BRS for emergencies

[Bryan[_4_]]

The previous posts under "Stay in, or get out?" raises questions about the
current state of ballistic recovery systems. As paraplegic, I have a
personal interest in BRS because thoughts of my successfully exiting an out
of control sailplane with a parachute, and then landing without the use of
my legs, conjure unpleasant thoughts. Although doable for a paraplegic, the
odds of a successful egress and injury free landing are certainly lower than
for an able-bodied pilot. For those reasons, BRS is for me a viable and
probably safer alternative.

I understand that no emergency egress solution is perfect for all scenarios;
they offer various means of risk management. However, I would appreciate
any information or thoughts concerning the effectiveness of BRS deployment
and if the current ground-impact energy absorption systems are proving
effective for pilot protection.

Thanks,
Bryan

[[email protected]]

On Sep 12, 10:12 am, "Bryan" > wrote:
> The previous posts under "Stay in, or get out?" raises questions about the
> current state of ballistic recovery systems. As paraplegic, I have a
> personal interest in BRS because thoughts of my successfully exiting an out
> of control sailplane with a parachute, and then landing without the use of
> my legs, conjure unpleasant thoughts. Although doable for a paraplegic, the
> odds of a successful egress and injury free landing are certainly lower than
> for an able-bodied pilot. For those reasons, BRS is for me a viable and
> probably safer alternative.
>
> I understand that no emergency egress solution is perfect for all scenarios;
> they offer various means of risk management. However, I would appreciate
> any information or thoughts concerning the effectiveness of BRS deployment
> and if the current ground-impact energy absorption systems are proving
> effective for pilot protection.
>
> Thanks,
> Bryan

I dont know much about BRS deployments in sailplanes. one major issue
would, as you mention, would be the energy absorption. the Cirrus
airplanes use the landing gear to absorb impact. of course they will
decend at a much higher rate under chute than a glider. I think the
Cirri have something like a 2000 fpm descent. they have had injuries
to people who have come down in water where there was no energy
absorbtion. i know that BRS systems have been pretty common in
ultralights for a while. and used successfully. I would think that
sailplanes would have similar descent rates but still not as much
energy absorption as them.

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
> i know that BRS systems have been pretty common in
> ultralights for a while. and used successfully. I would think that
> sailplanes would have similar descent rates but still not as much
> energy absorption as them.

That is one of the challenges for the glider rescue designer. The
descent rate must be limited to what the fuselage can provide in pilot
protection. Older gliders (say, before the ASW 24) had "weak" fuselages
and would require a relatively large parachute, compared to modern
gliders. A large parachute is heavier, takes up more space, and makes it
harder to deploy slowly enough to avoid huge forces on the glider
structure and pilot. Another problem is ensuring the fuselage and
remaining bits descend without a lot of oscillating, so the cockpit hits
the ground at the right attitude to absorb enough energy to protect the
pilot.

All things considered, it is much easier and cheaper to retrofit a NOAH
system, even though it doesn't provide exactly the same function. The
problem is much easier to solve in an ultralight, because of their
slower speeds and lighter weights.

--
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]

You should contact the Red Wing Soaring Club in Osceola WI. One of their
members installed a Ballistic Recovery Chute in his personal glider a couple
of years ago. I vaguely recall that it cost him around $3,000.

Mike Schumann

"Bryan" > wrote in message
...
> The previous posts under "Stay in, or get out?" raises questions about the
> current state of ballistic recovery systems. As paraplegic, I have a
> personal interest in BRS because thoughts of my successfully exiting an
> out of control sailplane with a parachute, and then landing without the
> use of my legs, conjure unpleasant thoughts. Although doable for a
> paraplegic, the odds of a successful egress and injury free landing are
> certainly lower than for an able-bodied pilot. For those reasons, BRS is
> for me a viable and probably safer alternative.
>
> I understand that no emergency egress solution is perfect for all
> scenarios; they offer various means of risk management. However, I would
> appreciate any information or thoughts concerning the effectiveness of BRS
> deployment and if the current ground-impact energy absorption systems are
> proving effective for pilot protection.
>
> Thanks,
> Bryan
>
>



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

[Mike Schumann]

The NOAH system looks like a kludge to me that does not address
survivability for accidents that happen at low altitudes.

Here is a link showing the specs and prices for typical BRS chutes:

http://www.brsparachutes.com/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=84

I suspect that the concerns about impact survivability in a glider are
overblown. You might want to contact BRS directly to discuss this issue.
One way you could reduce the impact forces is to have the glider descend
under the chute so that the tail impacts the ground first and dissipates
part of the energy before the cockpit contacts the ground.

Mike Schumann

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
news:cM2Gi.4278$Z33.306@trndny08...
> wrote:
>> i know that BRS systems have been pretty common in
>> ultralights for a while. and used successfully. I would think that
>> sailplanes would have similar descent rates but still not as much
>> energy absorption as them.
>
> That is one of the challenges for the glider rescue designer. The descent
> rate must be limited to what the fuselage can provide in pilot protection.
> Older gliders (say, before the ASW 24) had "weak" fuselages and would
> require a relatively large parachute, compared to modern gliders. A large
> parachute is heavier, takes up more space, and makes it harder to deploy
> slowly enough to avoid huge forces on the glider structure and pilot.
> Another problem is ensuring the fuselage and remaining bits descend
> without a lot of oscillating, so the cockpit hits the ground at the right
> attitude to absorb enough energy to protect the pilot.
>
> All things considered, it is much easier and cheaper to retrofit a NOAH
> system, even though it doesn't provide exactly the same function. The
> problem is much easier to solve in an ultralight, because of their slower
> speeds and lighter weights.
>
> --
> 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



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

[Michael Huber]

Streifender developed a BRS system for gliders, his website (sorry, in
german) is http://www.streifly.de/Preise9-00.htm
That´s the system you can buy with some of the newer Schempp - Hirth and
Schleicher gliders.

Michael

[bikensoar]

On Sep 12, 11:54 pm, "Michael Huber" > wrote:
> Streifender developed a BRS system for gliders, his website (sorry, in
> german) ishttp://www.streifly.de/Preise9-00.htm
> That´s the system you can buy with some of the newer Schempp - Hirth and
> Schleicher gliders.
>
> Michael


I am suprised no one has mentioned the Sparrowhawk Glider. Everyone
of the 20
or so sparrowhawks except one has a BRS parachute. The decision was
to go
with a large parachute to REDUCE opening shock. The one is use in
rated for a
900 lb. aircraft. The Sparrowhawk fully loaded with the heaviest
possible pilot would
not even be 500 lbs. I suspect it will come down quite slowly.

Greg Cole fired off the ballistic parachute while it was attached to
the Sparrowhawk.
It was a ground test. He has it on video and it deployed perfectly
with no problems.
The cost is somewhere around $3000.00.

George Young, Sparrowhawk owner # 6

[User]

Nearly all of Pipistrel aircraft have chutes fitted

bikensoar wrote:
> On Sep 12, 11:54 pm, "Michael Huber" > wrote:
>> Streifender developed a BRS system for gliders, his website (sorry, in
>> german) ishttp://www.streifly.de/Preise9-00.htm
>> That´s the system you can buy with some of the newer Schempp - Hirth and
>> Schleicher gliders.
>>
>> Michael
>
>
> I am suprised no one has mentioned the Sparrowhawk Glider. Everyone
> of the 20
> or so sparrowhawks except one has a BRS parachute. The decision was
> to go
> with a large parachute to REDUCE opening shock. The one is use in
> rated for a
> 900 lb. aircraft. The Sparrowhawk fully loaded with the heaviest
> possible pilot would
> not even be 500 lbs. I suspect it will come down quite slowly.
>
> Greg Cole fired off the ballistic parachute while it was attached to
> the Sparrowhawk.
> It was a ground test. He has it on video and it deployed perfectly
> with no problems.
> The cost is somewhere around $3000.00.
>
> George Young, Sparrowhawk owner # 6
>

[Wayne Paul]

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
.. .
> You should contact the Red Wing Soaring Club in Osceola WI. One of their
> members installed a Ballistic Recovery Chute in his personal glider a
> couple of years ago. I vaguely recall that it cost him around $3,000.
>
> Mike Schumann
>

HP-16 N8DC (http://tinyurl.com/2frz7p) has a Ballistic Recovery System
(http://tinyurl.com/yvfunq).

