Glider Cockpit Safety

I think anyone who has read the "too many deaths" thread has been sobered. When we take to the air, we are accepting a far greater degree of risk than the vast majority every will. We do it because of the personal satisfaction we receive, which makes our lives brighter as a whole.

But I also wonder whether, as a community, we should be applying pressure to manufacturers to focus more on safety, rather than finding that last .01% of performance, in their new glider designs. I've watched a lot of Formula 1 lately, where 200mph+ crashes are a regular occurrence. More often than not, the drivers walk away without a scratch.

What is to prevent glider cockpits from implementing similar safety designs?

I have said this for years. But a heavy lift given the scale of our sailplane manufacturers. I suspect complying with new easa g requirements has already required a lot of effort.

But I would buy a little heavier and draggier new glider if it had a cage that meant less certainty of vertebral and ankle fractures with most glider impacts. Stick one human in a downsized two-place fuselage surrounded by whatever cage the F1 guys have, and there would have to be less morbidity, wouldn't there? What does a cage weigh?

I love this sport more than anything, except seeing my family after an awesome flight...

On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 8:18:45 AM UTC-7, Kevin Christner wrote:
I think anyone who has read the "too many deaths" thread has been sobered.. When we take to the air, we are accepting a far greater degree of risk than the vast majority every will. We do it because of the personal satisfaction we receive, which makes our lives brighter as a whole.

But I also wonder whether, as a community, we should be applying pressure to manufacturers to focus more on safety, rather than finding that last .01% of performance, in their new glider designs. I've watched a lot of Formula 1 lately, where 200mph+ crashes are a regular occurrence. More often than not, the drivers walk away without a scratch.

What is to prevent glider cockpits from implementing similar safety designs?

I've seen some older designs after a serious crash where there wasn't much left of the cockpit. Sometimes there's nothing forward of the bulkhead behind the pilot.
....Gerhard Waibel started responding to your request with the ASW24.
Pilots should also participate in their own safety by avoiding loose stuff or pieces protruding into the cockpit that can either injure or just get in the way of egress. Senna was killed by something loose, even though the F1 roll cage held.
Does any glider manufacturer offering engine/motor options also offer a fire extinguisher option?
The ankle/leg injury solution is a tough one. This problem is still evident in "cab-over" trucks and there's much more money behind them.
Jim

I've watched a lot of Formula 1 lately, where 200mph+ crashes are a regular occurrence. More often than not, the drivers walk away without a scratch.

What is to prevent glider cockpits from implementing similar safety designs?

The primary factor that imparts superior crashworthiness to F1 and Indy cars is the suspension and wings that are sheared away during impact. As components are peeled off, energy is expended and deceleration happens over a longer period of time. By the time the "tub" surrounding the driver's cockpit is next in line for a pounding, the deceleration that has already taken place reduces the energy imparted to the remaining structure. Additionally, the design of the cockpit has multiple layers of extremely strong carbon fiber and Kevlar formed in such a way that forces are redistributed around the structure and withstand penetration and crushing. The many and regular crashes occurring over the years have provided a wealth of data for the design of each succeeding generation of racing cars. Very little data is collected for the teeny-tiny sailplane market, with only three or four manufactures worldwide.

Modern sailplanes comply with CS-22 crashworthiness standards that spell out minimum requirements for structural rigidity and cockpit penetration. Unfortunately, bringing crashworthiness up to F1 standards would require a cockpit that would be lots heavier and might not help much at all, as the deceleration of the little pink body inside is difficult to control. You can scramble an egg inside the shell.

Perhaps the next generation of composites (graphene, etc.) will allow for more robust structural integrity, but be prepared for a large price increase..

Ballistic chutes would save more lives then safety cockpit. Too bad that ballistic chutes are not built into every glider. There would be far less fatalities.

Ramy

OK, a couple posts by me since I can't do a multi copy on iPad...

Yes, AS started with crashworthy cockpits with the -24. I was shortly on scene to a Discus(?) crash due to hitting low wires on final.
Result......Canadian pilot with broken ankles/lower legs that a -24 "may" have prevented. He still flies.
Later AS ships have similar cockpit protection. Likely part of their marketing today.
I believe other mfr's do similar now.

Many peeps frown on SGS sailplanes, they (the mfr) knew about this maybe 50 years ago?
Sigh.......now it's a big thing?

Sorta peeves me off.

Yes, cockpit structure can help lessen injuries, that, is a good thing,

On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 12:56:44 PM UTC-5, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
OK, a couple posts by me since I can't do a multi copy on iPad...

Yes, AS started with crashworthy cockpits with the -24. I was shortly on scene to a Discus(?) crash due to hitting low wires on final.
Result......Canadian pilot with broken ankles/lower legs that a -24 "may" have prevented. He still flies.
Later AS ships have similar cockpit protection. Likely part of their marketing today.
I believe other mfr's do similar now.

Many peeps frown on SGS sailplanes, they (the mfr) knew about this maybe 50 years ago?
Sigh.......now it's a big thing?

Sorta peeves me off.

Yes, cockpit structure can help lessen injuries, that, is a good thing,

If SGS knew about cockpit protection, then they should have extended that knowledge to energy dissipation in the landing gear of the 2-33. Anyone sitting in the backseat of a 2-33 is sitting right over a very rigid structure that will transmit all the energy of a hard landing right into their back. Saw a 2-33 land hard, dropping in from about 4-6 feet (They were still trying to complete a turn from base to final and were literally dragging the wing on the ground!). The instructor was lifted out of the cockpit and carried away on a backboard.

Perhaps a first step would be to follow BGA's lead and require cushions to be energy-absorbing foam.

PA

The safest thing would be for us all to just fly Condor, eh?

Boggs

This may be of interest :

https://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/en/lib...-does-not-sell

Nick.