BRS chutes. Why doesn't everyone use them?

I'm just getting back into the sport after a long hiatus. I've seen that a lot of glider pilots fly with parachutes (ones they wear) and I have seen Ballistic Recovery System parachutes in planes as well. From my layman's view, it appears that getting out of a plane using a traditional chute after a mid-air collision seems exceedingly difficult and time-consuming. On the other hand, BRS chutes seem to deploy very fast and can be deployed very close to the ground. They can lower the entire plane safely to the ground in almost any terrain, and a few bruises to your bird or your body seems a lot better than certain death if you can't get out of a plane after a mid-air. So if this is true, and I am happy to say I am no expert, then why isn't everyone using these things? I think they should be mandatory in every new glider built. Thoughts?
Spark

Originally Posted by Sparkorama

I'm just getting back into the sport after a long hiatus. I've seen that a lot of glider pilots fly with parachutes (ones they wear) and I have seen Ballistic Recovery System parachutes in planes as well. From my layman's view, it appears that getting out of a plane using a traditional chute after a mid-air collision seems exceedingly difficult and time-consuming. On the other hand, BRS chutes seem to deploy very fast and can be deployed very close to the ground. They can lower the entire plane safely to the ground in almost any terrain, and a few bruises to your bird or your body seems a lot better than certain death if you can't get out of a plane after a mid-air. So if this is true, and I am happy to say I am no expert, then why isn't everyone using these things? I think they should be mandatory in every new glider built. Thoughts?
Spark

IMHO,
Sailplanes are the ultimate expression of aerodynamics, and as such, demand an almost fanatical devotion to efficiency. Nothing about a sailplanes' design or construction is superfluous. Indeed, a cockpit that is merely adequate in size is deemed a luxury. New gliders run from about $70,000 to over $300,000. I don't believe adding an explosive or pyrotechnic device with a very short life limit (read a few years) with an increase of an estimated $10,000 to $20,000 in cost is what the new glider buying public wants.
Also, while I don't have hard data, I think backpack worn parachutes have thousands of lives saved across all aviation, I think you would have a hard time finding even a hundred lives saved with BRS, I'll even give you any Fb-111 capsule deployments into the count.

IMHO, BRS belongs in LSA, new GA (read Cessna) and selected ultralite aviation as an owner/buyer option, even in gliders as optional equipment.
Never mandatory.
Scott.

At 05:22 20 January 2011, shkdriver wrote:

Sparkorama;760406 Wrote:
I'm just getting back into the sport after a long hiatus. I've seen
that
a lot of glider pilots fly with parachutes (ones they wear) and I have
seen Ballistic Recovery System parachutes in planes as well. From my
layman's view, it appears that getting out of a plane using a
traditional chute after a mid-air collision seems exceedingly
difficult
and time-consuming. On the other hand, BRS chutes seem to deploy very
fast and can be deployed very close to the ground. They can lower the
entire plane safely to the ground in almost any terrain, and a few
bruises to your bird or your body seems a lot better than certain
death
if you can't get out of a plane after a mid-air. So if this is true,
and
I am happy to say I am no expert, then why isn't everyone using these
things? I think they should be mandatory in every new glider built.
Thoughts?
Spark

IMHO,
Sailplanes are the ultimate expression of aerodynamics, and as
such, demand an almost fanatical devotion to efficiency. Nothing about a
sailplanes' design or construction is superfluous. Indeed, a cockpit
that is merely adequate in size is deemed a luxury. New gliders run from
about $70,000 to over $300,000. I don't believe adding an explosive or
pyrotechnic device with a very short life limit (read a few years) with
an increase of an estimated $10,000 to $20,000 in cost is what the new
glider buying public wants.
Also, while I don't have hard data, I think backpack worn
parachutes have thousands of lives saved across all aviation, I think
you would have a hard time finding even a hundred lives saved with BRS,
I'll even give you any Fb-111 capsule deployments into the count.

IMHO, BRS belongs in LSA, new GA (read Cessna) and selected
ultralite aviation as an owner/buyer option, even in gliders as optional
equipment.
Never mandatory.

Scott.




--
shkdriver

BRS claim 259 lives saved with their systems

http://www.brsaerospace.com/lives_saved.aspx

A glider sized internally mounted unit is around $6000, with a claimed 12
year lift for the rocket and a six year repack - so not unreasonable?
I'd be worried about accidental operation though.