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

[Eric Greenwell]

Mike Schumann wrote:
> The NOAH system looks like a kludge to me that does not address
> survivability for accidents that happen at low altitudes.

It's a good design, intended to address exiting the glider quickly. This
is a very important at low altitudes. We all agree a glider rescue
system that *actually works* would be better in that situation.

>
> Here is a link showing the specs and prices for typical BRS chutes:
>
> http://www.brsparachutes.com/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=84
>
> I suspect that the concerns about impact survivability in a glider are
> overblown.

Technical Soaring, and probably other publications, has had articles on
the design and operation issues for glider rescue systems. You might
find your suspiscions are modified after you have read these articles.
If it were easy, all the manufacturers would offer one in all their gliders.

> You might want to contact BRS directly to discuss this issue.

I have talked to a designer working on glider rescue systems. BRS is not
not as eager as you might think to have their products incorporated
into our gliders.

> One way you could reduce the impact forces is to have the glider descend
> under the chute so that the tail impacts the ground first and dissipates
> part of the energy before the cockpit contacts the ground.

This requires the parachute to descend without oscillating while holding
the fuselage in the tail down position, basically flying backward;
further, the tail must be designed to absorb energy during impact, which
is not a normal design parameter. How can we know the installation will
do this without flight testing? Without careful design of the tail
structure, it seems likely to me that when the tail hits first, the
fuselage will slam down at the cockpit end, increasing the forces on it
and the pilot. And what protects the pilot if the tail is missing after
the collision?

--
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

[JS]

The Sparrowhawk which was repeatedly flown far over redline, ripping
the wings off, provided an interesting BRS experiment.
Opening shock was sufficient to launch the pilot out of the fuselage.
Fortunately he was wearing a pilot emergency parachute.
There is evidently more to develop in BRS technology. Aircraft which
deploy ballistic chutes don't always look or behave like the Cirrus or
Discus used in the certification experiments.
Jim

[Bob Kuykendall]

One major challenge for sailplane BRS systems is water ballast.

If you size the BRS system to the ballasted gross weight, you end up
needing a rather large system that costs a lot and takes up a lot of
internal volume.

On the other hand, if you size the BRS to the dry gross weight you
have a system that is overmatched under many flight regimes, including
many in which BRS capability is most desirable - such as climbing away
from a start at a crowded contest site.

You could placard the system into compliance with a sticker that says
"Dump ballast before deploying BRS" or "Do not deploy BRS while
ballasted." But that doesn't address an important issue: most ballast
dump systems can't empty the water out in less than about a minute,
and some take as much as three or five minutes.

I suppose the savvy glider developer could also embed a steel cable
into the wing skin, and tie it into the BRS harness so that deployment
unzips the wing and liberates the water. That'd be a sight to see.

Bob K.

[shawn]

Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> One major challenge for sailplane BRS systems is water ballast.

snip

> I suppose the savvy glider developer could also embed a steel cable
> into the wing skin, and tie it into the BRS harness so that deployment
> unzips the wing and liberates the water. That'd be a sight to see.

How about embedding det cord around each wing, connected to go off with
the BRS rocket? Zip the wings off, along with the water ballast. With
just the fuselage to lower, the 'chute can be smaller too ;-)


Shawn

[bikensoar]

On Sep 13, 9:05 am, JS > wrote:
> The Sparrowhawk which was repeatedly flown far over redline, ripping
> the wings off, provided an interesting BRS experiment.
> Opening shock was sufficient to launch the pilot out of the fuselage.
> Fortunately he was wearing a pilot emergency parachute.
> There is evidently more to develop in BRS technology. Aircraft which
> deploy ballistic chutes don't always look or behave like the Cirrus or
> Discus used in the certification experiments.
> Jim


Jim......You are misinformed about the Owl project. The BRS was
never deployed by the pilot. The glider went well past redline. It
reached flutter speed. the glider literally disintegrated with the
pilot
being ejected through the canopy still strapped into the seat pan.

The BRS deployed somehow on its own and the wreckage descended
safely to the ground.

It would be difficult for any recovery system to work well once the
aircraft was 40-50 knots over redline.

The fact that the BRS worked at those speeds is very encouraging
to me.

The truly amazing thing about a system like BRS is the lives that
have been saved at very low deployment altitudes. There have
been saves as low as 200 ft. agl.

And once again, spreading half facts and misinformation on this
site does a disservice to BRS and Windward Performance.

George Y

[Paul Hanson]

At 17:00 13 September 2007, Shawn wrote:
>Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>> One major challenge for sailplane BRS systems is water
>>ballast.
>
>snip
>
>> I suppose the savvy glider developer could also embed
>>a steel cable
>> into the wing skin, and tie it into the BRS harness
>>so that deployment
>> unzips the wing and liberates the water. That'd be
>>a sight to see.
>
>How about embedding det cord around each wing, connected
>to go off with
>the BRS rocket? Zip the wings off, along with the
>water ballast. With
>just the fuselage to lower, the 'chute can be smaller
>too ;-)
>
>
>Shawn

BOMBS AWAY!

Paul

[Eric Greenwell]

shawn wrote:
> Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>> One major challenge for sailplane BRS systems is water ballast.
>
> snip
>
>> I suppose the savvy glider developer could also embed a steel cable
>> into the wing skin, and tie it into the BRS harness so that deployment
>> unzips the wing and liberates the water. That'd be a sight to see.
>
> How about embedding det cord around each wing, connected to go off with
> the BRS rocket? Zip the wings off, along with the water ballast. With
> just the fuselage to lower, the 'chute can be smaller too ;-)

Might as well remove the tail boom, too. This would reduce the glider to
just the cockpit with the pilot. Having a known weight, shape, and size
to control would make it substantially easier for the rescue system
designer. It would speed the certification process, because only one
shape would need to be tested, instead of configurations with all
surfaces attached, one or both wings missing, tail missing, etc.

It would be a very safe glider, as most pilots would never get in it!

--
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

[Marc Ramsey]

bikensoar wrote:
> The truly amazing thing about a system like BRS is the lives that
> have been saved at very low deployment altitudes. There have
> been saves as low as 200 ft. agl.

Details, please, otherwise I will view this as half facts and
disinformation 8^)

Marc

[[email protected]]

On Sep 13, 1:10 pm, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
> bikensoar wrote:
> > The truly amazing thing about a system like BRS is the lives that
> > have been saved at very low deployment altitudes. There have
> > been saves as low as 200 ft. agl.
>
> Details, please, otherwise I will view this as half facts and
> disinformation 8^)
>
> Marc

uh, isnt this Rec.Misinformation.Aviation.Soaring ??? or am I lost? ;)

[Paul Hanson]

