence builder, and a lot of fun, too!

Cheers,

Kirk
66

bagmaker

September 11th 07, 03:16 AM

You've had a whack, but everything feels fine. Do you
stay in the
glider, or leave? Just how reliable are the parachutes
we use? I
understand that they're fairly simple quick-opening
designs, but
there's no reserve, right? Has a glider-pilot parachute
ever failed?

Dan

[/QUOTE]

Dan,
Simply, there is no blanket answer, way too many variables exist.
Derek Piggot writes a fascinating account of his bail-out in some of his gliding books, I would suggest reading them.
Gliding Kiwi has a great article this month on a NZ instructor landing a rudderless puch with a PAX - more heart stopping reading!

Basically if it does fly after a hit, check to see that it will keep flying with some harsh movements -height limits withstanding- long enough to land. Landing manuevering can be rough, you want to be sure the thing doesnt fail at 100 feet after nursing down from a good bail out height.

Rough rule has been bandied about RAS about 1500 ft as a minimum bail-out altitude, many would disagree, but if you dont have a choice.....

Bottom line is you are worth more than a glider, if in doubt, get out

fly safe
Bagger

bagger

Wayne Paul

September 11th 07, 04:59 AM

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:k_lFi.1688$eh3.572@trndny07...
> Jim Vincent wrote:
>
>> That depends. The chute is very reliable..super high tech yet very
>> simply elegant. How reliable are you? Have you ever jumped before?
>> Would you be stable in free fall, and have your wits about you to pull
>> the ripcord in a stable position?
>
> Does it matter how stable you are with an emergency parachute? My
> observation is untrained people that get out of the glider get the
> parachute open and land with minimal injury. Apparently, the emergency
> parachutes are so well designed, no training is needed to do an adequate
> job. The real problem appears to be getting out, and there aren't any
> places offering training in that. If the glider manufacturer offers a
> Roeger hook, pilots can improve their chances considerably by retrofitting
> a one to older gliders that don't have one.
>
37 years ago while flying in an A-6A Intruder I was faced with the decision
to "stay in, or get out." With the starboard engine and wing on fire, the
decision process was simple. If I "stayed in" I would die. If I got out I
might live.

I feel the same decision process applies to sailplanes. If the bird is out
of control, you most likely will die and your emergency chute becomes your
hope of survival.

That being said, jump training will give confidence and reading accident
reports like the following will further your understanding of unforeseen
perils that may be encountered.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Stories/Bailout.htm

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/

Bill Daniels

September 11th 07, 03:58 PM

"bagmaker" > wrote in message
...
>
> -
> You've had a whack, but everything feels fine. Do you
> stay in the
> glider, or leave? Just how reliable are the parachutes
> we use? I
> understand that they're fairly simple quick-opening
> designs, but
> there's no reserve, right? Has a glider-pilot parachute
> ever failed?
>
>
> Dan
>
> -
>
> Dan,
> Simply, there is no blanket answer, way too many variables exist.
> Derek Piggot writes a fascinating account of his bail-out in some of his
> gliding books, I would suggest reading them.
> Gliding Kiwi has a great article this month on a NZ instructor landing a
> rudderless puch with a PAX - more heart stopping reading!
>
> Basically if it does fly after a hit, check to see that it will keep
> flying with some harsh movements -height limits withstanding- long enough
> to land. Landing manuevering can be rough, you want to be sure the thing
> doesnt fail at 100 feet after nursing down from a good bail out height.
>
> Rough rule has been bandied about RAS about 1500 ft as a minimum bail-out
> altitude, many would disagree, but if you dont have a choice.....
>
> Bottom line is you are worth more than a glider, if in doubt, get out
>
> fly safe
> Bagger

I've twice faced the decision to jump or land a crippled glider. The first
was a Pratt-Read badly damaged from a mid-air. I had fresh jump training, a
fresh repack and a stable jump platform but I decided to land it anyway.
The critical decision was whether I could control the glider from the time
it decended below a safe jump altitude until it was on the ground. I could
and did. For the record, the other pilot in the mid-air did the same thing.

The second was an experimental flying wing where a suposedly secure lead
shot bag shifted in flight so as to jam the elevator/aileron bellcranks. I
found I could steer with rudder and slow it to 70Kts with trim. That let me
hit the runway on a fast, shallow glide. It was a rough landing but the
glider and I survived to fly again.

In both cases there was intense discussion post flight about the wisdom of
my decisions. A slim majority said the conservative action was to have
abandoned ship. My view was if the thing is more or less controllable, and
you have a big airfield to aim at, land it. If it is an airplane loaded
with fuel, that might shift the decision toward jumping. However, a glider
that can be flown to hit a large flat area at a shallow angle is likely to
be safer than the 'chute. If there is any doubt that the glider will remain
controllable - jump.

The real problem here is struggling to rise from a reclining position and
crawl over the side with a 15 pound 'chute on your back. That's difficult.
Being old, out of shape and/or overweight makes it impossible. This is
where the NOAH system from DG is so significant. Of all the safety related
things that one could spend money on, the NOAH system tops the list for me.

Bill Daniels

bumper

September 11th 07, 05:42 PM

Bill,

I too applaud DG for developing the NOAH system. However, complexity, cost,
and it's "one time use" nature may limit its appeal for many.

After suffering a bout of "frozen shoulder" last year, that made it
difficult for me to even exit my glider on the ground, I've decided there's
a need to develop a more simple air-lift bag for my glider.

This bag would probably be made of coated nylon and be inflated with an
easily refillable compressed air bottle. Inflation would be via a
quarter-turn manual valve with no safety devices except perhaps a manual
interlock pin (if a solenoid valve were used, a canopy-open interlock could
be incorporated). The intent would be to design the "air-lift under cushion"
for ground use only, to assist the pilot in exiting the ship. If this system
were marketed, restricting it to ground use would hopefully help eliminate
the liability concerns of a system intended to assist a bail out.

Like many of my ideas, I may not find the time to make this. And if do, I
may only make one to test in my glider. (I'm still questioning the decision
to market the Quiet Vent and MKII Yaw String :c).

Comments, suggestions welcome.

bumper
ZZ
Minden

"Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
. ..
>
> "bagmaker" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> -
>> You've had a whack, but everything feels fine. Do you
>> stay in the
>> glider, or leave? Just how reliable are the parachutes
>> we use? I
>> understand that they're fairly simple quick-opening
>> designs, but
>> there's no reserve, right? Has a glider-pilot parachute
>> ever failed?
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> -
>>
>> Dan,
>> Simply, there is no blanket answer, way too many variables exist.
>> Derek Piggot writes a fascinating account of his bail-out in some of his
>> gliding books, I would suggest reading them.
>> Gliding Kiwi has a great article this month on a NZ instructor landing a
>> rudderless puch with a PAX - more heart stopping reading!
>>
>> Basically if it does fly after a hit, check to see that it will keep
>> flying with some harsh movements -height limits withstanding- long enough
>> to land. Landing manuevering can be rough, you want to be sure the thing
>> doesnt fail at 100 feet after nursing down from a good bail out height.
>>
>> Rough rule has been bandied about RAS about 1500 ft as a minimum bail-out
>> altitude, many would disagree, but if you dont have a choice.....
>>
>> Bottom line is you are worth more than a glider, if in doubt, get out
>>
>> fly safe
>> Bagger
>
> I've twice faced the decision to jump or land a crippled glider. The
> first was a Pratt-Read badly damaged from a mid-air. I had fresh jump
> training, a fresh repack and a stable jump platform but I decided to land
> it anyway. The critical decision was whether I could control the glider
> from the time it decended below a safe jump altitude until it was on the
> ground. I could and did. For the record, the other pilot in the mid-air
> did the same thing.
>
> The second was an experimental flying wing where a suposedly secure lead
> shot bag shifted in flight so as to jam the elevator/aileron bellcranks.
> I found I could steer with rudder and slow it to 70Kts with trim. That
> let me hit the runway on a fast, shallow glide. It was a rough landing
> but the glider and I survived to fly again.
>
> In both cases there was intense discussion post flight about the wisdom of
> my decisions. A slim majority said the conservative action was to have
> abandoned ship. My view was if the thing is more or less controllable,
> and you have a big airfield to aim at, land it. If it is an airplane
> loaded with fuel, that might shift the decision toward jumping. However,
> a glider that can be flown to hit a large flat area at a shallow angle is
> likely to be safer than the 'chute. If there is any doubt that the glider
> will remain controllable - jump.
>
> The real problem here is struggling to rise from a reclining position and
> crawl over the side with a 15 pound 'chute on your back. That's
> difficult. Being old, out of shape and/or overweight makes it impossible.
> This is where the NOAH system from DG is so significant. Of all the
> safety related things that one could spend money on, the NOAH system tops
> the list for me.
>
> Bill Daniels
>

Eric Greenwell

September 11th 07, 09:34 PM

Bill Daniels wrote:
>
> The real problem here is struggling to rise from a reclining position and
> crawl over the side with a 15 pound 'chute on your back. That's difficult.
> Being old, out of shape and/or overweight makes it impossible. This is
> where the NOAH system from DG is so significant. Of all the safety related
> things that one could spend money on, the NOAH system tops the list for me.