There's always the ejector seat option

rocket powered :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAA4t...eature=related

or a strange sort of reverse airbag:

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/noah-e.html

If you read the passenger's report of a glider incident at the following
URL

http://sites.google.com/site/thebig4...theskiesagain/

you will see from the photographs that the damage in the area behind the
cockpit, where a BRS system would probably have been installed, was so
badly damaged that its unlikely that it would have worked. The pilot and
passenger both wore parachutes and survived.

Yes I know there are other accidents where the opposite argument can be
made - but I'm not aware of any statistics that come down firmly on one
approach versus the other in the gliding world where (in the UK at least)
parachutes are worn for a very high proportion of flights. In the power
world, where parachutes are worn infrequently, the value of BRS is likely
to be less ambiguous.

At 04:35 20 January 2011, Sparkorama wrote:

I'm just getting back into the sport after a long hiatus. I've seen
that
a lot of glider pilots fly with parachutes (ones they wear) and I have
seen Ballistic Recovery System parachutes in planes as well. From my
layman's view, it appears that getting out of a plane using a
traditional chute after a mid-air collision seems exceedingly difficult
and time-consuming. On the other hand, BRS chutes seem to deploy very
fast and can be deployed very close to the ground. They can lower the
entire plane safely to the ground in almost any terrain, and a few
bruises to your bird or your body seems a lot better than certain death
if you can't get out of a plane after a mid-air. So if this is true,
and
I am happy to say I am no expert, then why isn't everyone using these
things? I think they should be mandatory in every new glider built.
Thoughts?
Spark




--
Sparkorama

On Jan 20, 5:07*am, Big Wings wrote:
If you read the passenger's report of a glider incident at the following
URL

http://sites.google.com/site/thebig4...theskiesagain/

you will see from the photographs that the damage in the area behind the
cockpit, where a BRS system would probably have been installed, was so
badly damaged that its unlikely that it would have worked. *The pilot and
passenger both wore parachutes and survived.

Yes I know there are other accidents where the opposite argument can be
made - but I'm not aware of any statistics that come down firmly on one
approach versus the other in the gliding world where (in the UK at least)
parachutes are worn for a very high proportion of flights. *In the power
world, where parachutes are worn infrequently, the value of BRS is likely
to be less ambiguous.

At 04:35 20 January 2011, Sparkorama wrote:



I'm just getting back into the sport after a long hiatus. I've seen
that
a lot of glider pilots fly with parachutes (ones they wear) and I have
seen Ballistic Recovery System parachutes in planes as well. From my
layman's view, it appears that getting out of a plane using a
traditional chute after a mid-air collision seems exceedingly difficult
and time-consuming. On the other hand, BRS chutes seem to deploy very
fast and can be deployed very close to the ground. They can lower the
entire plane safely to the ground in almost any terrain, and a few
bruises to your bird or your body seems a lot better than certain death
if you can't get out of a plane after a mid-air. So if this is true,
and
I am happy to say I am no expert, then why isn't everyone using these
things? I think they should be mandatory in every new glider built.
Thoughts?
Spark

--
Sparkorama

Destruction of gliders by lightning is so rare this is hardly
something to worry about. The event in question occurred when the
glider intercepted a rare and very energetic positive lightning ground
flash. Most glider lightning incidents are much less exciting,
although some damage is likely to occur.

Most parachutes are deployed after a mid-air AFAIK.

Mike

On 1/20/2011 4:35 AM, Mike the Strike wrote:
On Jan 20, 5:07 am, Big wrote:


Destruction of gliders by lightning is so rare this is hardly
something to worry about. The event in question occurred when the
glider intercepted a rare and very energetic positive lightning ground
flash. Most glider lightning incidents are much less exciting,
although some damage is likely to occur.

Most parachutes are deployed after a mid-air AFAIK.

It would be interesting to know the numbers. I can think of a few
deployments resulting from in-flight breakup, jammed controls, and
unrecoverable spins, in addition to mid-airs.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

On Jan 19, 11:35*pm, Sparkorama Sparkorama.
wrote:
I'm just getting back into the sport after a long hiatus. I've seen that
a lot of glider pilots fly with parachutes (ones they wear) and I have
seen Ballistic Recovery System parachutes in planes as well. From my
layman's view, it appears that getting out of a plane using a
traditional chute after a mid-air collision seems exceedingly difficult
and time-consuming. On the other hand, BRS chutes seem to deploy very
fast and can be deployed very close to the ground. They can lower the
entire plane safely to the ground in almost any terrain, and a few
bruises to your bird or your body seems a lot better than certain death
if you can't get out of a plane after a mid-air. So if this is true, and
I am happy to say I am no expert, then why isn't everyone using these
things? I think they should be mandatory in every new glider built.
Thoughts?
Spark

--
Sparkorama

Here we go with this mandatorys stuff again!!