At 17:36 13 September 2007, Bikensoar wrote:
>On Sep 13, 9:05 am, JS wrote:
>> The Sparrowhawk which was repeatedly flown far over
>>redline, ripping
>> the wings off, provided an interesting BRS experiment.
>> Opening shock was sufficient to launch the pilot out
>>of the fuselage.
>> Fortunately he was wearing a pilot emergency parachute.
>> There is evidently more to develop in BRS technology.
>>Aircraft which
>> deploy ballistic chutes don't always look or behave
>>like the Cirrus or
>> Discus used in the certification experiments.
>> Jim
>
>
>Jim......You are misinformed about the Owl project.
> The BRS was
>never deployed by the pilot. The glider went well
>past redline. It
>reached flutter speed. the glider literally disintegrated
> with the
>pilot
>being ejected through the canopy still strapped into
>the seat pan.
>
>The BRS deployed somehow on its own and the wreckage
>descended
>safely to the ground.
>
>It would be difficult for any recovery system to work
>well once the
>aircraft was 40-50 knots over redline.
>
>The fact that the BRS worked at those speeds is very
>encouraging
>to me.
>
>The truly amazing thing about a system like BRS is
>the lives that
>have been saved at very low deployment altitudes.
>There have
>been saves as low as 200 ft. agl.
>
>And once again, spreading half facts and misinformation
>on this
>site does a disservice to BRS and Windward Performance.
>
>George Y
>
George, I just attended the ESA (Experimental Sailplane
Association, formerly SHA) western workshop in Tehachapi
where Greg Cole (Sparrowhawk designer/Windward Perf
owner for the uninformed) covered the 'Owl Project
incedent' in his presentation, and Jim is basically
correct. BTW, this is the incident I was referring
to in my earlier post about a flutter breakup and how
smart it was for the pilot to also have a personal
chute cause' it saves his a$$ when the BRS ejected
him, but did not want to mention names at that point,
out of respect. But since it is out for open discussion,
I will add this. The wings fluttered off at 170kts
(the calculated flutter speed BTW) during a botched
'extreme envelope test' involving manually performed
aerobatic maneuvers to gather data for an autopilot
system destined for it's UAV application. When the
BRS was deployed, by the pilot, he was ejected through
the airframe under the extreme G's (I forgot the exact
number they calculated, but it was very high) pulled
during the ensuing deceleration in lawn dart configuration.
Good thing he had his personal chute (and I believe
a helmet too for that matter)...
I am not at all against the BRS (and certainly not
against Windward, I personally love the Sparrowhawk,
which performs quite admirably within it's design parameters),
I just think a BRS should not be considered a 'substitute'
for a personal chute, but rather a nice addition. Most
people need a cushion in the cockpit. Yours can be
made of dirty laundry if you wanted, but I will always
use a chute to fill that role, and think that others
should be encouraged to do the same. I have had this
conversation with several of the pilots at my club,
where incidentally the only fatality there was a fellow
who was not wearing his chute (that day only) when
his HP-14 controls jammed and a spin became unrecoverable.
A BRS would have done the job nicely that time, but
from 5,000 AGL he also had plenty of altitude to jump
ship.
Wear your chutes folks, accidents are not planned events
and you can't guarantee the BRS will operate properly
after an incident/accident that requires you to use
it, but get a BRS if you can as they are indeed great
inventions.

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

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, George Young wrote:

> Jim......You are misinformed about the Owl project. The BRS was
> never deployed by the pilot.

He never said it was deployed by the pilot.

> The glider literally disintegrated with the pilot
> being ejected through the canopy still strapped
> into the seat pan.

Somehow I don't think that's a good thing.

> the wreckage descended safely to the ground.

All safety is relative. Every sense of security is at least partly
false.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Bill Daniels]

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Earlier, George Young wrote:
>
>> Jim......You are misinformed about the Owl project. The BRS was
>> never deployed by the pilot.
>
> He never said it was deployed by the pilot.
>
>> The glider literally disintegrated with the pilot
>> being ejected through the canopy still strapped
>> into the seat pan.
>
> Somehow I don't think that's a good thing.
>
>> the wreckage descended safely to the ground.
>
> All safety is relative. Every sense of security is at least partly
> false.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.
>

I think what this is down to is that BRS that would work in the majority of
imaginable situations would be too heavy, too complicated, and too expensive
for wide acceptance.

Which brings us back to the alternative, pilot egress aids. The DG NOAH
system is but one possible approach. I think that just an inflatable seat
cushion that would raise the pilot's butt to the level of the cockpit sides
while pulling his legs from under the panel would work.

Bill Daniels

[toad]

On Sep 13, 12:38 pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> One major challenge for sailplane BRS systems is water ballast.
>
> If you size the BRS system to the ballasted gross weight, you end up
> needing a rather large system that costs a lot and takes up a lot of
> internal volume.
>
> On the other hand, if you size the BRS to the dry gross weight you
> have a system that is overmatched under many flight regimes, including
> many in which BRS capability is most desirable - such as climbing away
> from a start at a crowded contest site.
>
> You could placard the system into compliance with a sticker that says
> "Dump ballast before deploying BRS" or "Do not deploy BRS while
> ballasted." But that doesn't address an important issue: most ballast
> dump systems can't empty the water out in less than about a minute,
> and some take as much as three or five minutes.
>
> I suppose the savvy glider developer could also embed a steel cable
> into the wing skin, and tie it into the BRS harness so that deployment
> unzips the wing and liberates the water. That'd be a sight to see.
>
> Bob K.

How about the pilot dumps the water after activating the BRS ?
If the BRS held the aircraft in a level attitude, the water would
dump.

Todd Smith
3S

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:

> I think what this is down to is that BRS that would work in the majority of
> imaginable situations would be too heavy, too complicated, and too
> expensive for wide acceptance.

I think that might be a bit on the pessimistic side. There's excellent
coverage for light sailplanes from light, simple, and affordable BRS
systems currently available. The problem comes when you try to scale
it up and cover large gliders, racers, 2-seaters, and massive stuff
like that. For example, my old HP-11 would be a pervect candidate:
Fairly light yet robust, with a nice big chunk of empty volume right
behind the wing spar.

One good thing that came out of the Owl incident was that it points
the way towards an interesting alternative: Instead of protecting the
whole aircraft and pilot, how about protecting just the seat pan and
pilot? The seat pan could be mounted on a rail, with the pilot belted
to the seat pan. The BRS deployment could mechanically unlatch the
canopy and seat pan, and extract the pilot and seat pan from the
forward fuselage. Heck, you could even take your expensive instruments
with you!

I recall that one of the Akafliegs was working on a system like that
called (I think) SOTIERA or something like that. But that was a long
time ago, before BRS systems were as common as they are now. It was
comprised of a lot of expensive custom components. These days such a
system might be built or customized from commercially-available BRS
elements.

Thanks, Bob K.

[toad]

On Sep 13, 3:53 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:

> I think what this is down to is that BRS that would work in the majority of
> imaginable situations would be too heavy, too complicated, and too expensive
> for wide acceptance.

> Bill Daniels


No, what I think this shows is that we can think up situations that
the BRS won't work for.

Parachute use seems to be associated with mid-airs or jammed
controls. The BRS seems capable of either of those situations.
Extreme conditions are not my biggest concern, since I am not doing
flight test.


Todd Smith
3S

[Gary Emerson]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> shawn wrote:
>> Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>>> One major challenge for sailplane BRS systems is water ballast.
>>
>> snip
>>
>>> I suppose the savvy glider developer could also embed a steel cable
>>> into the wing skin, and tie it into the BRS harness so that deployment
>>> unzips the wing and liberates the water. That'd be a sight to see.
>>
>> How about embedding det cord around each wing, connected to go off
>> with the BRS rocket? Zip the wings off, along with the water
>> ballast. With just the fuselage to lower, the 'chute can be smaller
>> too ;-)
>
> Might as well remove the tail boom, too. This would reduce the glider to
> just the cockpit with the pilot. Having a known weight, shape, and size
> to control would make it substantially easier for the rescue system
> designer. It would speed the certification process, because only one
> shape would need to be tested, instead of configurations with all
> surfaces attached, one or both wings missing, tail missing, etc.
>
> It would be a very safe glider, as most pilots would never get in it!
>

Just put in an ejection seat and you can eliminate the BRS altogether!

[Ian]

On 12 Sep, 16:12, "Bryan" > wrote:

> However, I would appreciate
> any information or thoughts concerning the effectiveness of BRS deployment
> and if the current ground-impact energy absorption systems are proving
> effective for pilot protection.

The main disadvantage I see about ballistic recovery systems is that
they absolutely guarantee you an uncontrollable crash landing.
Electrical substation below you? Railway line? Motorway? There is
nothing you can do about it - that's where you're going to land.

The slower descent rate and controlled attitude does mean, of course,
that in any of the above cases it's better than an uncontrolled
plummet in a fuselage. The Big Midair Question is therefore "How much
control do I have?" If the answer is "None" then the answer is obvious
- press the button. If the answer is "Plenty" then the answer is
obvious - land as near normally as possible.

The difficulty comes with an answer of "Some" - because you then need
to assess how much that is, and what choice is likely to lead to the
best landing.

I have an additional doubt about the whole idea. The most obvious case
for using a BRS is when the glider is completely uncontrollable.
However, the most likely reason for the glider being completely
uncontrollable is major structural damage following a midair collision
- and how much use is a BRS going to be for a glider which has
suffered major structural damage. Someone elsewhere in the thread
suggests configuring things to land tail first for energy absorption.
That's an excellent idea ... unless the BR is being deployed because
the tail boom has been broken off in midair ...

Overall in gliding as in sailing I am sceptical about technological
post crash "solutions." I think it's much better simply to avoid
having the crash in the first place ...