It would be interesting to construct a list of these things, and
prioritize them by their cost/benefit ratio. Bill seems like a very
safety conscious pilot, so he probably is at the point where a NOAH
system would give him the most safety increase for the buck. I'll bet a
lot, maybe most, pilots aren't in that situation.

A simple example is the Roeger hook (or a variant) that is part of every
new glider with a forward opening canopy, ensuring it can be jettisoned
safely. DG makes a retrofit available for all their older gliders, yet
relatively few have purchased one. I know Schleicher offers retrofits
for at least one glider (I bought and installed one), and perhaps others.

How many pilots have a "spoilers open during takeoff" warning? I believe
more pilots have died because of this than those that couldn't bail out
of a glider because the G forces were to great.

Here's a start on a safety equipment list, ordered by cost/benefit:

A list for the *Serious Cross-Country Pilot*

"spoilers open on takeoff" warning ($100)
parachute ($1200)
Roeger hook ($600 - my cost)
PCAS transponder detector ($450)
Transponder ($3000)
NOAH ($5000)
ELT ($1000 - 406 hz unit)
PLB ($200 - $500)

My list reflects my situation. I'm sure there should probably be several
lists that account for where you fly and the kind of flying you do. What
do other pilots think this list should include, where would you place
things in the list, and what pilots is it intended for?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Mike Schumann

September 11th 07, 09:56 PM

I don't understand the NOAH system. Why not just put a ballistic recovery
chute in the glider? That way you don't need to worry about getting out,
you are somewhat protected when you hit the ground, and your chute will
deploy even if you pull the cord at 300 ft.

Mike Schumann

"Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
. ..
>
> "bagmaker" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> -
>> You've had a whack, but everything feels fine. Do you
>> stay in the
>> glider, or leave? Just how reliable are the parachutes
>> we use? I
>> understand that they're fairly simple quick-opening
>> designs, but
>> there's no reserve, right? Has a glider-pilot parachute
>> ever failed?
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> -
>>
>> Dan,
>> Simply, there is no blanket answer, way too many variables exist.
>> Derek Piggot writes a fascinating account of his bail-out in some of his
>> gliding books, I would suggest reading them.
>> Gliding Kiwi has a great article this month on a NZ instructor landing a
>> rudderless puch with a PAX - more heart stopping reading!
>>
>> Basically if it does fly after a hit, check to see that it will keep
>> flying with some harsh movements -height limits withstanding- long enough
>> to land. Landing manuevering can be rough, you want to be sure the thing
>> doesnt fail at 100 feet after nursing down from a good bail out height.
>>
>> Rough rule has been bandied about RAS about 1500 ft as a minimum bail-out
>> altitude, many would disagree, but if you dont have a choice.....
>>
>> Bottom line is you are worth more than a glider, if in doubt, get out
>>
>> fly safe
>> Bagger
>
> I've twice faced the decision to jump or land a crippled glider. The
> first was a Pratt-Read badly damaged from a mid-air. I had fresh jump
> training, a fresh repack and a stable jump platform but I decided to land
> it anyway. The critical decision was whether I could control the glider
> from the time it decended below a safe jump altitude until it was on the
> ground. I could and did. For the record, the other pilot in the mid-air
> did the same thing.
>
> The second was an experimental flying wing where a suposedly secure lead
> shot bag shifted in flight so as to jam the elevator/aileron bellcranks.
> I found I could steer with rudder and slow it to 70Kts with trim. That
> let me hit the runway on a fast, shallow glide. It was a rough landing
> but the glider and I survived to fly again.
>
> In both cases there was intense discussion post flight about the wisdom of
> my decisions. A slim majority said the conservative action was to have
> abandoned ship. My view was if the thing is more or less controllable,
> and you have a big airfield to aim at, land it. If it is an airplane
> loaded with fuel, that might shift the decision toward jumping. However,
> a glider that can be flown to hit a large flat area at a shallow angle is
> likely to be safer than the 'chute. If there is any doubt that the glider
> will remain controllable - jump.
>
> The real problem here is struggling to rise from a reclining position and
> crawl over the side with a 15 pound 'chute on your back. That's
> difficult. Being old, out of shape and/or overweight makes it impossible.
> This is where the NOAH system from DG is so significant. Of all the
> safety related things that one could spend money on, the NOAH system tops
> the list for me.
>
> Bill Daniels
>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Jim Vincent

September 11th 07, 10:47 PM

Add:

Gear warning system $20
Condom $1.50

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:aZCFi.2495$rw3.2350@trndny04...
> Bill Daniels wrote:
>>
>> The real problem here is struggling to rise from a reclining position and
>> crawl over the side with a 15 pound 'chute on your back. That's
>> difficult. Being old, out of shape and/or overweight makes it impossible.
>> This is where the NOAH system from DG is so significant. Of all the
>> safety related things that one could spend money on, the NOAH system tops
>> the list for me.
>
> It would be interesting to construct a list of these things, and
> prioritize them by their cost/benefit ratio. Bill seems like a very safety
> conscious pilot, so he probably is at the point where a NOAH system would
> give him the most safety increase for the buck. I'll bet a lot, maybe
> most, pilots aren't in that situation.
>
> A simple example is the Roeger hook (or a variant) that is part of every
> new glider with a forward opening canopy, ensuring it can be jettisoned
> safely. DG makes a retrofit available for all their older gliders, yet
> relatively few have purchased one. I know Schleicher offers retrofits for
> at least one glider (I bought and installed one), and perhaps others.
>
> How many pilots have a "spoilers open during takeoff" warning? I believe
> more pilots have died because of this than those that couldn't bail out of
> a glider because the G forces were to great.
>
> Here's a start on a safety equipment list, ordered by cost/benefit:
>
> A list for the *Serious Cross-Country Pilot*
>
> "spoilers open on takeoff" warning ($100)
> parachute ($1200)
> Roeger hook ($600 - my cost)
> PCAS transponder detector ($450)
> Transponder ($3000)
> NOAH ($5000)
> ELT ($1000 - 406 hz unit)
> PLB ($200 - $500)
>
> My list reflects my situation. I'm sure there should probably be several
> lists that account for where you fly and the kind of flying you do. What
> do other pilots think this list should include, where would you place
> things in the list, and what pilots is it intended for?
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> * "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Ian[_2_]

September 11th 07, 11:09 PM

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:34:14 +0000, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Here's a start on a safety equipment list, ordered by cost/benefit:
>
> A list for the *Serious Cross-Country Pilot*
>
> "spoilers open on takeoff" warning ($100)
> parachute ($1200)
> Roeger hook ($600 - my cost)
> PCAS transponder detector ($450)
> Transponder ($3000)
> NOAH ($5000)
> ELT ($1000 - 406 hz unit)
> PLB ($200 - $500)
>
> My list reflects my situation. I'm sure there should probably be several
> lists that account for where you fly and the kind of flying you do. What
> do other pilots think this list should include, where would you place
> things in the list, and what pilots is it intended for?

The obvious omission:

Flarm (US $400 - $500). My first hand experience is that in terms of
cost/benefit, it belongs up with the chute, maybe even above it. Even if
you are fortunate enough not to need one of these devices, remember it
also offers protection for the other pilot who might not see you.

It is time someone developed a version that is accepted world wide and can
be fitted to power aircraft as well, while keeping the costs "VFR
affordable".