First of all you have at least one misconception......the aircraft is
not "lowered to the ground with only a few bruises". The opening of
the chute is a major event, the shock can cause considerable damage by
itself. The descent rates are high, so considerable damage upon
striking the ground. The device is "life saving" but not "aircraft
saving".

I has strongly considered a BRS when building my homebuilt
plane......I ruled it out for a number of reasons. The greatest
reason was that the design and structure of the aircraft wuld have had
too have been highly modified.....strengthened....coping with strong
force loads in the oposite direction......to with stand the opening
shock of the chute............this required the doubling of the
cockpit side walls, installation of metal cross members, etc. This
alone would have added too much weight to the aircraft, not to mention
the complications and weight of the mounting of the BRS unit
itself.........

Yeah, and then the cost...........

Now on the other hand, there are many factory built aircraft with
BRS....Like Cirrus.....a few gliders too..........these companies feel
that the BRS is a good selling point....enhanced safety and all
that....

In the world of ultralights, BRS type chutes are the "norm" fairly
common in Light Sport aircraft too......I believe that just about ALL
hanglider guys have a ballistic chute of some type.

Cookie

On Jan 20, 7:47*am, "
wrote:

Here we go with this mandatory stuff again!!

I think it's a January thing. My daughter's 4th grade class was
assigned to write up a proposed new state law, due this morning. My
suggestion was that she propose a law keeping government noses out of
private business :-). She came up with the idea of limiting internet
tracking all on her own, so perhaps there's hope for the youngsters,
yet!

-Evan Ludeman / T8

On Jan 20, 7:47*am, "
wrote:
On Jan 19, 11:35*pm, Sparkorama Sparkorama.



wrote:
I'm just getting back into the sport after a long hiatus. I've seen that
a lot of glider pilots fly with parachutes (ones they wear) and I have
seen Ballistic Recovery System parachutes in planes as well. From my
layman's view, it appears that getting out of a plane using a
traditional chute after a mid-air collision seems exceedingly difficult
and time-consuming. On the other hand, BRS chutes seem to deploy very
fast and can be deployed very close to the ground. They can lower the
entire plane safely to the ground in almost any terrain, and a few
bruises to your bird or your body seems a lot better than certain death
if you can't get out of a plane after a mid-air. So if this is true, and
I am happy to say I am no expert, then why isn't everyone using these
things? I think they should be mandatory in every new glider built.
Thoughts?
Spark

--
Sparkorama

Here we go with this mandatorys stuff again!!

First of all you have at least one misconception......the aircraft is
not "lowered to the ground with only a few bruises". *The opening of
the chute is a major event, the shock can cause considerable damage by
itself. *The descent rates are high, so considerable damage upon
striking the ground. *The device is "life saving" but not "aircraft
saving".

I has strongly considered a BRS when building my homebuilt
plane......I ruled it out for a number of reasons. *The greatest
reason was that the design and structure of the aircraft wuld have had
too have been highly modified.....strengthened....coping with strong
force loads *in the oposite direction......to with stand the opening
shock of the chute............this required the doubling of the
cockpit side walls, installation of metal cross members, etc. * This
alone would have added too much weight to the aircraft, not to mention
the complications and weight of the mounting of the BRS unit
itself.........

Yeah, and then the cost...........

Now on the other hand, there are many factory built aircraft with
BRS....Like Cirrus.....a few gliders too..........these companies feel
that the BRS is a good selling point....enhanced safety and all
that....

In the world of ultralights, BRS type chutes are the "norm" * fairly
common in Light Sport aircraft too......I believe that just about ALL
hanglider guys have a ballistic chute of some type.

Cookie

Correction!

I was just taken to task by a hang glider (and sailplane) pilot
friend......

Hang gliders use "hand thrown" chutes, not "ballistic".


Cookie

Correction!

I was just taken to task by a hang glider (and sailplane) pilot
friend......

Hang gliders use "hand thrown" chutes, not "ballistic".

Cookie

Happily, everybody is right. :-) both hand-thrown and ballistic chutes
are available to the hang glider community. See
http://www.highenergysports.com/arti...ontroversy.htm for a
start

Tony LS6-b, USHPA 7826