Newbie seeking advice

I went for a ride in a glider many years ago and was immediately taken with
the whole experience. I have always wanted to fly and now have the time to
do it as I am finished with my skydiving career. Before I sell my rigs I
wanted to ask a question. Do any of you wear pilot rigs? Before I trade
some gear for a pilot rig....what is the reality of actually getting out of
a glider if you have a structural failure or something catastrophic? I am a
realist and can accept the fact there are inherent risks up there believe
me, but I don't want to buy a rig if it's a mute point. Do any of you wear
rigs? Thanks for the advice.

.. wrote:

Do any of you wear rigs?

The wearing of parachutes is common, and in competitions required.


Jack

"." wrote in message
om...
I went for a ride in a glider many years ago and was immediately taken
with
the whole experience. I have always wanted to fly and now have the time
to
do it as I am finished with my skydiving career. Before I sell my rigs I
wanted to ask a question. Do any of you wear pilot rigs? Before I trade
some gear for a pilot rig....what is the reality of actually getting out
of
a glider if you have a structural failure or something catastrophic? I am
a
realist and can accept the fact there are inherent risks up there believe
me, but I don't want to buy a rig if it's a mute point. Do any of you
wear
rigs? Thanks for the advice.



Most glider pilots wear a simple emergency 'chute which is soaring's
equivalent of the skydiver's reserve. The glider itself is the "main
'chute" since we plan to bring it back. And we do bring them back without
incident 99.9999% of the time.

I once read that only 50% of the bailout attempts from gliders are
successful. This is mainly due to problems with egress from the deep
cockpits. DG has a neat product called NOAH which is a gas inflated bladder
under the seat cushion that lifts the pilot above the cockpit sides so he
can easily roll over the side of the cockpit.

Actual bailouts are very rare and so the statistics are suspect due to the
small sample. However, the main reason seems to be mid-air collisions not
structural failures.

Bill Daniels

.. wrote:

I went for a ride in a glider many years ago and was immediately taken with
the whole experience. I have always wanted to fly and now have the time to
do it as I am finished with my skydiving career. Before I sell my rigs I
wanted to ask a question. Do any of you wear pilot rigs? Before I trade
some gear for a pilot rig....what is the reality of actually getting out of
a glider if you have a structural failure or something catastrophic? I am a
realist and can accept the fact there are inherent risks up there believe
me, but I don't want to buy a rig if it's a mute point. Do any of you wear
rigs? Thanks for the advice.

I don't have the statistics, but there are many cases where the pilot's life
has been saved by using the chute. There are also many cases where the
chute, as you suggest, may not help you; such as a low altitude spin,
incapacitating mid-air, etc. As has already been mentioned, wearing a
chute is common and required in SSA sanctioned and other contests.

Regards,

-Doug

Research by the German Akafliegs (academic flying clubs) indicates that
one is unlikely to be able to bail out safely with less than 700 m
altitude. The chute needs only 100 m to deploy, but it is indeed the
egress, under stress and often under higher G forces, that takes time.
They also think it unlikely for anybody to be able to jump under more
than 1.5 positive G. That makes the NOAH system a very good idea.
Unfortunately, we often prefer to invest in performance or electronics
rather than safety devices... (in Germany, NOAH costs approximately 2
500 EUR, + 800 EUR installation, + VAT).

But every year, glider pilots are saved by their chutes - some bailed
out at lower altitudes than indicated above. I don't have a glider, but
I bought a parachute early on, just to be sure it's regularly repacked
and properly treated (not like some club parachutes I know of). If you
fly regularly, it's a good investment! If carefully chosen, it's also
an element of comfort.


--
stephanevdv
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -

Gldcomp wrote:

OF COURSE the rare bail-outs are motivated by collision.
Gliders don't fall appart in flight by themselves like ultralights
and other
crazy flying machines.
Gliders are, after all, certified aircraft.

Really? Actually, midair structural failure (usually due to pilot
error) is much more common than midair collision (arguably always due
to pilot error) as a cause of fatal accidents (which is what the
following data are from). I can't think of any obvious reason why
there would be a bias making midairs more surviveable.

This is from a previous post on causes of fatal accidents.

-------------------------------------------------

People have done these studies often enough before, but the breakdown
of fatal accident causes is worth looking at.

I looked at 61 fatal accidents that occurred between 1990 and 2002.