Ian

[Tony Verhulst]

> I suppose the savvy glider developer could also embed a steel cable
> into the wing skin, and tie it into the BRS harness so that deployment
> unzips the wing and liberates the water. That'd be a sight to see.

From the ground, preferably :-).

Tony V
http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

[danlj]

On Sep 13, 1:54 am, "Michael Huber" > wrote:
> Streifender developed a BRS system for gliders, his website (sorry, in
> german) ishttp://www.streifly.de/Preise9-00.htm
> That´s the system you can buy with some of the newer Schempp - Hirth and
> Schleicher gliders.

Oh, good! I see from it's location that I have a choice of keeping my
self-launching engine or putting in a recovery parachute.

[danlj]

On Sep 13, 2:13 am, bikensoar > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 11:54 pm, "Michael Huber" > wrote:
>
> > Streifender developed a BRS system for gliders, his website (sorry, in
> > german) ishttp://www.streifly.de/Preise9-00.htm
> > That´s the system you can buy with some of the newer Schempp - Hirth and
> > Schleicher gliders.
>
> > Michael
>
> I am suprised no one has mentioned the Sparrowhawk Glider. Everyone
> of the 20
> or so sparrowhawks except one has a BRS parachute. The decision was
> to go
> with a large parachute to REDUCE opening shock. The one is use in
> rated for a
> 900 lb. aircraft. The Sparrowhawk fully loaded with the heaviest
> possible pilot would
> not even be 500 lbs. I suspect it will come down quite slowly.
>
> Greg Cole fired off the ballistic parachute while it was attached to
> the Sparrowhawk.
> It was a ground test. He has it on video and it deployed perfectly
> with no problems.
> The cost is somewhere around $3000.00.
>
> George Young, Sparrowhawk owner # 6

Raspet Labs was using a modified Lighthawk sailplane for testing last
fall, which crashed. http://www.msstate.edu/web/media/detail.php?id=3621
It had a BRS chute which was triggered by the scissoring main spar
when the wings folded, and the pilot was ejected through the cockpit
by the deceleration, I think because the ring that causes slow chute
deployment did not function properly..

Point: the aircraft must be engineered to take the stresses of chute
deployment and the chute must deploy properly. (Nothing is 100% sure
and safe.)

Dan Johnson

[Eric Greenwell]

danlj wrote:

>> Greg Cole fired off the ballistic parachute while it was attached to
>> the Sparrowhawk.
>> It was a ground test. He has it on video and it deployed perfectly
>> with no problems.
>> The cost is somewhere around $3000.00.
>>
>> George Young, Sparrowhawk owner # 6
>
> Raspet Labs was using a modified Lighthawk sailplane for testing last
> fall, which crashed. http://www.msstate.edu/web/media/detail.php?id=3621

The LightHawk is a very different glider than the SparrowHawk, much
larger and slower, with a lighter wingloading. As the other posters have
mentioned, it was a modified SparrowHawk, which Raspet Labs call the
OWL. I was at Windward Performance last week, where I learned they
delivered an OWL earlier this year, and are preparing another one.

> It had a BRS chute which was triggered by the scissoring main spar
> when the wings folded, and the pilot was ejected through the cockpit
> by the deceleration, I think because the ring that causes slow chute
> deployment did not function properly..

When I spoke with Greg Cole at the convention this year, he said the
problem was more excessive speed (50 knots above the 123 knot Vne) than
the parachute operation.

>
> Point: the aircraft must be engineered to take the stresses of chute
> deployment and the chute must deploy properly. (Nothing is 100% sure
> and safe.)

Of course, but should the rescue system be expected to work properly at
speeds 40% beyond red line? In my glider, that would be 206 knots!

--
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

[bikensoar]

On Sep 13, 11:22 am, wrote:
> On Sep 13, 1:10 pm, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>
> > bikensoar wrote:
> > > The truly amazing thing about a system like BRS is the lives that
> > > have been saved at very low deployment altitudes. There have
> > > been saves as low as 200 ft. agl.
>
> > Details, please, otherwise I will view this as half facts and
> > disinformation 8^)
>
> > Marc
>
> uh, isnt this Rec.Misinformation.Aviation.Soaring ??? or am I lost? ;)


Marc
There have been no glider BRS deployments that I know of at
such low altitudes but there have been many saves by ballistic
and hand deployed (still attached to the aircraft) parchutes on
motorized ultralights, hang gliders and paragliders.

I have personally seen a hand deployed chute on a paraglider
open and function below 100ft. agl.

I have also deployed a ballistic chute on a paraglider over a
lake and had full deployment in less than100ft. (on purpose)

Check with BRS. I am sure they have statistics on many low
saves.

I would also fire off my BRS if I was going to crash land in
trees or steep rocky terrain. Not because of a glider failure,
but a pilot error.

George

[bikensoar]

On Sep 13, 11:33 am, Paul Hanson
> wrote:
> At 17:36 13 September 2007, Bikensoar wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sep 13, 9:05 am, JS wrote:
> >> The Sparrowhawk which was repeatedly flown far over
> >>redline, ripping
> >> the wings off, provided an interesting BRS experiment.
> >> Opening shock was sufficient to launch the pilot out
> >>of the fuselage.
> >> Fortunately he was wearing a pilot emergency parachute.
> >> There is evidently more to develop in BRS technology.
> >>Aircraft which
> >> deploy ballistic chutes don't always look or behave
> >>like the Cirrus or
> >> Discus used in the certification experiments.
> >> Jim
>
> >Jim......You are misinformed about the Owl project.
> > The BRS was
> >never deployed by the pilot. The glider went well
> >past redline. It
> >reached flutter speed. the glider literally disintegrated
> > with the
> >pilot
> >being ejected through the canopy still strapped into
> >the seat pan.
>
> >The BRS deployed somehow on its own and the wreckage
> >descended
> >safely to the ground.
>
> >It would be difficult for any recovery system to work
> >well once the
> >aircraft was 40-50 knots over redline.
>
> >The fact that the BRS worked at those speeds is very
> >encouraging
> >to me.
>
> >The truly amazing thing about a system like BRS is
> >the lives that
> >have been saved at very low deployment altitudes.
> >There have
> >been saves as low as 200 ft. agl.
>
> >And once again, spreading half facts and misinformation
> >on this
> >site does a disservice to BRS and Windward Performance.
>
> >George Y
>
> George, I just attended the ESA (Experimental Sailplane
> Association, formerly SHA) western workshop in Tehachapi
> where Greg Cole (Sparrowhawk designer/Windward Perf
> owner for the uninformed) covered the 'Owl Project
> incedent' in his presentation, and Jim is basically
> correct. BTW, this is the incident I was referring
> to in my earlier post about a flutter breakup and how
> smart it was for the pilot to also have a personal
> chute cause' it saves his a$$ when the BRS ejected
> him, but did not want to mention names at that point,
> out of respect. But since it is out for open discussion,
> I will add this. The wings fluttered off at 170kts
> (the calculated flutter speed BTW) during a botched
> 'extreme envelope test' involving manually performed
> aerobatic maneuvers to gather data for an autopilot
> system destined for it's UAV application. When the
> BRS was deployed, by the pilot, he was ejected through
> the airframe under the extreme G's (I forgot the exact
> number they calculated, but it was very high) pulled
> during the ensuing deceleration in lawn dart configuration.
> Good thing he had his personal chute (and I believe
> a helmet too for that matter)...
> I am not at all against the BRS (and certainly not
> against Windward, I personally love the Sparrowhawk,
> which performs quite admirably within it's design parameters),
> I just think a BRS should not be considered a 'substitute'
> for a personal chute, but rather a nice addition. Most
> people need a cushion in the cockpit. Yours can be
> made of dirty laundry if you wanted, but I will always
> use a chute to fill that role, and think that others
> should be encouraged to do the same. I have had this
> conversation with several of the pilots at my club,
> where incidentally the only fatality there was a fellow
> who was not wearing his chute (that day only) when
> his HP-14 controls jammed and a spin became unrecoverable.
> A BRS would have done the job nicely that time, but
> from 5,000 AGL he also had plenty of altitude to jump
> ship.
> Wear your chutes folks, accidents are not planned events
> and you can't guarantee the BRS will operate properly
> after an incident/accident that requires you to use
> it, but get a BRS if you can as they are indeed great
> inventions.
>
> Paul Hanson
> "Do the usual, unusually well"--Len Niemi- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Paul
The Owl pilot also had trouble with his parachute. There
were some canopy frame or fuselage parts that were
preventing him from deploying his parachute. He finally
was able to deploy his chute at around 500' agl. He is
very lucky to be alive. He only had a couple more
seconds.