Ian

Bill Daniels

September 11th 07, 11:12 PM

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
.. .
>I don't understand the NOAH system. Why not just put a ballistic recovery
>chute in the glider? That way you don't need to worry about getting out,
>you are somewhat protected when you hit the ground, and your chute will
>deploy even if you pull the cord at 300 ft.
>
> Mike Schumann

Mike, I think this is still open to debate. I have stated that I have an
aversion to landing in a sitting position with no crush structure under me.
The Cirrus SR22 uses the landing gear which punches up through the wing to
absorb impact. A glider doesn't have that. However, I'm going to keep an
open mind.

There is a strange dynamic going on with the existing ballistic 'chute
systems. There have been a lot of deployments - a lot more than anyone
thought there would be. On one side the proponents say the system is
working. On the other side, detractors say many of the deployments were
unneccessary.

One theory is that many pilots fly in a state of near panic. Give them a
panic button and they'll push it. If no panic button, they'll just fly back
and land. If this is true, insurance claims are going to skyrocket for
ballistic 'chute equipped aircraft.

Bill Daniels

Peter Thomas

September 11th 07, 11:18 PM

There are some good article on the DG web site about
safety features, they do explain why they went for
the NOAH system. given the cost and structural issues
with balistic recorery systems and the life of plastic
gliders (50-100 years?) it would be a very long time
before many people had one. I dont think they can cope
with water ballast (200kg+ in newer 15/18m)

80-90% of new German gliders have an engine, so space
and the extra weight are also issues, even turbos reduce
weak weather perfformance

the Noah can be retrofitted to a lot of the existing
DG fleet and is not prohibitively expensive. To be
fair it is also more likely to give DG a return on
the investment. The system will only work with a mushroom
type instrument binnacle or similar which you legs
can get round either side

the reaon for the Noah is why i would lean toward using
the stable platform. Some test were done a while ago
to simulate bailout with spin G loading by strapping
weights to pilots of various ages, and seing if they
could roll out of a static cockpit, the older ones
simply could not get out of the cockpit

as for the airbrake open warning DG also make the Piggot
Hook, which is a sawtooth plate which catches the airbrake
handle if it trys to slide back when not locked, could
easily be copied and retrofitted to lots of types,
especially in Experemental world.

Pete

At 21:01 11 September 2007, Mike Schumann wrote:
>I don't understand the NOAH system. Why not just put
>a ballistic recovery
>chute in the glider? That way you don't need to worry
>about getting out,
>you are somewhat protected when you hit the ground,
>and your chute will
>deploy even if you pull the cord at 300 ft.
>
>Mike Schumann
>
>'Bill Daniels' wrote in message
. ..
>>
>> 'bagmaker' wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> -
>>> You've had a whack, but everything feels fine. Do
>>>you
>>> stay in the
>>> glider, or leave? Just how reliable are the parachutes
>>> we use? I
>>> understand that they're fairly simple quick-opening
>>> designs, but
>>> there's no reserve, right? Has a glider-pilot parachute
>>> ever failed?
>>>
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>> -
>>>
>>> Dan,
>>> Simply, there is no blanket answer, way too many variables
>>>exist.
>>> Derek Piggot writes a fascinating account of his bail-out
>>>in some of his
>>> gliding books, I would suggest reading them.
>>> Gliding Kiwi has a great article this month on a NZ
>>>instructor landing a
>>> rudderless puch with a PAX - more heart stopping reading!
>>>
>>> Basically if it does fly after a hit, check to see
>>>that it will keep
>>> flying with some harsh movements -height limits withstanding-
>>>long enough
>>> to land. Landing manuevering can be rough, you want
>>>to be sure the thing
>>> doesnt fail at 100 feet after nursing down from a
>>>good bail out height.
>>>
>>> Rough rule has been bandied about RAS about 1500 ft
>>>as a minimum bail-out
>>> altitude, many would disagree, but if you dont have
>>>a choice.....
>>>
>>> Bottom line is you are worth more than a glider, if
>>>in doubt, get out
>>>
>>> fly safe
>>> Bagger
>>
>> I've twice faced the decision to jump or land a crippled
>>glider. The
>> first was a Pratt-Read badly damaged from a mid-air.
>> I had fresh jump
>> training, a fresh repack and a stable jump platform
>>but I decided to land
>> it anyway. The critical decision was whether I could
>>control the glider
>> from the time it decended below a safe jump altitude
>>until it was on the
>> ground. I could and did. For the record, the other
>>pilot in the mid-air
>> did the same thing.
>>
>> The second was an experimental flying wing where a
>>suposedly secure lead
>> shot bag shifted in flight so as to jam the elevator/aileron
>>bellcranks.
>> I found I could steer with rudder and slow it to 70Kts
>>with trim. That
>> let me hit the runway on a fast, shallow glide. It
>>was a rough landing
>> but the glider and I survived to fly again.
>>
>> In both cases there was intense discussion post flight
>>about the wisdom of
>> my decisions. A slim majority said the conservative
>>action was to have
>> abandoned ship. My view was if the thing is more
>>or less controllable,
>> and you have a big airfield to aim at, land it. If
>>it is an airplane
>> loaded with fuel, that might shift the decision toward
>>jumping. However,
>> a glider that can be flown to hit a large flat area
>>at a shallow angle is
>> likely to be safer than the 'chute. If there is any
>>doubt that the glider
>> will remain controllable - jump.
>>
>> The real problem here is struggling to rise from a
>>reclining position and
>> crawl over the side with a 15 pound 'chute on your
>>back. That's
>> difficult. Being old, out of shape and/or overweight
>>makes it impossible.
>> This is where the NOAH system from DG is so significant.
>> Of all the
>> safety related things that one could spend money on,
>>the NOAH system tops
>> the list for me.
>>
>> Bill Daniels
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>
>

Paul Hanson

September 11th 07, 11:33 PM

At 21:01 11 September 2007, Mike Schumann wrote:
>I don't understand the NOAH system. Why not just put
>a ballistic recovery
>chute in the glider? That way you don't need to worry
>about getting out,
>you are somewhat protected when you hit the ground,
>and your chute will
>deploy even if you pull the cord at 300 ft.
>
>Mike Schumann
>
1. Not all gliders can have a BRS installed (probably
goes for the NOAH as well)
2. With a BRS, you can not guarantee you will still
be attached to the part of the glider with the BRS
installed, nor that it will function properly in the
case of catastrophic damage

Even if you have the BRS, I highly recommend still
flying with your emergency bailout chute, and please
continue to 'worry' about how you may get out if you
need to. If the BRS works- hey, great! If not you still
have an option (not below 300 AGL though) There is
already a known case of this very scenario, and it
was a flutter breakup and not even a midair that caused
it. Skillfully (not luckily cause' it's not called
luck when you prepare for the unexpected) the pilot
had his personal chute (and presence of mind) and was
able to live to tell about it. Plus with a personal
chute you can steer away form power lines or cliff
faces and other hazards just as deadly as no protection
at all.
For the really safety minded (and thick walleted) a
BRS, NOAH, a personal chute, a helmet (might have saved
more lives than you may think) and all the other gizmos
mentioned already, including the condom, although admittedly
the helmet may significantly reduce the need for that
one;)

Paul Hanson
"Do the usual, unusually well"--Len Niemi

Mike Schumann

September 12th 07, 05:08 AM

My gut feeling is that one of the more likely scenarios is a mid-air at or
near pattern altitude. When you are this low, I doubt you have time to bail
out, whether you have NOAH or not. This is where only a Balistic Recovery
Chute can save your butt.

Mike Schumann

"Paul Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> At 21:01 11 September 2007, Mike Schumann wrote:
>>I don't understand the NOAH system. Why not just put
>>a ballistic recovery
>>chute in the glider? That way you don't need to worry
>>about getting out,
>>you are somewhat protected when you hit the ground,
>>and your chute will
>>deploy even if you pull the cord at 300 ft.
>>
>>Mike Schumann
>>
> 1. Not all gliders can have a BRS installed (probably
> goes for the NOAH as well)
> 2. With a BRS, you can not guarantee you will still
> be attached to the part of the glider with the BRS
> installed, nor that it will function properly in the
> case of catastrophic damage
>
> Even if you have the BRS, I highly recommend still
> flying with your emergency bailout chute, and please
> continue to 'worry' about how you may get out if you
> need to. If the BRS works- hey, great! If not you still
> have an option (not below 300 AGL though) There is
> already a known case of this very scenario, and it
> was a flutter breakup and not even a midair that caused
> it. Skillfully (not luckily cause' it's not called
> luck when you prepare for the unexpected) the pilot
> had his personal chute (and presence of mind) and was
> able to live to tell about it. Plus with a personal
> chute you can steer away form power lines or cliff
> faces and other hazards just as deadly as no protection
> at all.
> For the really safety minded (and thick walleted) a
> BRS, NOAH, a personal chute, a helmet (might have saved
> more lives than you may think) and all the other gizmos
> mentioned already, including the condom, although admittedly
> the helmet may significantly reduce the need for that
> one;)
>
> Paul Hanson
> "Do the usual, unusually well"--Len Niemi
>
>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Eric Greenwell

September 12th 07, 05:34 AM

bumper wrote:
> This bag would probably be made of coated nylon and be inflated with an
> easily refillable compressed air bottle. Inflation would be via a
> quarter-turn manual valve with no safety devices except perhaps a manual
> interlock pin (if a solenoid valve were used, a canopy-open interlock could
> be incorporated). The intent would be to design the "air-lift under cushion"
> for ground use only, to assist the pilot in exiting the ship. If this system
> were marketed, restricting it to ground use would hopefully help eliminate
> the liability concerns of a system intended to assist a bail out.