12 accidents, or 20%, resulted from a stall (with or without spin) in
the landing approach.

There were 11 incidents (18%) of collision with terrain during the
in-flight phase, generally along ridgelines. 3 of these were observed
to involve stalling low above the ridgeline; most of the others were
not observed.

An astonishing 9 incidents, or 15%, resulted from in-flight structural
failures. Most involved main spar failure, usually with at least one
wing separating from the fuselage, apparently as a result of
over-stressing the aircraft in flight. 2, however, involved in-flight
control system failures; one where the control stick apparently broke
off (as I understand the report) and one where a swage on one of the
control cables failed.

5 incidents, 8%, resulted from the pilot being incapacitated by heart
attack, stroke, epileptic seizure, drug use, and one apparent
incapacitation of unknown cause (aircraft simply flew into the
ground).

Another 5 incidents resulted from spins from altitude without
recovery. These are difficult to explain, especially since some of
the pilots were highly experienced. However, one high-spin glider had
its CG clearly aft of limits.

There were 4 incidents each of
- elevator/tailplane not connected
- stall on takeoff (premature termination of tow or self-launch)
- collision with terrain while attempting to land (3 of the 4 were
landouts)

There were 2 incidents each of
- midair collision
- loss of control on takeoff
- pilot killed by wire during landing

And there was one incident in which it is clear the pilot attempted to
bail out (for reasons unknown) but was apparently incapacitated when
struck by the canopy.

Here are the things that struck me:

1. Sure enough, we have lots of landing-phase stall/spin fatalities
2. Reading between the lines a little, we probably have a very similar
number of ridge-soaring fatalities.
3. We don't talk much about overstressing the aircraft, but there's a
great deal of that going on.
4. Distraction seems to be a really big issue: if you lump the landing
phase and takeoff phase stall/spins together you get the picture.
Often (PTT, landout) the cause of the distraction is fairly obvious.
5. Sometimes it's just a day with your name on it: whether it's a
heart attack, a powerline or fence you didn't see, or a wire swage
(essentially un-inspectable) that fails. "Fate comes calling"
accidents seem to be about 20% of fatalities.

Maybe I need to clarify this in other words.
No legislative requirement was ever established to carry parachutes because
airplanes or gliders fall appart in normal flight.
This is a common beginner's instinctive fear, expecially during a recovery
from stall, that the wings will fold and they will drop down like a rock.
Some people get so stressed out and terrorized by the sensation of G's that
they will forever avoid more than 30 degrees of bank so they don't have to
tackle the Gs. There are a lot of pilots like that.
The simple truth is that airplanes and gliders don't do that, UNLESS WE FLY
OUTSIDE THE ENVELOPE (exceed VNE, G-loads, etc), or we sabotage it in some
other fashion such as an ill-executed repair, or controls not properly
connected upon assembly.

I never said one is more survivable than the other.
Notice again what I said : Structural failures is NOT the reason we are
required to wear parachutes (but of course, if they do occur, parachutes
will save the pilot just as well).

Midair Collision is the reason we are required to wear parachutes.
That's all I said.


"Finbar" wrote in message
om...
Gldcomp wrote:

OF COURSE the rare bail-outs are motivated by collision.
Gliders don't fall appart in flight by themselves like ultralights
and other
crazy flying machines.
Gliders are, after all, certified aircraft.

Really? Actually, midair structural failure (usually due to pilot
error) is much more common than midair collision (arguably always due
to pilot error) as a cause of fatal accidents (which is what the
following data are from). I can't think of any obvious reason why
there would be a bias making midairs more surviveable.

This is from a previous post on causes of fatal accidents.

-------------------------------------------------

People have done these studies often enough before, but the breakdown
of fatal accident causes is worth looking at.

I looked at 61 fatal accidents that occurred between 1990 and 2002.

12 accidents, or 20%, resulted from a stall (with or without spin) in
the landing approach.

There were 11 incidents (18%) of collision with terrain during the
in-flight phase, generally along ridgelines. 3 of these were observed
to involve stalling low above the ridgeline; most of the others were
not observed.

An astonishing 9 incidents, or 15%, resulted from in-flight structural
failures. Most involved main spar failure, usually with at least one
wing separating from the fuselage, apparently as a result of
over-stressing the aircraft in flight. 2, however, involved in-flight
control system failures; one where the control stick apparently broke
off (as I understand the report) and one where a swage on one of the
control cables failed.

