Just pull the little red handle!

On Aug 31, 11:05*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I concur. The most difficult and time consuming part is the egress
from the glider, not the release of the straps. It is unlikely to be
able to bailout from a glider below 1000 feet. A BRS could be deployed
instantly even from 100 feet.

Ramy

"Ramy" wrote

I concur. The most difficult and time consuming part is the egress
from the glider, not the release of the straps. It is unlikely to be
able to bailout from a glider below 1000 feet. A BRS could be deployed
instantly even from 100 feet.

Ramy
************
I wonder if you could have the red handle attached to an emergency release
pin on the gliders canopy, as in bubble clear thing over the top of the
cockpit. There could then be a line going from the bubble, to a release for
the seat safety harness, and the top of the parachute.

Jettisoning the bubble would carry the chute out in the slipstream to
inflate, which would then lift the pilot from the plane.

An idea, or just a poor idea? Sort of a poor man's ejection seat?
--
Jim in NC

I suspect that one of the principle risk areas for mid-airs (outside of
contests) is in the pattern, near an airport. *

Statistics? What data support this suspection?

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.

Not true! Emergency parachutes open in less than 300 feet. Not as good
as a BRS of course, but having a "little red handle" can easily be the
difference in suriviving a collision at low altitude.

Tuno wrote:
I suspect that one of the principle risk areas for mid-airs (outside of
contests) is in the pattern, near an airport. *

Statistics? What data support this suspection?

"A recent AOPA Air Safety Foundation study of midair collisions revealed
that 49 percent occurred in the traffic pattern or on approach to or
departure from an airport. Of the other 51 percent, about half occurred
during en route climb, cruise, or descent, and the rest resulted from
formation flights or other hazardous activities. Eighty percent of the
midair collisions that occurred during "normal" flight activities happened
within ten miles of an airport, and 78 percent of the midair collisions
that occurred around the traffic pattern happened at nontowered airports."

From:
http://www.aopa.org/asf/epilot_acc/e_chi97fa218a.html

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.

Not true! Emergency parachutes open in less than 300 feet. Not as good
as a BRS of course, but having a "little red handle" can easily be the
difference in suriviving a collision at low altitude.

I believe he was considering not just the time for the chute to deploy, but
the time to open or eject the canopy, release the seatbelt and shoulder
harness, and jump out. If the glider is damaged and tumbling down (e.g.
loss of a wing) then egress is probably that much more difficult. And then
after all that, pull the chute cord. This assumes the pilot has the
presence of mind (and courage) to do something they may not have enough
training to do in a prompt and decisive manner.

A rocket-propelled whole-aircraft parachute is likely to deploy much faster
and requires just one action by the pilot. I believe that the recent RANS
S-9 that lost a wing while flying acerobatics in Argentina actually wrapped
itself around the parachute lines (which is presumably why it landed under
the chute nose-first) but still managed to deliver the pilot to safety even
in an unintended attitude.

There are exceptions of course where a BRS has not helped, and critics use
such anecdotes to "prove" that such devices don't provide perfect safety.
It is of course a strawman argument. Like all safety devices a BRS can only
improve the odds of surviving an otherwise fatal mishap.

I have felt for some time now that my back-pack parachute provides
little more than a false sense of security..............I don't think
I would ever get out of a spinning, tumbling ship. The BRS has been
demonstrated to work as low as 260 feet during the FAA certification
of the Cirrus. This could save you from a mid-air in the pattern or
that all time biggest killer. stall/spin turning final. BRS also
provides a way out of structural failures or pilot incapacitation. How
about stuck low on the wrong side of the ridge with nothing but trees
in all directions?

The BRS descent rate is about like a normal parachute (like stepping
off a 7' ledge). The Genesis installation calls for a 4-point bridle
that attaches to all 4 lift fittings, this will result in a wings-
level, slight nose down attitude under the chuts. Lowering the gear
will absorb some of the landing forces.

Flarm is great and I'd buy it in heartbeat if everybody had it. Lets
not forget that 2 of the 4 mid-airs in the US last year involved a tow
plane and some of them still don't even have radios, let alone
transpponders, Pcas or Flarm.

Bottom line is; We are all the chairman of our own safety committee
and we must take the actions we believe to be the best course to keep
us out of harms way. For me that includes installing a BRS.
Cheers,
JJ

On Aug 31, 2:41*pm, JJ Sinclair wrote:
[snip]
The BRS has been
demonstrated to work as low as 260 feet during the FAA certification
of the Cirrus. This could save you from a mid-air in the pattern or
that all time biggest killer. stall/spin turning final.

