Just pull the little red handle!

On Aug 31, 11:18*am, Tony wrote:
My hope is that within a year of
it's release, pilots who fly without them will feel unwelcome to a
point they will rather get one...

Ramy

will you be establishing a scholarship fund for those of us who feel
unwelcome and unwealthy?

I realize I may made myself unpopular with this comment ;-) I believe
the biggest glider to glider risk is during XC or contests flights, in
which the majority of pilots owns glass ships and likely can afford
it. Those who obviously can't should get some slack and perhaps use
the radio more often for position reports. But those who fly 100K
ships should have hard time explaining why they don't use Flarm.
My gut feeling is that 90% of pilots who are at risk can efford it,
which sould be sufficient to significantly reduce the risk.

Ramy

On Aug 31, 1:54*pm, Ramy wrote:
On Aug 31, 11:18*am, Tony wrote:

My hope is that within a year of
it's release, pilots who fly without them will feel unwelcome to a
point they will rather get one...

Ramy

will you be establishing a scholarship fund for those of us who feel
unwelcome and unwealthy?

I realize I may made myself unpopular with this comment ;-) I believe
the biggest glider to glider risk is during XC or contests flights, in
which the majority of pilots owns glass ships and likely can afford
it. Those who obviously can't should get some slack and perhaps use
the radio more often for position reports. But those who fly 100K
ships should have hard time explaining why they don't use Flarm.
My gut feeling is that 90% of pilots who are at risk can efford it,
which sould be sufficient to significantly reduce the risk.

Ramy

fair enough. plus us low cost gliders usually have colorful paint jobs
and low closing speeds on our side

"Ramy" wrote in message
...
snip
I believe
the biggest glider to glider risk is during XC or contests flights, in
which the majority of pilots owns glass ships and likely can afford
it. Those who obviously can't should get some slack and perhaps use
the radio more often for position reports. But those who fly 100K
ships should have hard time explaining why they don't use Flarm.
My gut feeling is that 90% of pilots who are at risk can efford it,
which sould be sufficient to significantly reduce the risk.

Ramy

We spend what we can afford on our gliders. For most of us (including me)
there is previous little left over for much else - I certainly cannot afford
to upgrade from a £16k ship to a £26k one, or even a £20k one.

Additionally, in Europe there are also the EASA hoops that would have to be
jumped and that is neither simple or cheap.

On Aug 31, 10:54*am, Ramy wrote:
On Aug 30, 12:35*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:

Little red handle anyone?
JJ

If I could put one in my standard category asw 27, I would.

In the meantime, why don't we get together and buy flarms, so we don't
run in to each other in the first place. They're even on sale for the
first 50 orders. I put my order in, so if you get one you won't run in
to me next year!

John Cochrane BB


But in the meantime, to address midairs, the PowerFlarm is the obvious
solution, and I just ordered mine. My hope is that within a year of
it's release, pilots who fly without them will feel unwelcome to a
point they will rather get one...

Ramy

That will be sad. I hate being unwelcome, but I just used the last of
my space (and no small amount of money) to install a (ADS-B capable)
Transponder, since my immediate concern is airliner traffic. I see
vastly more airliners than gliders when I'm flying.

On 8/31/2010 10:54 AM, Ramy wrote:
On Aug 30, 12:35 pm, John
wrote:

Little red handle anyone?
JJ

If I could put one in my standard category asw 27, I would.

In the meantime, why don't we get together and buy flarms, so we don't
run in to each other in the first place. They're even on sale for the
first 50 orders. I put my order in, so if you get one you won't run in
to me next year!

John Cochrane BB

Same here. If there was an option to add a BRS to my 27, I would, even
if it will be a substantial cost.
I flew hang gliders with a BRS system for many years, and know of a
number of hang glider pilots saved by this system.
While I doubt it will help with stall/spin accidents, which still
seems to be the cause of many accidents, a proper system should be
able to save most mid airs, control problems and structural failures.

I'd like to see a list of incidents where a BRS could have avoided a
fatality. Most of the fatal mid-airs I'm aware of, the pilot was almost
surely incapacitated by the collision. The control problems and
structural failures seem to have happy endings because the pilot is able
to bail out. My impression is the BRS would have a very small effect on
the USA fatality rate.

The DG web site (referenced earlier) comes to the same conclusion: a lot
of expense for very few incidents where it is useful. DG's point is the
money should be spent elsewhere in new gliders, and retrofitting did not
seem an option for the big majority of glider owners. In fact, if the
factories were to simply make Flarm/PowerFlarm standard equipment, that
might reduce risk more than offering a BRS as an option.

I think getting a lot of USA competition pilots to use a PowerFlarm
would reduce fatalities more than the same pilots equipping with BRS,
and it can be done in time for next season at far less cost, even if you
could buy a retrofit for the same price as a factory installed system.
Here's an idea to encourage it: you buy a PowerFlarm at regular price,
then you send them a trace from the PowerFlarm logger showing you flew
at least one contest day with it, and they send you a rebate of, say,
$200. The SSA could do the same thing, offering a rebate on the entry
fee for the first contest you fly in with your PowerFlarm. PowerFlarm
benefits as the increasing installed base makes it more desirable to use
a PowerFlarm, and contest pilots would make good champions for spreading
the word.