5 incidents, 8%, resulted from the pilot being incapacitated by heart
attack, stroke, epileptic seizure, drug use, and one apparent
incapacitation of unknown cause (aircraft simply flew into the
ground).

Another 5 incidents resulted from spins from altitude without
recovery. These are difficult to explain, especially since some of
the pilots were highly experienced. However, one high-spin glider had
its CG clearly aft of limits.

There were 4 incidents each of
- elevator/tailplane not connected
- stall on takeoff (premature termination of tow or self-launch)
- collision with terrain while attempting to land (3 of the 4 were
landouts)

There were 2 incidents each of
- midair collision
- loss of control on takeoff
- pilot killed by wire during landing

And there was one incident in which it is clear the pilot attempted to
bail out (for reasons unknown) but was apparently incapacitated when
struck by the canopy.

Here are the things that struck me:

1. Sure enough, we have lots of landing-phase stall/spin fatalities
2. Reading between the lines a little, we probably have a very similar
number of ridge-soaring fatalities.
3. We don't talk much about overstressing the aircraft, but there's a
great deal of that going on.
4. Distraction seems to be a really big issue: if you lump the landing
phase and takeoff phase stall/spins together you get the picture.
Often (PTT, landout) the cause of the distraction is fairly obvious.
5. Sometimes it's just a day with your name on it: whether it's a
heart attack, a powerline or fence you didn't see, or a wire swage
(essentially un-inspectable) that fails. "Fate comes calling"
accidents seem to be about 20% of fatalities.

Let's introduce some common sense here.

Things can break, collide or in other ways ruin your day. We wear parachutes in
the hope that, one day, should we need to rely on something to save our lives
from a no longer flyable glider, the parachute might do the job. Who cares what
the most common cause of failure is, when considering using a primary safety device.

Some points -
My 33 year old Schempp-hirth glider is under 3000 hours total time (+-2200 at
present)- officially a toddler given the life extensions to 12000. I wonder how
many bits of damage and out of spec things there are on her. She has led an
eventful, "competition plane" life for the first decade of flying. Then spent
years being somewhat neglected and inexpertly flown by a succession of owners
who could only afford a cheap glider. And cheap maintenance I suspect...

I maintain the airframe carefully, inspect and renew what looks tired. I have
had it serviced by the professionals, who rate it as one of the best they have
seen - but I really can't be sure there is no problem lying undetected.

Pilots make mistakes, one of the most experienced pilots I have known wrecked a
Ventus A by getting too close to a CB. He used full airbrake, undercarriage out
and nose progressively steeper. Eventually the elevator folded gracefully onto
the fin. His comment was that, as he kneeled on the seat, it struck him that it
was seven years since he had packed his chute. He wondered if it would open.

Some years ago in Germany a pilot landed after three hours in his Spaatz. The
parachute was uncomfortable, and he discarded it before launching again. Half an
hour later he executed a loop, without noticing my friend and a passenger above
him. They pulled up, but he struck their fuselage with his wingtip - inverted.
Wood and fabric wingtip against steel frame had predictable results. They
watched the Spaatz spiral down from nearly 5000' AGL. He did not survive the impact.

My Pioneer 29' tri-conical flies with me, every time - lumps and all. And yes
that does include flights over five hours. It is 18 years old and getting due
for replacement, and has only ever been open in the riggers shop - personally I
like it that way. But maybe some day I get unlucky, or do something stupid.
Maybe some day it will save my life.

Gldcomp wrote:
Maybe I need to clarify this in other words.
No legislative requirement was ever established to carry parachutes because
airplanes or gliders fall appart in normal flight.
This is a common beginner's instinctive fear, expecially during a recovery
from stall, that the wings will fold and they will drop down like a rock.
Some people get so stressed out and terrorized by the sensation of G's that
they will forever avoid more than 30 degrees of bank so they don't have to
tackle the Gs. There are a lot of pilots like that.
The simple truth is that airplanes and gliders don't do that, UNLESS WE FLY
OUTSIDE THE ENVELOPE (exceed VNE, G-loads, etc), or we sabotage it in some
other fashion such as an ill-executed repair, or controls not properly
connected upon assembly.

I never said one is more survivable than the other.
Notice again what I said : Structural failures is NOT the reason we are
required to wear parachutes (but of course, if they do occur, parachutes
will save the pilot just as well).