I am happy to have a BRS in my Sparrowhawk.
Because of my height, I am unable to wear a parachute
in most gliders. All I have in my SH is a piece of sheep
skin on the seat pan. That gives me about 1/2 in.
clearance for the canopy.
George

[Dan G]

On Sep 13, 7:33 pm, Paul Hanson
> wrote:
> Wear your chutes folks

A pilot in Britain died in 2002 when his glider was damaged in a
collision but he did not have a parachute. The pilot who had flown the
glider previously did not use a parachute due to his size, and when
the accident pilot got into the glider afterwards he did not get a
parachute to use himself. When a person helping him board commented on
the lack of a parachute, the accident pilot replied "it'll be
alright".


Dan

[Ian]

On 14 Sep, 10:05, Dan G > wrote:
> On Sep 13, 7:33 pm, Paul Hanson
>
> > wrote:
> > Wear your chutes folks
>
> A pilot in Britain died in 2002 when his glider was damaged in a
> collision but he did not have a parachute. The pilot who had flown the
> glider previously did not use a parachute due to his size, and when
> the accident pilot got into the glider afterwards he did not get a
> parachute to use himself. When a person helping him board commented on
> the lack of a parachute, the accident pilot replied "it'll be
> alright".

But remember the Idaflieg survey which found no evidence that anyone
had ever made the decision to use a parachute from a glider below
500m and survived. There were a fair number of cases when the actual
deployment happened much lower but it seems that the time it takes to
leave a glider as about the time it takes a badly damaged glider to
fall 500m.

I don;t wear a parachute when flying myself: I prefer "not hitting
things" to "trying to survive after hitting things"...

Ian

[Bert Willing[_2_]]

I assume that you also don't wear the safety belt in your car, and have
disabled the airbags...

Bert

"Ian" > wrote in message > I don;t wear a
parachute when flying myself: I prefer "not hitting
> things" to "trying to survive after hitting things"...
>
> Ian
>
>

[Bullwinkle]

On 9/14/07 5:36 AM, in article
. com, "Ian"
> wrote:

> On 14 Sep, 10:05, Dan G > wrote:
>> On Sep 13, 7:33 pm, Paul Hanson
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> Wear your chutes folks
>>
>> A pilot in Britain died in 2002 when his glider was damaged in a
>> collision but he did not have a parachute. The pilot who had flown the
>> glider previously did not use a parachute due to his size, and when
>> the accident pilot got into the glider afterwards he did not get a
>> parachute to use himself. When a person helping him board commented on
>> the lack of a parachute, the accident pilot replied "it'll be
>> alright".
>
> But remember the Idaflieg survey which found no evidence that anyone
> had ever made the decision to use a parachute from a glider below
> 500m and survived. There were a fair number of cases when the actual
> deployment happened much lower but it seems that the time it takes to
> leave a glider as about the time it takes a badly damaged glider to
> fall 500m.
>
> I don;t wear a parachute when flying myself: I prefer "not hitting
> things" to "trying to survive after hitting things"...
>
> Ian
>
>
Here in the US authorities tried for many years to teach drivers to avoid
having accidents. It just didn't work, and the injury and fatality rate from
motor vehicle accidents only began to come down when seat belts, airbags,
better designed highways, better crash design of vehicles, a more deployed
and trained EMS system and many other innovations came into being.

"Just don't crash" just doesn't work. It's a delusion to believe otherwise.

Respectfully,
Bullwinkle

[Markus Gayda]

Ian schrieb:
> I don;t wear a parachute when flying myself: I prefer "not hitting
> things" to "trying to survive after hitting things"...

Ian,

Just in case you are serious about the above:
that is about the dumbest comment i have read on RAS in a loooong time.

A friend of mine:
- didn't want a collision!
- had a FLARM! (as had his opponent)
- had a parachute!

- died anyway in a collision approx. 200m above a mountain two months ago in
our glider.

HE did not have enough time to bail out... but others had the time.
And i guess they also thought "i wont ever hit anything...".

..... argh... i just hope your sarcasm cought me unaware.

Happy landings
Markus

[Ian]

On 14 Sep, 13:23, "Bert Willing" >
wrote:

> "Ian" > wrote in message

> I don;t wear a
> parachute when flying myself: I prefer "not hitting
> > things" to "trying to survive after hitting things"...

> I assume that you also don't wear the safety belt in your car, and have
> disabled the airbags...

I wear a safety belt because it's there and easy. On the other hand,
when I delivered a friend's Daimler Dart a few hundred miles last
year, I didn;t wear a seat belt because it doesn't have them.

None of my cars have airbags fitted and I do not wish a car which has
them. In seatbelt wearing cultures - unlike the US - the benefits are
marginal at best, and I have absolutely no faith that these things
will remain stable and reliable as the cars age.

Did you know that there is now good evidence that the thick A-posts
required for side airbags reduced visibility to such an extent that
the accident rate is noticeably increased. The casualty rate too,
because an airbag does little for the pedestrian you hit ...

My glider has a parachute. It is of unknown make and unknown type and
has not, to my certain knowledge, been serviced for twelve years. I
barely even trust it as a cushion on the grass. Sure, I could go out
and buy a nice new one, but it's just not high on my list of things to
spend good money on. If others want to buy parachutes - fine. Their
decision. And mine.

Lots of clubs use parachutes all the time in two seaters, even for
winch circuits. They are utterly useless for those flights, since
there simply isn't time to get out and use them if something does
happen. So the only result is that the parachutes get chucked around
more and the chances of damage leading to a malfunction if/when they
ever are needed is increased...

Ian

PS Do you ever drive at more than 50kph?

Finally ...

[Ian]

On 14 Sep, 14:36, Markus Gayda > wrote:
> Ian schrieb:
>
> > I don;t wear a parachute when flying myself: I prefer "not hitting
> > things" to "trying to survive after hitting things"...

> Just in case you are serious about the above:
> that is about the dumbest comment i have read on RAS in a loooong time.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

> A friend of mine:
> - didn't want a collision!
> - had a FLARM! (as had his opponent)
> - had a parachute!
>
> - died anyway in a collision approx. 200m above a mountain two months ago in
> our glider.

Proves my point. He should have learned to fly better, instead of
trusting the technology to save him. What happened to the poor guy he
hit?

Ian

[Ian]

On 14 Sep, 13:40, Bullwinkle > wrote:

> Here in the US authorities tried for many years to teach drivers to avoid
> having accidents. It just didn't work, and the injury and fatality rate from
> motor vehicle accidents only began to come down when seat belts, airbags,
> better designed highways, better crash design of vehicles, a more deployed
> and trained EMS system and many other innovations came into being.

And how many of these things would have been necessary if driving
training was as stringent as flying training?

> "Just don't crash" just doesn't work. It's a delusion to believe otherwise.

The only alternative is "Just don't fly". Expecting /anything/ to save
you is insanity.

Ian

[Dan G]

On Sep 14, 12:36 pm, Ian > wrote:
> But remember the Idaflieg survey which found no evidence that anyone
> had ever made the decision to use a parachute from a glider below
> 500m and survived.

I posted a link to an accident report earlier where a pilot had a
collision at 1,500' (slightly less than 500 m), and survived by
bailing out.

In the accident I referred to where the pilot was not wearing a
parachute, the collision occured at 2,500'; however, the report did
note that it whether the pilot would have had time to bail was an
unknown (the glider impacted the ground 30 s after collision - must
have been a very uncomfortable period).

With driving, there are too many other vehicles and too many poor
drivers to guarantee that you can avoid having a collision, so I drive
the safest car I can afford (going by the SafeCar and EuroNCAP tests).

With gliding, however, you have really only yourself to blame if you
have an accident. While I fully support FLARM, there's no stealth
gliders out there which you can't see before they hit you. Whether or
not you stall/spin at below 500' and whether or not you land in a safe
field is entirely down to oneself. So I don't particularly go out of
my way to fly gliders with good crash impact performance (i.e., any
ASW from 24 on, followed by DG 101s on). I still wear a parachute
though - that's a no-brainer, with a proven record of saving lives.