A friend of mine (Bob Moore) had an "elderly pilot's assist" (not that
I'm suggesting bumper is elderly, since I'm a bit older myself!)
installed in his PIK 20 E. He used it to enter and exit the glider on
the ground. It was a cloth bag with (I think) two aircraft tire tubes,
one on top of the other, inside the bag. A small 12 VDC pump run from
the glider battery inflated the tubes to raise the pilot; a valve
released the air to lower the pilot. It allowed him another couple years
of flying.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Dan G

September 12th 07, 11:20 AM

Thanks for all your replies. I think this is something to think about
*before* it happens to you (and it can - a good friend was hit earlier
this year, he landed safely minus some 40% of his DG's tailplane. He
didn't know it had gone until he landed). I also agree that the use of
FLARM is a no-brainer - oddly, there's still resistance to it in some
quarters.

On Sep 12, 5:08 am, "Mike Schumann" <mike-nos...@traditions-
nospam.com> wrote:
> My gut feeling is that one of the more likely scenarios is a mid-air at or
> near pattern altitude. When you are this low, I doubt you have time to bail
> out, whether you have NOAH or not. This is where only a Balistic Recovery
> Chute can save your butt.

Last year in Britain there was a mid-air at "1,500' above the
airfield". One pilot left through a hole in his canopy resulting from
the collision. If I remember correctly, eye-witnesses said the fairly
old parachute he was using opened remarkably quickly, and the pilot
survived. The other pilot, flying a ASW19, appears to have been unable
to jettison his canpoy as the PDA and logger cables had been cable
tied to the frame.

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/S8-2006%20HGM%20and%20GDP.pdf

Dan

peld

September 12th 07, 11:55 AM

On Sep 11, 7:01 am, Dan G > wrote:
> You've had a whack, but everything feels fine. Do you stay in the
> glider, or leave? Just how reliable are the parachutes we use? I
> understand that they're fairly simple quick-opening designs, but
> there's no reserve, right? Has a glider-pilot parachute ever failed?
>
> Dan

Dan,
I had the unfortunate experience of having to leave my glider in
January after a mid air. The other glider had impacted my left wing
and severed it about half a metre from the root,and also broke the
tail boom midway between the wing and the tail. He was able to land
but I had to make a quick exit, which was my first parachuting
experience. I had no doubts that I would have to jump, and previous
training and preparation took over.
The glider had started a spin to the left and it took some time to
get rid of the canopy (PUSH on it after you activate the releases!),
but I was actually surprised how easy it was to get out of the
cockpit. Having undone the harness it seemed like no trouble at all to
just roll over the canopy rail and out into the wild blue yonder. I
have a below knee artificial right leg so I had considered this
scenario for some time, expecting to have a lot of trouble just
getting my leg past the instrument panel, but no, it was really a
piece of cake. I put it down to the fact the gravitational force was
less as the glider was diving and all I had to do was push away from
it. A NOAH sytem would have been redundant I feel. Luckily, the spin
hadn't developed to the stage where the centrifugal forces were high,
even though it had seemed to take forever to get out; in fact it was
probably only seconds.
The chute worked as advertised (it had been repacked 2 months
previously), opening in 3 seconds (or so it seemed) and there was no
way I was going to do any stabilising. I used that ripcord as soon as
I could. Adrenalin does amazing things. I was upside down when the
chute opened, but the shock of it soon had me the right way up. I did
get some pretty severe bruising around the groin and shoulders, but I
was alive and thats what counted. Then there was the landing. I
couldn't see the ground properly because the shock of the opening
chute ripped my glasses off, and I hit before I was ready, and I hit
very heavily, once again with absolutely no proper tecnique, but I was
alive.
As far as I am concerned everything worked and the end result was
good. I just hope no one else has to try out their parachute.

Phil

Mark Dickson

September 12th 07, 02:04 PM

I've always thought it would be a good idea to take
hold of the rip-cord handle before finally leaving
the glider. Did you do that, and, if you didn't, did
you get hold of the handle quickly and easily?

At 11:00 12 September 2007, Peld wrote:
>Dan,
>I had the unfortunate experience of having to leave
>my glider in
>January after a mid air. The other glider had impacted
>my left wing
>and severed it about half a metre from the root,and
>also broke the
>tail boom midway between the wing and the tail. He
>was able to land
>but I had to make a quick exit, which was my first
>parachuting
>experience. I had no doubts that I would have to jump,
>and previous
>training and preparation took over.
> The glider had started a spin to the left and it took
>some time to
>get rid of the canopy (PUSH on it after you activate
>the releases!),
>but I was actually surprised how easy it was to get
>out of the
>cockpit. Having undone the harness it seemed like no
>trouble at all to
>just roll over the canopy rail and out into the wild
>blue yonder. I
>have a below knee artificial right leg so I had considered
>this
>scenario for some time, expecting to have a lot of
>trouble just
>getting my leg past the instrument panel, but no, it
>was really a
>piece of cake. I put it down to the fact the gravitational
>force was
>less as the glider was diving and all I had to do was
>push away from
>it. A NOAH sytem would have been redundant I feel.
>Luckily, the spin
>hadn't developed to the stage where the centrifugal
>forces were high,
>even though it had seemed to take forever to get out;
>in fact it was
>probably only seconds.
>The chute worked as advertised (it had been repacked
>2 months
>previously), opening in 3 seconds (or so it seemed)
>and there was no
>way I was going to do any stabilising. I used that
>ripcord as soon as
>I could. Adrenalin does amazing things. I was upside
>down when the
>chute opened, but the shock of it soon had me the right
>way up. I did
>get some pretty severe bruising around the groin and
>shoulders, but I
>was alive and thats what counted. Then there was the
>landing. I
>couldn't see the ground properly because the shock
>of the opening
>chute ripped my glasses off, and I hit before I was
>ready, and I hit
>very heavily, once again with absolutely no proper
>tecnique, but I was
>alive.
>As far as I am concerned everything worked and the
>end result was
>good. I just hope no one else has to try out their
>parachute.
>
>Phil
>
>

Eric Greenwell

September 12th 07, 05:06 PM

Eric Greenwell wrote:

A list for the *Serious Cross-Country Pilot*
(updated Sept 12, 2007)

"spoilers open on takeoff" warning ($100 - includes "gear up" warning)
parachute ($1200)
Roeger hook ($600 - my cost; for other gliders $??)
FLARM ($600Euro - for pilots in Europe and Australia)
PCAS transponder detector ($450)
Transponder ($3000)
NOAH ($5000)
ELT ($1000 - 406 hz unit)
PLB ($200 - $500)

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Tim Taylor

September 12th 07, 05:46 PM

On Sep 11, 4:33 pm, Paul Hanson
> wrote:

> For the really safety minded (and thick walleted) a
> BRS, NOAH, a personal chute, a helmet (might have saved
> more lives than you may think) and all the other gizmos
> mentioned already, including the condom, although admittedly
> the helmet may significantly reduce the need for that
> one;)

Paul,

I have been thinking it would be nice to have a study of crashes to
determine if a helmet wold have saved many lives. We fly at speeds up
to 200 mph, yet do not require a helmet of pilots. I have been
looking at helmet types that would allow good vision and movement in
gliders without excessive weight for the G's we pull. Has anyone done
this type of study and/or tried flight helmets etc in gliders?