Are you sure? Does anybody know at what height most spin-ins from a
base/final happen?

My concern there is the glider is already pretty low, especially if
trying to stretch their glider/hold off the turn. And the pilot is
already likely far behind the aircraft and so may be some delay in
pulling the handle.

I'm not disputing the benefits of a BRS in other situations (including
collisions in the pattern) I'm just not sure they would necessarily be
that useful in the classic over rudder/under piloting stall/spin off a
turn from base to final.

[snip]
Cheers,
JJ

I am hoping you buy a PowerFLARM as well as this BRS chute.

Darryl

On Aug 31, 4:02*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
[snip]

I am hoping you buy a PowerFLARM as well as this BRS chute.

Darryl

I'm also mildly terrified of J.J. having access to a ballistic
anything while in the middle of a heated contest rules argument :-)

Darryl

Originally Posted by JJ Sinclair

I have felt for some time now that my back-pack parachute provides
little more than a false sense of security..............I don't think
I would ever get out of a spinning, tumbling ship. The BRS has been
demonstrated to work as low as 260 feet during the FAA certification
of the Cirrus. This could save you from a mid-air in the pattern or
that all time biggest killer. stall/spin turning final. BRS also
provides a way out of structural failures or pilot incapacitation. How
about stuck low on the wrong side of the ridge with nothing but trees
in all directions?

The BRS descent rate is about like a normal parachute (like stepping
off a 7' ledge). The Genesis installation calls for a 4-point bridle
that attaches to all 4 lift fittings, this will result in a wings-
level, slight nose down attitude under the chuts. Lowering the gear
will absorb some of the landing forces.

Flarm is great and I'd buy it in heartbeat if everybody had it. Lets
not forget that 2 of the 4 mid-airs in the US last year involved a tow
plane and some of them still don't even have radios, let alone
transpponders, Pcas or Flarm.

Bottom line is; We are all the chairman of our own safety committee
and we must take the actions we believe to be the best course to keep
us out of harms way. For me that includes installing a BRS.
Cheers,
JJ

I have always felt that listening to those with greater experience than myself is one of the best safety devices. Seems that today people spend more time flying with their heads inside the cockpit than outside. With a parachute, BRS, FLARM, survival kit, bail out bottle, knife, gun, flares, medical kit, lunch, snacks, condoms and everything else one could carry in a glider, it's a wonder these things can get off the ground.

As a relative newbie to the world of gliding, I have in my some 100 flight had two close calls. I consider myself a heads up kind of guy and try hard to keep my head on a swivel, my eyes wide open and paying attention.

I have asked a few local pilots why it seems that the preferred color for gliders appears to be white. I understand that the sun might degrade a more brightly painted ship faster than a base white one. Is this really true? It would seem to me that the cheapest form of avoidance would be making ourselves more visible. I am in the market for an older, aluminum ship and would consider painting it bright red if it would increase my visibility.

I understand that FLARM only works if the other guy has one. I guess for the time being I will have to depend on my parachute and luck for survival, along with a healthy dose of paying attention.

Walt

"Walt Connelly" wrote in message ...

.... Snip ...
..

I have asked a few local pilots why it seems that the preferred color
for gliders appears to be white. I understand that the sun might
degrade a more brightly painted ship faster than a base white one. Is
this really true? It would seem to me that the cheapest form of
avoidance would be making ourselves more visible.

.... Snip ...

Walt

Here is an article you may want to read.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Co...olor_Temp.html

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

"Walt Connelly" wrote in message
...
snip

I have asked a few local pilots why it seems that the preferred color
for gliders appears to be white. I understand that the sun might
degrade a more brightly painted ship faster than a base white one. Is
this really true? It would seem to me that the cheapest form of
avoidance would be making ourselves more visible. I am in the market
for an older, aluminum ship and would consider painting it bright red if
it would increase my visibility.
snip

On a sunny day, put your hand on a red nose or wing tip on a glass glider,
then put it on the white bits. The temperature difference is very obvious.

There were also some trials done about visibility in the UK, the conclusion
was that mirror film on the leading edges was the most effective thing to
do. However I'm not sure where the glider makers stand on that, nor how
much the tiny edge of the film upsets the airflow and hence the lift.

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/Data/gl...uity-study.pdf