Get PowerFlarm and SSA to do it, and it'd be a tempting offer - heck, it
might even increase contest participation to get the rebate, AND because
some pilots decide the collision risk is decreased enough to draw them
into a contest they would otherwise avoid.
--

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

Eric Greenwell wrote:
I think getting a lot of USA competition pilots to use a PowerFlarm
would reduce fatalities more than the same pilots equipping with BRS,
and it can be done in time for next season at far less cost, even if you
could buy a retrofit for the same price as a factory installed system.

Given the finite resources glider pilots have (only so much time and money)
it is reasonable to compute the benefit/cost ratio of BRS versus Flarm and
prioritize investment accordingly.

But whereas a BRS is useful for a large number of accident classes, (e.g.
one's wings fold up (there was just such a case discussed here)) something
like Flarm helps only with a single class of accidents. On the other hand,
Flarm is less expensive and easier to employ.

Beyond having both in one's safety repertoire, absent statistical
estimates, it isn't immediately clear to me that one should spend one's
finite money on Flarm first rather than a BRS first. The latter is not an
available option for a lot of gliders, though.

On Aug 31, 4:33*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
But whereas a BRS is useful for a large number of accident classes, (e.g.
one's wings fold up (there was just such a case discussed here)) something
like Flarm helps only with a single class of accidents. On the other hand,
Flarm is less expensive and easier to employ.

Beyond having both in one's safety repertoire, absent statistical
estimates, it isn't immediately clear to me that one should spend one's
finite money on Flarm first rather than a BRS first. The latter is not an
available option for a lot of gliders, though.

Funny, I come to the exact opposite conclusion - Collision avoidance
technology/procedures are more cost effective than after-the-fact
safety devices.

In my 3000+ hours of glider and light plane flying (and 2000+ of
military), ive had numerous close calls (near midairs) and many of
those resolved via early detection of the threat. I've never had an
actual collision. So to me, it's better to make my ability to see and
avoid more efficient, than to beef up my ability to survive the
collision.

BTW, if all else fails and you are unable to physically get out of you
cockpit after a collision, just jettison the canopy, undo the straps,
lean forward and pull your D-ring. You WILL leave the cockpit. It
WILL hurt. You MAY survive. Beats the alternative, though!

Kirk
66

On Aug 30, 12:35*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:
Little red handle anyone?
JJ

If I could put one in my standard category asw 27, I would.

In the meantime, why don't we get together and buy flarms, so we don't
run in to each other in the first place. They're even on sale for the
first 50 orders. I put my order in, so if you get one you won't run in
to me next year!

John Cochrane BB

I ordered my PowerFlarm yesterday. I'm looking forward to not running
into BB.

9B

Little red handle anyone?

There is a little red handle I would LOVE to have.

Many years ago the skydiving industry came up with a way to jettison a
malfunctioned main canopy and deploy the reserve as a single action by
simply adding a static line from the main parachute's riser to the
reserve parachute's pin. Thus pulling the "cutaway" handle would also
result in a deployed reserve. This system was especially appreciated
at low altitudes!

Since August 4th I've been wondering how difficult it would be to add
a single "red handle" to the glider cockpit, that would be secured to
one of the shoulder straps (i.e. at the pilot's torso, easy to find in
the worst of conditions). Pulling this handle would simultaneously
release the canopy and unbuckle the harness. No fumbling for one set
of handles and then another.

This handle, as I envision it, would look very much like the cutaway
handles in skydiving -- a small pillow attached to teflon cable(s),
brightly colored, hard to pull by accident but easy to find and pull
on purpose.

ted/2NO

On 8/31/2010 12:46 PM, Tuno wrote:
Little red handle anyone?

There is a little red handle I would LOVE to have.

Many years ago the skydiving industry came up with a way to jettison a
malfunctioned main canopy and deploy the reserve as a single action by
simply adding a static line from the main parachute's riser to the
reserve parachute's pin. Thus pulling the "cutaway" handle would also
result in a deployed reserve. This system was especially appreciated
at low altitudes!

Since August 4th I've been wondering how difficult it would be to add
a single "red handle" to the glider cockpit, that would be secured to
one of the shoulder straps (i.e. at the pilot's torso, easy to find in
the worst of conditions). Pulling this handle would simultaneously
release the canopy and unbuckle the harness. No fumbling for one set
of handles and then another.

This handle, as I envision it, would look very much like the cutaway
handles in skydiving -- a small pillow attached to teflon cable(s),
brightly colored, hard to pull by accident but easy to find and pull
on purpose.

ted/2NO

I suspect that one of the principle risk areas for mid-airs (outside of
contests) is in the pattern, near an airport. There is absolutely no
way a conventional chut can save you when you are this low, no matter
how fast you can get out of the glider. A BRS can.

--
Mike Schumann