Tim

[email protected]

September 12th 07, 05:48 PM

Pigot hooks. Why is DG the only company really pushing these. I've had
the spoilers try to "self deply" on a DG-1000S while on low tow, just
hit a sharp bump and they popped, so much for properly closing them.
The "hook" on the spoiler handle stops the spoiler from very far and
the spoiler vibrate up and down and makes a loud noise immediately
drawing your attention to the wings. Parts costs are ridiculously low,
it is a piece of sheet metal. Glider manufacturers should be giving
these away to current owners for PR value and for reduced accident
rates on their fleet.

I'd add upgrading to decent brakes if the glider does not have them,
so you can stop when needed in that tight field. I upgraded my DG-303
from cable brakes to hydraulic brakes. A big improvement. The old
brakes could stop the glider but would get out of adjustment and you
have more control with the hydraulic brakes. Cost < $1k I believe.

A handheld VHF radio. Handy as a backup. A big help and sometimes a
safety issue when pushing gliders around busier airports I fly at.
Maybe some spare batteries and some way to jury rig this to the glider
batteries if you crash and land out. A few hundred dollars. I was
reminded of the use of these yesterday when a Cessna 152 compete with
student pilot taxied past me as I was walking around the ramp area at
my airport. he had a flat nose tire just about running on the rim. I
did not have my handheld on me and could not get his attention by
waiving etc. He managed to takeoff, wonder what happened on his
landing.

New batteries for the glider every few years or whenever the batteries
show problems, and a good charger designed for AGM batteries. $100-
$150. Not listening to people complain about glider battery problems.
Priceless.

A nice printed out/laminated post assembly and pre-take off checklist
(and use it). ~$1. Include "Positive Control Check" - that will save a
few lives. I just do not get that some people still will skip this. I
refused to run somebody's wing earlier this year until he did a
positive check - apparently standing around talking to other pilots
waiting for a tow was more important than doing a positive.

Beyond all these I hope people carry lots of water and basic survival
gear, tie down stuff, any medications needed etc. Find some way to put
a few key things on your parachute (use one of Allen Silver's SMAK
packs).

Darryl

On Sep 12, 9:06 am, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> A list for the *Serious Cross-Country Pilot*
> (updated Sept 12, 2007)
>
> "spoilers open on takeoff" warning ($100 - includes "gear up" warning)
> parachute ($1200)
> Roeger hook ($600 - my cost; for other gliders $??)
> FLARM ($600Euro - for pilots in Europe and Australia)
> PCAS transponder detector ($450)
> Transponder ($3000)
> NOAH ($5000)
> ELT ($1000 - 406 hz unit)
> PLB ($200 - $500)
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> * "Transponders in Sailplanes"http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" atwww.motorglider.org

jonathan

September 12th 07, 07:40 PM

bumper,

I find my yaw string always swings out to one side or the other - should I
use a heavier string?

Jon ;-)
"bumper" > wrote in message
...
> Bill,
>
> I too applaud DG for developing the NOAH system. However, complexity,
> cost, and it's "one time use" nature may limit its appeal for many.
>
> After suffering a bout of "frozen shoulder" last year, that made it
> difficult for me to even exit my glider on the ground, I've decided
> there's a need to develop a more simple air-lift bag for my glider.
>
> This bag would probably be made of coated nylon and be inflated with an
> easily refillable compressed air bottle. Inflation would be via a
> quarter-turn manual valve with no safety devices except perhaps a manual
> interlock pin (if a solenoid valve were used, a canopy-open interlock
> could be incorporated). The intent would be to design the "air-lift under
> cushion" for ground use only, to assist the pilot in exiting the ship. If
> this system were marketed, restricting it to ground use would hopefully
> help eliminate the liability concerns of a system intended to assist a
> bail out.
>
> Like many of my ideas, I may not find the time to make this. And if do, I
> may only make one to test in my glider. (I'm still questioning the
> decision to market the Quiet Vent and MKII Yaw String :c).
>
> Comments, suggestions welcome.
>
> bumper
> ZZ
> Minden
>
>
>
> "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> "bagmaker" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> -
>>> You've had a whack, but everything feels fine. Do you
>>> stay in the
>>> glider, or leave? Just how reliable are the parachutes
>>> we use? I
>>> understand that they're fairly simple quick-opening
>>> designs, but
>>> there's no reserve, right? Has a glider-pilot parachute
>>> ever failed?
>>>
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>> -
>>>
>>> Dan,
>>> Simply, there is no blanket answer, way too many variables exist.
>>> Derek Piggot writes a fascinating account of his bail-out in some of his
>>> gliding books, I would suggest reading them.
>>> Gliding Kiwi has a great article this month on a NZ instructor landing a
>>> rudderless puch with a PAX - more heart stopping reading!
>>>
>>> Basically if it does fly after a hit, check to see that it will keep
>>> flying with some harsh movements -height limits withstanding- long
>>> enough
>>> to land. Landing manuevering can be rough, you want to be sure the thing
>>> doesnt fail at 100 feet after nursing down from a good bail out height.
>>>
>>> Rough rule has been bandied about RAS about 1500 ft as a minimum
>>> bail-out
>>> altitude, many would disagree, but if you dont have a choice.....
>>>
>>> Bottom line is you are worth more than a glider, if in doubt, get out
>>>
>>> fly safe
>>> Bagger
>>
>> I've twice faced the decision to jump or land a crippled glider. The
>> first was a Pratt-Read badly damaged from a mid-air. I had fresh jump
>> training, a fresh repack and a stable jump platform but I decided to land
>> it anyway. The critical decision was whether I could control the glider
>> from the time it decended below a safe jump altitude until it was on the
>> ground. I could and did. For the record, the other pilot in the mid-air
>> did the same thing.
>>
>> The second was an experimental flying wing where a suposedly secure lead
>> shot bag shifted in flight so as to jam the elevator/aileron bellcranks.
>> I found I could steer with rudder and slow it to 70Kts with trim. That
>> let me hit the runway on a fast, shallow glide. It was a rough landing
>> but the glider and I survived to fly again.
>>
>> In both cases there was intense discussion post flight about the wisdom
>> of my decisions. A slim majority said the conservative action was to have
>> abandoned ship. My view was if the thing is more or less controllable,
>> and you have a big airfield to aim at, land it. If it is an airplane
>> loaded with fuel, that might shift the decision toward jumping. However,
>> a glider that can be flown to hit a large flat area at a shallow angle is
>> likely to be safer than the 'chute. If there is any doubt that the
>> glider will remain controllable - jump.
>>
>> The real problem here is struggling to rise from a reclining position and
>> crawl over the side with a 15 pound 'chute on your back. That's
>> difficult. Being old, out of shape and/or overweight makes it impossible.
>> This is where the NOAH system from DG is so significant. Of all the
>> safety related things that one could spend money on, the NOAH system tops
>> the list for me.
>>
>> Bill Daniels
>>
>
>

Bullwinkle

September 12th 07, 07:43 PM

On 9/12/07 10:46 AM, in article
. com, "Tim Taylor"
> wrote:

> On Sep 11, 4:33 pm, Paul Hanson
> > wrote:
>
>
>> For the really safety minded (and thick walleted) a
>> BRS, NOAH, a personal chute, a helmet (might have saved
>> more lives than you may think) and all the other gizmos
>> mentioned already, including the condom, although admittedly
>> the helmet may significantly reduce the need for that
>> one;)
>
> Paul,
>
> I have been thinking it would be nice to have a study of crashes to
> determine if a helmet wold have saved many lives. We fly at speeds up
> to 200 mph, yet do not require a helmet of pilots. I have been
> looking at helmet types that would allow good vision and movement in
> gliders without excessive weight for the G's we pull. Has anyone done
> this type of study and/or tried flight helmets etc in gliders?
>
> Tim
>
The US Army has done a huge amount of research in this area, primarily at
the Aeromedical Research lab at Fort Rucker, AL. Low speed (less than 200
konts) is the realm of Army helicopters, and head injuries have been a
problem since before Vietnam.

The SPH-4 series of helmets emerged from all this research. SPH means "sound
protective helmet", and that feature is of no concern to us glider types.
The shell of those helmets are designed to limit penetration, which is also
less of an issue, unless weapons become approved in glider contests (in
which case "I got shot down" could have a different meaning).

The inner shell is the part that would be of benefit to us, in that it
limits impact forces to the head.

The problem with using these in gliders is that they make your head larger:
the impact absorbing bits require space to do their thing, and that space
makes your head taller, wider, and longer. Not a problem for some, a big
problem for others.