Midair Collision is the reason we are required to wear parachutes.
That's all I said.


"Finbar" wrote in message
om...

Gldcomp wrote:


OF COURSE the rare bail-outs are motivated by collision.
Gliders don't fall appart in flight by themselves like ultralights

and other

crazy flying machines.
Gliders are, after all, certified aircraft.

Really? Actually, midair structural failure (usually due to pilot
error) is much more common than midair collision (arguably always due
to pilot error) as a cause of fatal accidents (which is what the
following data are from). I can't think of any obvious reason why
there would be a bias making midairs more surviveable.

This is from a previous post on causes of fatal accidents.

-------------------------------------------------

People have done these studies often enough before, but the breakdown
of fatal accident causes is worth looking at.

I looked at 61 fatal accidents that occurred between 1990 and 2002.

12 accidents, or 20%, resulted from a stall (with or without spin) in
the landing approach.

There were 11 incidents (18%) of collision with terrain during the
in-flight phase, generally along ridgelines. 3 of these were observed
to involve stalling low above the ridgeline; most of the others were
not observed.

An astonishing 9 incidents, or 15%, resulted from in-flight structural
failures. Most involved main spar failure, usually with at least one
wing separating from the fuselage, apparently as a result of
over-stressing the aircraft in flight. 2, however, involved in-flight
control system failures; one where the control stick apparently broke
off (as I understand the report) and one where a swage on one of the
control cables failed.

5 incidents, 8%, resulted from the pilot being incapacitated by heart
attack, stroke, epileptic seizure, drug use, and one apparent
incapacitation of unknown cause (aircraft simply flew into the
ground).

Another 5 incidents resulted from spins from altitude without
recovery. These are difficult to explain, especially since some of
the pilots were highly experienced. However, one high-spin glider had
its CG clearly aft of limits.

There were 4 incidents each of
- elevator/tailplane not connected
- stall on takeoff (premature termination of tow or self-launch)
- collision with terrain while attempting to land (3 of the 4 were
landouts)

There were 2 incidents each of
- midair collision
- loss of control on takeoff
- pilot killed by wire during landing

And there was one incident in which it is clear the pilot attempted to
bail out (for reasons unknown) but was apparently incapacitated when
struck by the canopy.

Here are the things that struck me:

1. Sure enough, we have lots of landing-phase stall/spin fatalities
2. Reading between the lines a little, we probably have a very similar
number of ridge-soaring fatalities.
3. We don't talk much about overstressing the aircraft, but there's a
great deal of that going on.
4. Distraction seems to be a really big issue: if you lump the landing
phase and takeoff phase stall/spins together you get the picture.
Often (PTT, landout) the cause of the distraction is fairly obvious.
5. Sometimes it's just a day with your name on it: whether it's a
heart attack, a powerline or fence you didn't see, or a wire swage
(essentially un-inspectable) that fails. "Fate comes calling"
accidents seem to be about 20% of fatalities.

Exactly, I couldn't agree more, the parachute may save you in many different
situations.
Most of them are not the reason we are required to wear them, otherwise,
power pilots and passengers would be required to wear one too.

BTW, I've never heard of anything like this before with a glass ship :
an elevator folding gracefully onto the fin...

I've flown in front of CBs most of my flying career and never once had to
fly outside the envelope.
But that aside... an elevator folding ?? it probably was damaged before and
not well repaired.

Has this accident been listed anywhere on the Web so that we could all look
at it ?

"Bruce Greeff" wrote in message
...
(................................)
Pilots make mistakes, one of the most experienced pilots I have known
wrecked a
Ventus A by getting too close to a CB. He used full airbrake,
undercarriage out
and nose progressively steeper. Eventually the elevator folded gracefully
onto
the fin. (...................................)

Gldcomp wrote:
Maybe I need to clarify this in other words.
No legislative requirement was ever established to carry parachutes
because
airplanes or gliders fall appart in normal flight.
This is a common beginner's instinctive fear, expecially during a
recovery
from stall, that the wings will fold and they will drop down like a
rock.
Some people get so stressed out and terrorized by the sensation of G's
that
they will forever avoid more than 30 degrees of bank so they don't have
to
tackle the Gs. There are a lot of pilots like that.
The simple truth is that airplanes and gliders don't do that, UNLESS WE
FLY
OUTSIDE THE ENVELOPE (exceed VNE, G-loads, etc), or we sabotage it in
some
other fashion such as an ill-executed repair, or controls not properly
connected upon assembly.