Dan

[bumper]

Ian,

Just a couple of years ago, a friend of mine told me he didn't use a chute
as he had back problems. I invited him to sit in my glider and see how
comfortable a well fitted chute could be (I've added Confor lumbar padding a
sheepskin so it really is comfy.).

He didn't take me up on the offer, but asked if I used a parachute in my
certified Mooney. When I answered, "No", he said, "There - - same thing, my
glider is certified too. If I have a problem I'll ride it down."

He was dead two month later, not a mid-air, but the wings came of the ship
and . . . he rode it down.

Your comment reminds me of the people who refuse to wear seat belts, saying
that if they do have and accident, they'd rather be "thrown clear" so as to
avoid the wreckage. No offense, but that makes about as much sense.

bumper
ZZ Minden


"Ian" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On 14 Sep, 10:05, Dan G > wrote:
>> On Sep 13, 7:33 pm, Paul Hanson
>>
>> > wrote:
>> > Wear your chutes folks
>>
>> A pilot in Britain died in 2002 when his glider was damaged in a
>> collision but he did not have a parachute. The pilot who had flown the
>> glider previously did not use a parachute due to his size, and when
>> the accident pilot got into the glider afterwards he did not get a
>> parachute to use himself. When a person helping him board commented on
>> the lack of a parachute, the accident pilot replied "it'll be
>> alright".
>
> But remember the Idaflieg survey which found no evidence that anyone
> had ever made the decision to use a parachute from a glider below
> 500m and survived. There were a fair number of cases when the actual
> deployment happened much lower but it seems that the time it takes to
> leave a glider as about the time it takes a badly damaged glider to
> fall 500m.
>
> I don;t wear a parachute when flying myself: I prefer "not hitting
> things" to "trying to survive after hitting things"...
>
> Ian
>
>

[Dan G]

On Sep 14, 6:43 pm, Ian > wrote:
> Did you know that there is now good evidence that the thick A-posts
> required for side airbags reduced visibility to such an extent that
> the accident rate is noticeably increased.

While I have no desire to drag this thread off-topic, you really need
to provide a reference for that statement, or withdraw it. I've
certainly heard no such thing.


Dan

[Ramy]

On Sep 14, 4:36 am, Ian > wrote:
> On 14 Sep, 10:05, Dan G > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 13, 7:33 pm, Paul Hanson
>
> > > wrote:
> > > Wear your chutes folks
>
> > A pilot in Britain died in 2002 when his glider was damaged in a
> > collision but he did not have a parachute. The pilot who had flown the
> > glider previously did not use a parachute due to his size, and when
> > the accident pilot got into the glider afterwards he did not get a
> > parachute to use himself. When a person helping him board commented on
> > the lack of a parachute, the accident pilot replied "it'll be
> > alright".
>
> But remember the Idaflieg survey which found no evidence that anyone
> had ever made the decision to use a parachute from a glider below
> 500m and survived. There were a fair number of cases when the actual
> deployment happened much lower but it seems that the time it takes to
> leave a glider as about the time it takes a badly damaged glider to
> fall 500m.
>
> I don;t wear a parachute when flying myself: I prefer "not hitting
> things" to "trying to survive after hitting things"...
>
> Ian

Interesting. I take it that you never fly above 500m and that you have
a shield around your glider protecting it from other "things" hitting
it, especially from behind. Or maybe you believe that "see and avoid"
really works. We just had a guy last year at Minden which was above
500m and was hit by a thing and survived only thanks to his
parachute.

Ramy

[Eric Greenwell]

Ramy wrote:

>> I don;t wear a parachute when flying myself: I prefer "not hitting
>> things" to "trying to survive after hitting things"...
>>
>> Ian
>
> Interesting. I take it that you never fly above 500m and that you have
> a shield around your glider protecting it from other "things" hitting
> it, especially from behind. Or maybe you believe that "see and avoid"
> really works. We just had a guy last year at Minden which was above
> 500m and was hit by a thing and survived only thanks to his
> parachute.

Hitting things, or getting hit, are not the only hazards, unfortunately:
the glider controls can malfunction; structures fail from undetected
damage or manufacturing errors; lightning strikes; getting sucked into
cloud; microbursts; unrecoverable spins from errors in CG location; and
likely others I don't recall. 30 years and 5000+ hours in gliders has
taught me that I'm fallible, mother nature is tricky, equipment fails,
and other pilots can be boneheads; therefore, I might need a parachute
or crashworthy glider, so I have both.

--
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]

On 14 Sep, 18:45, Ian > wrote:
> On 14 Sep, 14:36, Markus Gayda > wrote:
>
> > Ian schrieb:
>
> > > I don;t wear a parachute when flying myself: I prefer "not hitting
> > > things" to "trying to survive after hitting things"...
> > Just in case you are serious about the above:
> > that is about the dumbest comment i have read on RAS in a loooong time.
>
> I'm sorry you feel that way.
>
> > A friend of mine:
> > - didn't want a collision!
> > - had a FLARM! (as had his opponent)
> > - had a parachute!
>
> > - died anyway in a collision approx. 200m above a mountain two months ago in
> > our glider.
>
> Proves my point. He should have learned to fly better, instead of
> trusting the technology to save him. What happened to the poor guy he
> hit?

I have reread my response at leisure, and have realise that I
overlooked the words "friend" and "our glider". So I apologize if I
sounded heartless - that wasn't my intention.

Ian

[Ian]

On 14 Sep, 19:43, Dan G > wrote:
> On Sep 14, 12:36 pm, Ian > wrote:
>
> > But remember the Idaflieg survey which found no evidence that anyone
> > had ever made the decision to use a parachute from a glider below
> > 500m and survived.
>
> I posted a link to an accident report earlier where a pilot had a
> collision at 1,500' (slightly less than 500 m), and survived by
> bailing out.

Thanks. The Idaflieg report was some years ago.

> With driving, there are too many other vehicles and too many poor
> drivers to guarantee that you can avoid having a collision, so I drive
> the safest car I can afford (going by the SafeCar and EuroNCAP tests).

I drive a selection of old cars ... carefully ...

> With gliding, however, you have really only yourself to blame if you
> have an accident.

I agree. I have always thought the the S&G accident reports should
have a meta-category of reasons (above "instructor failed to take over
in time", "rigging error" and so on) to include "plain bad luck" and
"plain bloody stupidity". The latter would, I am quite sure, cover at
least 90% of accidents.

> I still wear a parachute
> though - that's a no-brainer, with a proven record of saving lives.

Doesn't that sit uneasily with what you wrote above? It seems a bit
fatalistic.

Ian

[Ian]

On 14 Sep, 19:43, "bumper" > wrote:
> Ian,
>
> Just a couple of years ago, a friend of mine told me he didn't use a chute
> as he had back problems. I invited him to sit in my glider and see how
> comfortable a well fitted chute could be (I've added Confor lumbar padding a
> sheepskin so it really is comfy.).
>
> He didn't take me up on the offer, but asked if I used a parachute in my
> certified Mooney. When I answered, "No", he said, "There - - same thing, my
> glider is certified too. If I have a problem I'll ride it down."
>
> He was dead two month later, not a mid-air, but the wings came of the ship
> and . . . he rode it down.

If the wings had come off 1000 feet above ground he'd have been dead
even with a parachute. "Making sure the wings don't come off" (why did
they?) seems to me a much more all-encompassing precaution than "Doing
something which increases my chances of survival a bit if the wings
come off at the right time"

> Your comment reminds me of the people who refuse to wear seat belts, saying
> that if they do have and accident, they'd rather be "thrown clear" so as to
> avoid the wreckage. No offense, but that makes about as much sense.

And as much sense as people who don't wear parachutes in a certified
Mooney? Seriously, why not?

Ian

[Mike Schumann]

Just because you have a mid-air, it is not necessarily your fault or
something you could have avoided. A good example is being hit by a power
aircraft overtaking you from behind.

The reality is that seeing aircraft that are on a collision course with you,
even if you know where they are can be incredibly difficult. I am a big
believer in prevention (installing transponders, etc....) but having a BRS
is, like an airbag, a nice feature to have when everything else fails.