Having spent many, many hours in hueys and other helicopters, I can say that
I always felt right to have a helmet on.

Perhaps a bicycle helmet, without all the aerodynamic shell/fairings would
be useful?

bullwinkle

toad

September 12th 07, 07:55 PM

On Sep 12, 12:46 pm, Tim Taylor > wrote:
> On Sep 11, 4:33 pm, Paul Hanson
>
> > wrote:
> > For the really safety minded (and thick walleted) a
> > BRS, NOAH, a personal chute, a helmet (might have saved
> > more lives than you may think) and all the other gizmos
> > mentioned already, including the condom, although admittedly
> > the helmet may significantly reduce the need for that
> > one;)
>
> Paul,
>
> I have been thinking it would be nice to have a study of crashes to
> determine if a helmet wold have saved many lives. We fly at speeds up
> to 200 mph, yet do not require a helmet of pilots. I have been
> looking at helmet types that would allow good vision and movement in
> gliders without excessive weight for the G's we pull. Has anyone done
> this type of study and/or tried flight helmets etc in gliders?
>
> Tim

How many pilots could have been saved by a helmet ?

I can't recall reading too many accident reports that claim the pilot
died of head injuries, when there wasn't enough other injuries to be
fatal.

Data any one ?

Todd Smith
3S

Paul Hanson

September 12th 07, 09:27 PM

At 19:00 12 September 2007, Toad wrote:
>On Sep 12, 12:46 pm, Tim Taylor wrote:
>> On Sep 11, 4:33 pm, Paul Hanson
>>
>> wrote:
>> > For the really safety minded (and thick walleted)
>>>a
>> > BRS, NOAH, a personal chute, a helmet (might have
>>>saved
>> > more lives than you may think) and all the other
>>>gizmos
>> > mentioned already, including the condom, although
>>>admittedly
>> > the helmet may significantly reduce the need for
>>>that
>> > one;)
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> I have been thinking it would be nice to have a study
>>of crashes to
>> determine if a helmet wold have saved many lives.
>> We fly at speeds up
>> to 200 mph, yet do not require a helmet of pilots.
>> I have been
>> looking at helmet types that would allow good vision
>>and movement in
>> gliders without excessive weight for the G's we pull.
>> Has anyone done
>> this type of study and/or tried flight helmets etc
>>in gliders?
>>
>> Tim
>
>How many pilots could have been saved by a helmet ?
>
>I can't recall reading too many accident reports that
>claim the pilot
>died of head injuries, when there wasn't enough other
>injuries to be
>fatal.
>
>Data any one ?
>
>Todd Smith
>3S
>
Look up the details (if you can find them) of the most
recent US glider fatality (Ridge Soaring Gliderport,
July 14 2007). That pilot was still alive when rescue
crew got to him, but died of his head injuries by the
time he arrived at the hospital according to the newspaper
article I read. I have heard of others as well, but
that one comes to mind off the top of my unprotected
head.

Paul Hanson
"Do the usual, unusually well"--Len Niemi

01-- Zero One

September 12th 07, 09:40 PM

Helmets!?

Just say 'No!'

shawn

September 12th 07, 09:55 PM

toad wrote:
> On Sep 12, 12:46 pm, Tim Taylor > wrote:
>> On Sep 11, 4:33 pm, Paul Hanson
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> For the really safety minded (and thick walleted) a
>>> BRS, NOAH, a personal chute, a helmet (might have saved
>>> more lives than you may think) and all the other gizmos
>>> mentioned already, including the condom, although admittedly
>>> the helmet may significantly reduce the need for that
>>> one;)
>> Paul,
>>
>> I have been thinking it would be nice to have a study of crashes to
>> determine if a helmet wold have saved many lives. We fly at speeds up
>> to 200 mph, yet do not require a helmet of pilots. I have been
>> looking at helmet types that would allow good vision and movement in
>> gliders without excessive weight for the G's we pull. Has anyone done
>> this type of study and/or tried flight helmets etc in gliders?
>>
>> Tim
>
> How many pilots could have been saved by a helmet ?
>
> I can't recall reading too many accident reports that claim the pilot
> died of head injuries, when there wasn't enough other injuries to be
> fatal.
>
> Data any one ?

This accident is also a good argument for the Roeger hook:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X07737&key=1

Shawn

[email protected]

September 12th 07, 10:54 PM

Probably not a good idea, for a couple of reasons:

1. You may need both arms to get out, or may only have one working (or
free) arm available to get out. And you HAVE to get out before using
the chute (with one possible exception).

2. If you are holding the rip-cord during egress, you probably
increase the chance of an early chute deployment, and possible
entaglement with the glider.

A better plan is to practice finding your rip-cord while wearing your
chute - using your eyes to guide your hands to where it should be.
This should be tried both standing up, crouching, spread-eagled; any
position you think you might assume after exiting the glider. Also,
note that the rip-cord handle (D-ring) may be jarred loose from it's
housing during the bailout, and you might have to locate it by finding
where the rip-cord exits the chute housing and following the rip-cord
wire to the D-ring. Think about it, look carefully at your parachute,
and practice actually deploying it when you drop it off to get it
repacked - you may be surprised how hard (or easy) it is to pull. I
like to setup a scenario with my rigger, then talk myself through the
timeline of a mid-air and bailout (CANOPY, STRAPS, EXIT, FIND D-RING,
PULL, CHECK CANOPY etc), until I pull the rip-cord and the chute
"deploys". My chute always surprises me with an "easy" pull, compared
to some military training jumps I did long ago that required two hands
to move the D-ring!

The exception mentioned above? You can't get out of the cockpit.
Last resort,(canopy gone) is to unstrap, lean forward as far as you
can (pull youself using the instrument panel), then pull the rip-
cord. You WILL be extracted from the glider. It may not be pretty,
thought!

Ref FLARM: Unfotunately, we pathetic Americans are specifically
prohibited from using it. Not that it would do much good in most
parts of the US, glider density is way too low. And I can't even get
most pilots in my club to set their altimeters to QNH! So the chance
of there being pressure to introduce a similar system in the US is
pretty low, IMHO...

Kirk
66

[email protected]

September 12th 07, 10:56 PM

On Sep 12, 1:40 pm, "jonathan" > wrote:
> bumper,
>
> I find my yaw string always swings out to one side or the other - should I
> use a heavier string?
>

Nah, just tape down both ends.

66

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

September 12th 07, 11:07 PM

"Paul Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> At 19:00 12 September 2007, Toad wrote:
>>On Sep 12, 12:46 pm, Tim Taylor wrote:
<...>>> I have been thinking it would be nice to have a study
>>>of crashes to
>>> determine if a helmet wold have saved many lives.
>>> We fly at speeds up
>>> to 200 mph, yet do not require a helmet of pilots.
>>> I have been
>>> looking at helmet types that would allow good vision
>>>and movement in
>>> gliders without excessive weight for the G's we pull.
>>> Has anyone done
>>> this type of study and/or tried flight helmets etc
>>>in gliders?
<...>

See

http://iac78.org/newsletter/Newsletter_May_2007.pdf

for info on some of the available helmets.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Mark Dickson

September 12th 07, 11:34 PM

You obviously wouldn't be holding on to the handle
to the detriment of getting out of the glider, but
I think the last thing you should do prior to falling
is get hold of the handle. Like you said, it might
(probably would have) come loose from it's velcro and
may be difficult to grab in the panic of freefall.
I believe there have been cases of pilots successfully
abandoning their aircraft and the chute not having
been deployed. If you pull the cord after leaving
the glider there is virtually no chance of entanglement.