I never said one is more survivable than the other.
Notice again what I said : Structural failures is NOT the reason we are
required to wear parachutes (but of course, if they do occur, parachutes
will save the pilot just as well).

Midair Collision is the reason we are required to wear parachutes.
That's all I said.

"Gldcomp" wrote in message . com...
Maybe I need to clarify this in other words.
No legislative requirement was ever established to carry parachutes because
airplanes or gliders fall appart in normal flight.

Actually, the only legislative requirement (in the US, at least) to
carry parachutes is precisely because of the possibility of airplanes
or gliders falling apart in flight. You're right, it doesn't relate
to normal flight: it relates to flight with a bank angle exceeding 60
degrees or a pitch angle exceeding 30 degrees (nose up or down). If
only normal flight is intended, there's no legislative requirement to
carry a parachute at all.

This is a common beginner's instinctive fear, expecially during a recovery
from stall, that the wings will fold and they will drop down like a rock.

Agreed.

The simple truth is that airplanes and gliders don't do that, UNLESS WE FLY
OUTSIDE THE ENVELOPE (exceed VNE, G-loads, etc), or we sabotage it in some
other fashion such as an ill-executed repair, or controls not properly
connected upon assembly.

Sort of circular definition: if everything is as it's supposed to be,
nothing happens that shouldn't. But what you said a few posts back
was,

"Gliders don't fall appart in flight by themselves like ultralights
and other
crazy flying machines. Gliders are, after all, certified aircraft."

The safety doesn't come from certification, nor from disparaging other
aircraft, nor from hiding behind legislation. It comes from
respecting the engineering limits of the aircraft. Fly your glider
normally, within its normal flight parameters and, if it was properly
engineered and maintained, it will not come apart in flight. This is
also true of "ultralights and other crazy flying machines," by which I
assume you're referring to Sparrowhawks and helicopters in that order
;-) Certification does have value: it establishes that the aircraft's
design and construction, and its operating limitations, conform to
established engineering practices. Many non-certificated aircraft
also conform to those practices, but you have to find another way to
be sure of that. In either case, you have to maintain and operate
them properly also. Properly engineered and maintained aircraft,
flown within their limits, won't fall apart in flight.


I never said one is more survivable than the other.

I didn't mean to suggest you had. I made the remark because I was
comparing fatal accident statistics. If one was more surviveable,
then my statistics would not be representative of structural failures
and midair collisions as a whole. However, I think they probably are,
in which case in-flight structural failures for any reason other than
collision are 4 - 5 TIMES more likely than in-flight structural
failures due to midair collisions.

Notice again what I said : Structural failures is NOT the reason we are
required to wear parachutes (but of course, if they do occur, parachutes
will save the pilot just as well).

Midair Collision is the reason we are required to wear parachutes.
That's all I said.



Yes, and it's not in accordance with the facts. Let's review.

1. Structural failures in flight are extremely rare, as I'm sure you'd
agree. With even more incredibly rare exceptions relating to
maintenance, they are almost always caused by operating the aircraft
outside its design limits - either in terms of airspeed or aerodynamic
acceleration loads - or by imposing excessive structural loads during
a midair collision.

2. Midair collisions account for about 1 in 5 in-flight structural
failures. The rest occur for reasons other than midair collision.
Therefore, to the extent that we need to worry about in-flight
structural failure at all, collision is not the primary thing to worry
about: operating the aircraft within its normal limits is.

3. The FAA does require parachutes for "aerobatic" maneuvers,
precisely because of the increased risk of structural failure
resulting from exceeding airspeed or aerodynamic acceleration limits.
It does not require parachutes because of midair collision risks.

4. Glider contest organizers (not legislators) require parachutes
because of the risk of midair collision in high-density thermaling
situations.

For our beginner friend, the bottom line is this:

Yes, most of us wear parachutes, and it seems like a rather
conservative but sensible safety precaution. We do it because we're
aware that soaring brings us into thermals that may have other gliders
in them, increasing the risk of midair collisions. However, this is
mostly just something to make us all feel better, because actual
midair collisions that cause the aircraft to become uncontrollable are
even more rare than the aircraft breaking up in flight for some other
reason - and that's very, very, very rare!