Mike Schumann

"Dan G" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Sep 14, 12:36 pm, Ian > wrote:
>> But remember the Idaflieg survey which found no evidence that anyone
>> had ever made the decision to use a parachute from a glider below
>> 500m and survived.
>
> I posted a link to an accident report earlier where a pilot had a
> collision at 1,500' (slightly less than 500 m), and survived by
> bailing out.
>
> In the accident I referred to where the pilot was not wearing a
> parachute, the collision occured at 2,500'; however, the report did
> note that it whether the pilot would have had time to bail was an
> unknown (the glider impacted the ground 30 s after collision - must
> have been a very uncomfortable period).
>
> With driving, there are too many other vehicles and too many poor
> drivers to guarantee that you can avoid having a collision, so I drive
> the safest car I can afford (going by the SafeCar and EuroNCAP tests).
>
> With gliding, however, you have really only yourself to blame if you
> have an accident. While I fully support FLARM, there's no stealth
> gliders out there which you can't see before they hit you. Whether or
> not you stall/spin at below 500' and whether or not you land in a safe
> field is entirely down to oneself. So I don't particularly go out of
> my way to fly gliders with good crash impact performance (i.e., any
> ASW from 24 on, followed by DG 101s on). I still wear a parachute
> though - that's a no-brainer, with a proven record of saving lives.
>
>
> Dan
>



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

[J a c k]

Ian wrote:

> And as much sense as people who don't wear parachutes in a certified
> Mooney? Seriously, why not?


They are just too busy flying beyond the range allowed by their fuel
[the number one cause of accidents] to worry abut jumping out when
they've done so.


Jack

[Ian]

On 15 Sep, 20:45, J a c k > wrote:
> Ian wrote:
> > And as much sense as people who don't wear parachutes in a certified
> > Mooney? Seriously, why not?
>
> They are just too busy flying beyond the range allowed by their fuel
> [the number one cause of accidents] to worry abut jumping out when
> they've done so.

I am amazed that nobody seems to have come up with a really reliable
fuel gauge for light aircraft. I know it's a fairly small market, but
aviation prices are high: I'd have thought it would be worth
somebody's time.

Ian

[J a c k]

Ian wrote:

> I am amazed that nobody seems to have come up with a really reliable
> fuel gauge for light aircraft. I know it's a fairly small market, but
> aviation prices are high: I'd have thought it would be worth
> somebody's time.

Why? The flight manual and a stick, verified by experience, work very well.

Inaccurate gauges are not the cause of the problem.



Jack

[Ian]

On 16 Sep, 07:55, J a c k > wrote:
> Ian wrote:
> > I am amazed that nobody seems to have come up with a really reliable
> > fuel gauge for light aircraft. I know it's a fairly small market, but
> > aviation prices are high: I'd have thought it would be worth
> > somebody's time.
>
> Why? The flight manual and a stick, verified by experience, work very well.

Not great for real time info in-flight, though. Particularly the
stick.

> Inaccurate gauges are not the cause of the problem.

No, but accurate gauges might help solve it.

Ian

[Vaughn Simon]

"J a c k" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Why? The flight manual and a stick, verified by experience, work very well.

The flight manual will only tell you what to expect from an average, new
aircraft of your model. Experience can only tell you what to expect from your
airplane under typical conditions. A fuel guage would tell you what is actually
in your airplane's tanks today, on this flight, right now. I can think of
several reasons (such as a fuel leak)why an airplane might suddenly have less
gas in it than even an excellent preflight procedure, backed up by years of
experience, would lead you to expect.
>
> Inaccurate gauges are not the cause of the problem.

No, but an accurate fuel guage could certainly warn you about a problem.


Next, you are probably going to say that it is perfectly OK to have crappy
brakes on our gliders because we should all be making our landings at the proper
speed into adequate fields, while always exactly hitting our aim point. (typed
with a grin)

Vaughn

[Bill Daniels]

"Ian" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On 16 Sep, 07:55, J a c k > wrote:
>> Ian wrote:
>> > I am amazed that nobody seems to have come up with a really reliable
>> > fuel gauge for light aircraft. I know it's a fairly small market, but
>> > aviation prices are high: I'd have thought it would be worth
>> > somebody's time.
>>
>> Why? The flight manual and a stick, verified by experience, work very
>> well.
>
> Not great for real time info in-flight, though. Particularly the
> stick.
>
>> Inaccurate gauges are not the cause of the problem.
>
> No, but accurate gauges might help solve it.
>
> Ian

A accurate fuel gauge would be very helpful. There are many things that can
throw off fuel consumption calculations.

I've proposed to homebuilders that an infrared CCTV camera with IR LED
illumination looking through a small window into the tanks which contain a
simple stick scale showing remaining fuel. There's something comforting
about the idea of actually seeing an image of the remaining fuel.
Fortunately, solid state TV is very cheap these days.

BD

[Michael Ash]

J a c k > wrote:
> Ian wrote:
>
>> I am amazed that nobody seems to have come up with a really reliable
>> fuel gauge for light aircraft. I know it's a fairly small market, but
>> aviation prices are high: I'd have thought it would be worth
>> somebody's time.
>
> Why? The flight manual and a stick, verified by experience, work very well.
>
> Inaccurate gauges are not the cause of the problem.

Do you, or anyone else, schedule fuel stops for your car by taking its
average miles per gallon (or hours per gallon) and multiplying it by the
length of your trip, all the while ignoring that terrible imprecise fuel
guage? Personally I just drive around until the thing is around the red
area that says "you're getting close", then I stop for fuel. When I'm
going to go through an area where fuel is scarce, I will stop if the guage
is higher. Trying to calculate the fuel burn from first principles seems
like the sort of thing that's likely to leave me stranded in the mountains
with no gas. Why doesn't this work for aircraft? (He asks, as a glider
pilot with no power rating.)

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Michael Ash]

Michael Ash > wrote:
> guage?

And apparently I can't spell "gauge". Repeatedly. Apologies for any eye
pain.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Bruce]

Funny thing is - I have two cars with digital fuel injection management.
On both of them the fuel consumption average is extremely accurate. (<2% error)
This measured over tens of thousands of kilometres. As an example of how common
this is these days - even my Renault Scenic was reliable (At least the fuel/trip
computer part was)

When my car says - X distance to empty tank, or X litres remaining - I tend to
believe it...

Conversely the power loading on an aircraft and the distance through the air
between two points on the map, can vary considerably over even short periods. So
while "Distance remaining" is unlikely to be available, it must be possible to
build an accurate "fuel used" calculator. If you could get an accurate gauge you
would then be able to derive an accurate "Time remaining at current power
setting" metric. Problem is the bit about digital fuel injector system - it
KNOWS how much fuel it injected and only checks the float for a "sanity" check -
the stuff they generally attach to the prehistoric things behind the propeller
on the average spam can is basically a graduated fuel leak, so you would be
entirely reliant on the float and sender unit. The only time these are
relatively accurate is on level ground without agitation. Many (most?) aircraft
are not refuelled in a flying attitude so the initial reading is inaccurate,
then in flight the wet stuff is sloshing around - challenging to read accurately
with a float. Which is why sight gauges are so popular - and the accurate light
aircraft fuel gauge is an oxymoron.

Wait - I did see one that worked very well once - a paint graduated wire with a
cork on it in a Pietenpol Aircamper - if the little red knob on the end of the
wire reached the top of the cowling you were about one minute away from becoming
a glider - which is the preferred method of flight.

Michael Ash wrote:
> J a c k > wrote:
>> Ian wrote:
>>
>>> I am amazed that nobody seems to have come up with a really reliable
>>> fuel gauge for light aircraft. I know it's a fairly small market, but
>>> aviation prices are high: I'd have thought it would be worth
>>> somebody's time.
>> Why? The flight manual and a stick, verified by experience, work very well.
>>
>> Inaccurate gauges are not the cause of the problem.
>
> Do you, or anyone else, schedule fuel stops for your car by taking its
> average miles per gallon (or hours per gallon) and multiplying it by the
> length of your trip, all the while ignoring that terrible imprecise fuel
> guage? Personally I just drive around until the thing is around the red
> area that says "you're getting close", then I stop for fuel. When I'm
> going to go through an area where fuel is scarce, I will stop if the guage
> is higher. Trying to calculate the fuel burn from first principles seems
> like the sort of thing that's likely to leave me stranded in the mountains
> with no gas. Why doesn't this work for aircraft? (He asks, as a glider
> pilot with no power rating.)
>

[Ian]

On 16 Sep, 19:41, Bruce > wrote:

> The only time these are
> relatively accurate is on level ground without agitation. Many (most?) aircraft
> are not refuelled in a flying attitude so the initial reading is inaccurate,
> then in flight the wet stuff is sloshing around - challenging to read accurately
> with a float. Which is why sight gauges are so popular - and the accurate light
> aircraft fuel gauge is an oxymoron.