At 22:00 12 September 2007, wrote:
>Probably not a good idea, for a couple of reasons:
>
>1. You may need both arms to get out, or may only have
>one working (or
>free) arm available to get out. And you HAVE to get
>out before using
>the chute (with one possible exception).
>
>2. If you are holding the rip-cord during egress,
>you probably
>increase the chance of an early chute deployment, and
>possible
>entaglement with the glider.
>
>A better plan is to practice finding your rip-cord
>while wearing your
>chute - using your eyes to guide your hands to where
>it should be.
>This should be tried both standing up, crouching, spread-eagled;
>any
>position you think you might assume after exiting the
>glider. Also,
>note that the rip-cord handle (D-ring) may be jarred
>loose from it's
>housing during the bailout, and you might have to locate
>it by finding
>where the rip-cord exits the chute housing and following
>the rip-cord
>wire to the D-ring. Think about it, look carefully
>at your parachute,
>and practice actually deploying it when you drop it
>off to get it
>repacked - you may be surprised how hard (or easy)
>it is to pull. I
>like to setup a scenario with my rigger, then talk
>myself through the
>timeline of a mid-air and bailout (CANOPY, STRAPS,
>EXIT, FIND D-RING,
>PULL, CHECK CANOPY etc), until I pull the rip-cord
>and the chute
>'deploys'. My chute always surprises me with an 'easy'
>pull, compared
>to some military training jumps I did long ago that
>required two hands
>to move the D-ring!
>
>The exception mentioned above? You can't get out of
>the cockpit.
>Last resort,(canopy gone) is to unstrap, lean forward
>as far as you
>can (pull youself using the instrument panel), then
>pull the rip-
>cord. You WILL be extracted from the glider. It may
>not be pretty,
>thought!
>
>Ref FLARM: Unfotunately, we pathetic Americans are
>specifically
>prohibited from using it. Not that it would do much
>good in most
>parts of the US, glider density is way too low. And
>I can't even get
>most pilots in my club to set their altimeters to QNH!
> So the chance
>of there being pressure to introduce a similar system
>in the US is
>pretty low, IMHO...
>
>Kirk
>66
>
>

Mark Dickson

September 12th 07, 11:43 PM

Pretty much the only pilots that wear helmets are military
pilots, and that is probably due to the excessive g
they experience and the forces involved in ejecting.
Also for attaching sun visors, oxygen masks, headphones
and mics. Glider pilots definately do not need helmets;
not in the air anyway, maybe on the ground to protect
against walking into trailing edges.

Eric Greenwell

September 13th 07, 04:25 AM

wrote:
> On Sep 12, 1:40 pm, "jonathan" > wrote:
>> bumper,
>>
>> I find my yaw string always swings out to one side or the other - should I
>> use a heavier string?
>>
>
> Nah, just tape down both ends.

That is not aerodynamically clean. A yaw string, properly mounted to the
inside of the canopy, needs tape at only one end.This results in less
drag to the glider, and less confusion to the pilot.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Eric Greenwell

September 13th 07, 04:49 AM

Mark Dickson wrote:
> Pretty much the only pilots that wear helmets are military
> pilots, and that is probably due to the excessive g
> they experience and the forces involved in ejecting.
> Also for attaching sun visors, oxygen masks, headphones
> and mics. Glider pilots definately do not need helmets;
> not in the air anyway, maybe on the ground to protect
> against walking into trailing edges.

I do know of one pilot that wears a helmet while wave flying. It looks
like a military jet pilot's helmet, including the darkened "goggle"
portion that covers the eyes. He does it for the warmth in normal wave
flying, for protection from the bright sun (he doesn't fly wave where I
fly!), to support the oxygen mask, to provide protection from a canopy
that shatters in the cold, and for protection from the wind and cold if
he has to bail out at high altitudes.

He doesn't have any problems with clearance to the canopy, but I think a
lot of pilots would.

I rarely fly above 18,000 in wave, but if I did it routinely, I'd
consider wearing a helmet.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

peld

September 13th 07, 07:28 AM

On Sep 12, 11:04 pm, Mark Dickson
> wrote:
> I've always thought it would be a good idea to take
> hold of the rip-cord handle before finally leaving
> the glider. Did you do that, and, if you didn't, did
> you get hold of the handle quickly and easily?
>
> At 11:00 12 September 2007, Peld wrote:
>

Mark,

I didn't have a hold of the ripcord as I left the cockpit, I was too
busy trying to hold my glasses on. I think my priorities may have been
a bit askew at that stage. Also I was using as much energy as I could
to get over the side, and also looking to see that I wasn't going to
hit the wing on the way out. The wing that wasn't there any more by
the way. To be quite honest, I don't even recall pulling the ripcord,
but as has been mentioned on here, I had practised doing that plenty
of times on the ground and obviously the practise paid off. I did hang
on to the ripcord all the way down to the ground and I fully intend to
frame it!

Tony Verhulst

September 13th 07, 02:07 PM

>> Nah, just tape down both ends.
>
> That is not aerodynamically clean. A yaw string, properly mounted to the
> inside of the canopy, needs tape at only one end.This results in less
> drag to the glider, and less confusion to the pilot.

But, doesn't the loose end dangling in front of your face get to be
annoying? Tape both ends, I say.

Tony V.

Papa3

September 13th 07, 03:04 PM

On Sep 10, 8:50 pm, "Jim Vincent" > wrote:
> "Dan G" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> > You've had a whack, but everything feels fine. Do you stay in the
> > glider, or leave? Just how reliable are the parachutes we use? I
> > understand that they're fairly simple quick-opening designs, but
> > there's no reserve, right? Has a glider-pilot parachute ever failed?
>
> > Dan
>
> That depends. The chute is very reliable..super high tech yet very simply
> elegant. How reliable are you? Have you ever jumped before? Would you be
> stable in free fall, and have your wits about you to pull the ripcord in a
> stable position?

There was a thread about 2-3 years back on static lines. I know
they're in common use in Europe, but not in the US. Anyone ever get
to the bottom of that?

P3

Martin Gregorie[_1_]

September 13th 07, 04:28 PM

peld wrote:
> I was actually surprised how easy it was to get out of the
> cockpit. Having undone the harness it seemed like no trouble at all to
> just roll over the canopy rail and out into the wild blue yonder. I
> have a below knee artificial right leg so I had considered this
> scenario for some time, expecting to have a lot of trouble just
> getting my leg past the instrument panel, but no, it was really a
> piece of cake.
>
I have the same right leg modification as you, so I'm very happy to hear
that getting out wasn't a problem. I'd wondered if it might be a problem.

Did the leg cause any problems when you landed?

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

bumper

September 13th 07, 10:12 PM

Jon,

No, the MKII yarn is not replaceable, so changing to a heavier string would
not be cost effective. Instead, you might add a lead "split-shot" fishing
weight* to the end of the yarn. This should dampen the erratic yaw string
movements you are experiencing.

*Side effects common but most often mild. They may include lead arc on the
canopy, mood-swings, vertigo, nausea, and diarrhea. Do not suck on or
swallow lead split-shot as this can exacerbate these symptoms. If you
experience a yaw string erection that lasts for more than 4 hours, seek
immediate medical attention . . . or enjoy the flight.

bumper :c)

"jonathan" > wrote in message
...
> bumper,
>
> I find my yaw string always swings out to one side or the other - should I
> use a heavier string?
>
> Jon ;-)
> "bumper" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bill,
>>
>> I too applaud DG for developing the NOAH system. However, complexity,
>> cost, and it's "one time use" nature may limit its appeal for many.
>>
>> After suffering a bout of "frozen shoulder" last year, that made it
>> difficult for me to even exit my glider on the ground, I've decided
>> there's a need to develop a more simple air-lift bag for my glider.
>>
>> This bag would probably be made of coated nylon and be inflated with an
>> easily refillable compressed air bottle. Inflation would be via a
>> quarter-turn manual valve with no safety devices except perhaps a manual
>> interlock pin (if a solenoid valve were used, a canopy-open interlock
>> could be incorporated). The intent would be to design the "air-lift under
>> cushion" for ground use only, to assist the pilot in exiting the ship. If
>> this system were marketed, restricting it to ground use would hopefully
>> help eliminate the liability concerns of a system intended to assist a
>> bail out.
>>
>> Like many of my ideas, I may not find the time to make this. And if do, I
>> may only make one to test in my glider. (I'm still questioning the
>> decision to market the Quiet Vent and MKII Yaw String :c).
>>
>> Comments, suggestions welcome.
>>
>> bumper
>> ZZ
>> Minden
>>
>>
>>
>> "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
>> . ..
>>>
>>> "bagmaker" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>> You've had a whack, but everything feels fine. Do you
>>>> stay in the
>>>> glider, or leave? Just how reliable are the parachutes
>>>> we use? I
>>>> understand that they're fairly simple quick-opening
>>>> designs, but
>>>> there's no reserve, right? Has a glider-pilot parachute
>>>> ever failed?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>>
>>>> Dan,
>>>> Simply, there is no blanket answer, way too many variables exist.
>>>> Derek Piggot writes a fascinating account of his bail-out in some of
>>>> his
>>>> gliding books, I would suggest reading them.
>>>> Gliding Kiwi has a great article this month on a NZ instructor landing
>>>> a
>>>> rudderless puch with a PAX - more heart stopping reading!
>>>>
>>>> Basically if it does fly after a hit, check to see that it will keep
>>>> flying with some harsh movements -height limits withstanding- long
>>>> enough
>>>> to land. Landing manuevering can be rough, you want to be sure the
>>>> thing
>>>> doesnt fail at 100 feet after nursing down from a good bail out height.
>>>>
>>>> Rough rule has been bandied about RAS about 1500 ft as a minimum
>>>> bail-out
>>>> altitude, many would disagree, but if you dont have a choice.....
>>>>
>>>> Bottom line is you are worth more than a glider, if in doubt, get out
>>>>
>>>> fly safe
>>>> Bagger
>>>
>>> I've twice faced the decision to jump or land a crippled glider. The
>>> first was a Pratt-Read badly damaged from a mid-air. I had fresh jump
>>> training, a fresh repack and a stable jump platform but I decided to
>>> land it anyway. The critical decision was whether I could control the
>>> glider from the time it decended below a safe jump altitude until it was
>>> on the ground. I could and did. For the record, the other pilot in the
>>> mid-air did the same thing.
>>>
>>> The second was an experimental flying wing where a suposedly secure lead
>>> shot bag shifted in flight so as to jam the elevator/aileron bellcranks.
>>> I found I could steer with rudder and slow it to 70Kts with trim. That
>>> let me hit the runway on a fast, shallow glide. It was a rough landing
>>> but the glider and I survived to fly again.
>>>
>>> In both cases there was intense discussion post flight about the wisdom
>>> of my decisions. A slim majority said the conservative action was to
>>> have abandoned ship. My view was if the thing is more or less
>>> controllable, and you have a big airfield to aim at, land it. If it is
>>> an airplane loaded with fuel, that might shift the decision toward
>>> jumping. However, a glider that can be flown to hit a large flat area
>>> at a shallow angle is likely to be safer than the 'chute. If there is
>>> any doubt that the glider will remain controllable - jump.
>>>
>>> The real problem here is struggling to rise from a reclining position
>>> and crawl over the side with a 15 pound 'chute on your back. That's
>>> difficult. Being old, out of shape and/or overweight makes it
>>> impossible. This is where the NOAH system from DG is so significant.
>>> Of all the safety related things that one could spend money on, the NOAH
>>> system tops the list for me.
>>>
>>> Bill Daniels
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

bumper

September 13th 07, 10:22 PM

I know of some bush pilots who wear helmets. I opted for the Amsafe air-bag
system when I bought my Husky, figuring it would provide better protection
overall, and be less hassle than a helmet.

I don't have headroom in the glider for a helmet. I do use 1/4" of Confor
(NASA, Tempur etc) foam in the top of my floppy terri hat. It helps keep my
bald noggin from bonking the canopy too hard in rotor and probably helps
protect the canopy too.

One might not think that just 1/4" of extra-firm Confor would do much, but
it does! You can test this by putting the Confor on concrete and then
hitting it with your fist. Hint - don't hit it as hard as you can - - makes
an amazing difference.

bumper

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:gr2Gi.8312$Ic3.1085@trndny09...
> Mark Dickson wrote:
>> Pretty much the only pilots that wear helmets are military
>> pilots, and that is probably due to the excessive g
>> they experience and the forces involved in ejecting.
>> Also for attaching sun visors, oxygen masks, headphones
>> and mics. Glider pilots definately do not need helmets;
>> not in the air anyway, maybe on the ground to protect
>> against walking into trailing edges.
>
> I do know of one pilot that wears a helmet while wave flying. It looks
> like a military jet pilot's helmet, including the darkened "goggle"
> portion that covers the eyes. He does it for the warmth in normal wave
> flying, for protection from the bright sun (he doesn't fly wave where I
> fly!), to support the oxygen mask, to provide protection from a canopy
> that shatters in the cold, and for protection from the wind and cold if he
> has to bail out at high altitudes.
>
> He doesn't have any problems with clearance to the canopy, but I think a
> lot of pilots would.
>
> I rarely fly above 18,000 in wave, but if I did it routinely, I'd consider
> wearing a helmet.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> * "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

peld

September 13th 07, 11:13 PM

On Sep 14, 1:28 am, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> peld wrote:
> > I was actually surprised how easy it was to get out of the
> > cockpit. Having undone the harness it seemed like no trouble at all to
> > just roll over the canopy rail and out into the wild blue yonder. I
> > have a below knee artificial right leg so I had considered this
> > scenario for some time, expecting to have a lot of trouble just
> > getting my leg past the instrument panel, but no, it was really a
> > piece of cake.
>
> >
> I have the same right leg modification as you, so I'm very happy to hear
> that getting out wasn't a problem. I'd wondered if it might be a problem.
>
> Did the leg cause any problems when you landed?
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

Martin,

Like you I thought I would have problems. I used to think that the leg
would catch on the panel and come off, but that wasn't a problem at
all. As for landing, I came down on my backside, don't ask me how, and
the leg was no problem at all then. However, I badly bruised my coccyx
and jarred my back pretty bad. What the hell, I was down OK. Thats
what they say about emergency chutes: its only gonna save your life,
it won't be a soft landing. You come down pretty fast.

Phil

Ramy

September 14th 07, 12:07 AM

Hey Bumper, how about marketing soaring hats with foams? Make mine
brown. I was just suggesting foam on the other helmet thread, sounds
like a simple solution to a serious risk.

Ramy

On Sep 13, 2:22 pm, "bumper" > wrote:
> I know of some bush pilots who wear helmets. I opted for the Amsafe air-bag
> system when I bought my Husky, figuring it would provide better protection
> overall, and be less hassle than a helmet.
>
> I don't have headroom in the glider for a helmet. I do use 1/4" of Confor
> (NASA, Tempur etc) foam in the top of my floppy terri hat. It helps keep my
> bald noggin from bonking the canopy too hard in rotor and probably helps
> protect the canopy too.
>
> One might not think that just 1/4" of extra-firm Confor would do much, but
> it does! You can test this by putting the Confor on concrete and then
> hitting it with your fist. Hint - don't hit it as hard as you can - - makes
> an amazing difference.
>
> bumper
>
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
>
> news:gr2Gi.8312$Ic3.1085@trndny09...
>
>
>
> > Mark Dickson wrote:
> >> Pretty much the only pilots that wear helmets are military
> >> pilots, and that is probably due to the excessive g
> >> they experience and the forces involved in ejecting.
> >> Also for attaching sun visors, oxygen masks, headphones
> >> and mics. Glider pilots definately do not need helmets;
> >> not in the air anyway, maybe on the ground to protect
> >> against walking into trailing edges.
>
> > I do know of one pilot that wears a helmet while wave flying. It looks
> > like a military jet pilot's helmet, including the darkened "goggle"
> > portion that covers the eyes. He does it for the warmth in normal wave
> > flying, for protection from the bright sun (he doesn't fly wave where I
> > fly!), to support the oxygen mask, to provide protection from a canopy
> > that shatters in the cold, and for protection from the wind and cold if he
> > has to bail out at high altitudes.
>
> > He doesn't have any problems with clearance to the canopy, but I think a
> > lot of pilots would.
>
> > I rarely fly above 18,000 in wave, but if I did it routinely, I'd consider
> > wearing a helmet.
>
> > --
> > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> > * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> > * "Transponders in Sailplanes"http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> > * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" atwww.motorglider.org- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Martin Gregorie[_1_]

September 14th 07, 12:35 AM

peld wrote:
>
> Like you I thought I would have problems. I used to think that the leg
> would catch on the panel and come off, but that wasn't a problem at
> all.
>
I have a "naked" limb (no cosmetic wrappings, just an anodized shaft)
and, as a result, often have to disengage the heel of my shoe while
getting out after a flight. It catches on the lip on the cross-beam that
supports the stick and front of the seat pan in my Libelle. I've always
wondered if that would be a problem during emergency egress.

I imagined that the shoe would depart before my leg came off: the liner
seems to have a pretty good grip on my remaining bits.

> As for landing, I came down on my backside, don't ask me how, and
> the leg was no problem at all then. However, I badly bruised my coccyx
> and jarred my back pretty bad.
>
My sympathies: damaged backs are no joke, but as you say getting down in
one piece is all that matters. Thanks for the explanation of why your
leg wasn't affected.

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