Who said anything about a float? I can think of three ways of doing it
without one, and that's off the top of my head in ten seconds. There
will be many, many others.

Ian

[J a c k]

Michael Ash wrote:
> J a c k > wrote:
>> Ian wrote:
>>
>>> I am amazed that nobody seems to have come up with a really reliable
>>> fuel gauge for light aircraft. I know it's a fairly small market, but
>>> aviation prices are high: I'd have thought it would be worth
>>> somebody's time.
>> Why? The flight manual and a stick, verified by experience, work very well.
>>
>> Inaccurate gauges are not the cause of the problem.
>
> Do you, or anyone else, schedule fuel stops for your car by taking its
> average miles per gallon (or hours per gallon) and multiplying it by the
> length of your trip, all the while ignoring that terrible imprecise fuel
> guage? Personally I just drive around until the thing is around the red
> area that says "you're getting close", then I stop for fuel. When I'm
> going to go through an area where fuel is scarce, I will stop if the guage
> is higher. Trying to calculate the fuel burn from first principles seems
> like the sort of thing that's likely to leave me stranded in the mountains
> with no gas. Why doesn't this work for aircraft? (He asks, as a glider
> pilot with no power rating.)



I do _schedule_ auto fuel stops according to known fuel consumption
rates. Enroute, I ignore neither the fuel-related information
presentation nor factors known to affect consumption (or retention), so
that modifications to the basic plan can be made in the case of
unforeseen conditions mechanical or environmental. There is no
procedural difference between fuel planning in a boat, a car, nor an
aircraft. Some aspects of the process are more prominent in one mode
than in the others, but all are present in each.

The perfect fuel gauge would be a fine thing. When the market calls for
something better and is willing to pay for it, I'm sure Cessna, Piper,
and Beech will be able to supply improved systems. My contention is that
it is operator error which causes almost all fuel-starvation incidents.
Running out of gas causes a significant proportion of serious accidents
in light planes.

Fuel leaks are not a large part of the problem, but even an inaccurate
gauge can give warning of a fuel leak, if it is monitored as it should
be. There are also windows, in most cockpits. I have caught fuel leaks
visually twice, prior to entering the enroute phase of flight. Our tow
pilots do not _plan_ refueling according to the fuel gauge in the tow
plane. They do monitor the system, while planning for refueling based on
number of tows, with a substantial pad.

Pre-flight and in-flight planning, and total-system monitoring, would be
required anyway, _even if our fuel gauges were far more accurate than
they are._ To the extent it inspired misplaced confidence, the better
fuel gauge could lead pilots to ignore the other aspects of fuel
planning and monitoring which should be second nature to every power
pilot and are essential in every flight, whether terrestrial or
interplanetary.

An airliner's fuel quantity indicating system is relatively more
accurate and reliable, but even they malfunction. Large aircraft
normally have complex fuel systems consisting of multiple tanks,
multiple pumps, multiple routes for feeding from tanks to engines,
cross-feeding from tank to tank, etc., coupled of course with multiple
failure modes. All this complexity is accompanied by the appropriate
"gauges", indicators, and controls--some even automatic. Still, the
basics of planning and monitoring are essential.

Pilots have run out of gas in Cubs with a cork-float-and-wire fuel level
indicator mounted through the fuel cap directly in front of the pilot
and visible through the windscreen. Pilots have run out of gas in
aircraft with a wing-root located transparent tube visible in the
cockpit which allows the pilot to view the level of gas in the tank.
Better fuel gauges are welcome, but are not the solution to the problems
of fuel management.


Jack

[Andreas Maurer[_1_]]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 04:36:16 -0700, Ian >
wrote:


>But remember the Idaflieg survey which found no evidence that anyone
>had ever made the decision to use a parachute from a glider below
>500m and survived.

I'm pretty sure that someone misread that survey. I personally know
three people who bailed out of a glider below 1.000 ft and survived.




Bye
Andreas

[Ian]

On 17 Sep, 13:33, Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 04:36:16 -0700, Ian >
> wrote:
>
> >But remember the Idaflieg survey which found no evidence that anyone
> >had ever made the decision to use a parachute from a glider below
> >500m and survived.
>
> I'm pretty sure that someone misread that survey. I personally know
> three people who bailed out of a glider below 1.000 ft and survived.

As I recall, it was the "made the decision" bit which was critical -
there were people who had bailed out below 500m, but they had all made
the decision to do so while higher. However, I'd welcome correction
or, better still, a copy of the report. Anyone?

Ian

[brtlmj]

> As I recall, it was the "made the decision" bit which was critical -
> there were people who had bailed out below 500m, but they had all made
> the decision to do so while higher. However, I'd welcome correction
> or, better still, a copy of the report. Anyone?

I recall my instructor telling me about a guy who got winched with
disconnected controls (or maybe they jammed during the launch?). By
the time he got to the top of the launch he was unstrapped and the
canopy was gone. He jumped and survived. The decision to jump was
obviously made well below 500m.

Bartek

[Mike Schumann]

That's a different scenario. It sounds like this guy had some time to get
ready and initiate the bailout while his ship was still climbing and under
some control. That's a lot different than having a mid-air at 1,000' AGL.

Mike Schumann

"brtlmj" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> As I recall, it was the "made the decision" bit which was critical -
>> there were people who had bailed out below 500m, but they had all made
>> the decision to do so while higher. However, I'd welcome correction
>> or, better still, a copy of the report. Anyone?
>
> I recall my instructor telling me about a guy who got winched with
> disconnected controls (or maybe they jammed during the launch?). By
> the time he got to the top of the launch he was unstrapped and the
> canopy was gone. He jumped and survived. The decision to jump was
> obviously made well below 500m.
>
> Bartek
>
>



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

[brtlmj]

> That's a different scenario. It sounds like this guy had some time to get
> ready and initiate the bailout while his ship was still climbing and under
> some control. That's a lot different than having a mid-air at 1,000' AGL.

Absolutely. When he realized he had to jump he was going UP, not
falling down. It was just an example.
Still, I can easily imagine someone having a low - level midair and
then having quite w few minutes to decide whether to jump or not.
One's glider does not have to disintegrate.

Bartek

[Andreas Maurer[_1_]]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:49:13 -0700, Ian >
wrote:


>As I recall, it was the "made the decision" bit which was critical -
>there were people who had bailed out below 500m, but they had all made
>the decision to do so while higher. However, I'd welcome correction
>or, better still, a copy of the report. Anyone?

I only counted people who *made the decision* below 1.000 ft. One was
a winch launch in an ASW-19 with disconnected elevator, the other two
were Ka-8's involved in a midair immediately after a winch launch.


One the other hand, I also had the doubtful pleasure to watch a pilot
who made his decision to bail out at about 3.000 ft after the wing of
his Lo-100 disintegrated during aerobatics. His parachute opened at
less than 100 ft over the ground. He survived uninjured.




Bye
Andreas

[Frank Whiteley]

On Sep 17, 4:39 pm, brtlmj > wrote:
> > That's a different scenario. It sounds like this guy had some time to get
> > ready and initiate the bailout while his ship was still climbing and under
> > some control. That's a lot different than having a mid-air at 1,000' AGL.
>
> Absolutely. When he realized he had to jump he was going UP, not
> falling down. It was just an example.
> Still, I can easily imagine someone having a low - level midair and
> then having quite w few minutes to decide whether to jump or not.
> One's glider does not have to disintegrate.
>
> Bartek

IIRC, there was quite an endorsement of Irving parachutes some years
ago when a pilot bailed out of his fluttering Yugo Open Cirrus at
Inkpen at 100ft. 100kts horizontal component is needed at that
altitude..

Frank Whiteley