Puchaz spin - now wearing 'chutes

just out of interest, how many of those of us who wear
chutes, use a deployment line attached to that odd
looking ring usually found by your left shoulder?

Be very careful about this. The parachutes we use in gliders are not designed
for static line deployment; they're designed for the pull of a hand in a
particular direction. If you rig a static line directly to the ripcord, you
risk a very good chance of just ripping off the handle.

On a parachute, the container is kept closed by little cones and rings. The
ring goes through the cone, and in the case of a ripcord, there is a pin going
through a hole in the cone to keep the cone in place. For static line, a piece
of line is wrapped around the static line and then through the hole in the
cone. When you jump out, the pull of the static line breaks the thin piece of
line, releasing the pilot chute.

Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

Mike Borgelt wrote in message . ..
snip
I once saw a movie of the BRS drop test on a C150 simulating its
arrival under a deployed BRS chute. I doubt that the Cessna was
useable again even though it was a symmetrical level attitude when it
hit with no drift. I'd hate to hit at a similar descent rate in a
glider. In Oz we've had a few people do hard landings in the last
couple of years. Some are considered lucky to be walking but the
gliders are repairable. Air bags may be essential.

Of course I would expect that the glider wouldn't be reusable after
using the BRS...I would only pull the thing is a situation that would
lead to me leaving the airplane, should I have had a parachute. In
that case, the airplane is a write-off. As I have previously
recounted, I have the thing set up to lower the airplane nose down
somewhat...one hopes that the forces will be somewhat dissipated by
the landing attitude. Of course the risk of injury exists for a
successful bail-out as well. It's interesting that in this dialogue
folks worry about hitting under canopy IN the glider, and don't
discuss the myriad of risks associated with hitting under canopy OUT
of the glider.

I parachuted in the military and in sport. I have seen more than a few
broken bones, broken backs, internal injuries and others. And those
were with trained parachutists jumping under controlled situations and
the best possible conditions, with prepared...or at least
planned...drop-zones. I don't think that to be the case for the
typical emergency bail-out from a broken glider.

We've had this debate on this board more than once and in each case,
it seems to me that we set a double standard...somehow we assume that
the guy who leaves the glider and deploys a round canopy for his first
parachute jump ever will arrive on the ground unscathed...and the guy
who pulls the BRS lever is subjecting himself to an extraordinary
amount of risk, because he _might_ hit the ground in a manner that
_might_ lead to injury.

The reality is that when the decision to deploy either your personal
canopy OR the BRS is made, your only other option is very likely
death. If I can fly the airplane, I am going to fly the airplane. If
my airplane is damaged beyond the point that I can fly it, I am going
to deploy. If when I land I am injured, I still firmly believe that I
am going to be far better off than if I had ridden the glider to the
ground without a parachute. And no question...if I had room in the
cockpit/no weight constraints, I would ALSO wear a square emergency
parachute for those cases where I AM high enough to choose that
egress. I think that I would STILL have the BRS, though, for the
collision in the pattern or the like. And I have far more experience
under a parachute canopy than 99% of glider pilots.


Are your gliding club members smart enough to avoid inadvertent
deployment of a ballistic chute in the hangar? At one club I used to
belong to the new ASW20B got wheeled up twice in a month or so - in
the hangar as people said "what does this lever do?". In the chute
case you would hope nobody else was standing behind the wing looking
into the cockpit.

The BRS system has a remove before flight safety pin. With the pin in
place, the BRS cannot be deployed. If some yahoo starts playing with
my glider and REMOVES the safety tag/pin and then pulls the handle? I
would, under those circumstances, hope he DOES have his face in front
of it. He will certainly have exceeded any reasonable "what does THIS
lever do" level of curiosity in my book.

About 12 years ago we did a precision altimeter project for an RAAF
test project. The chief aero engineer of the research and development
unit was building an ultralight of his own design. I asked if he was
fitting a BRS chute. He said he was designing the aircraft basically
to high enough standards that like a FAR 23 power plane it was
reliable enough in its structure and control systems that flying
without a chute was a good risk. His opinion was that the whole ship
chutes at the time couldn't meet their claimed descent rates with the
chute sizes used. His first job had been with a parachute manufacturer
so I had to take some notice of his opinion.

Mike Borgelt

One hopes one's glider isn't going to go poof in flight. However,
certificated gliders HAVE gone poof in flight. Further, our sport has
a much higher (at least theoretical) risk of collision in the air than
the usual spam-can. My glider is better built than most of them out
there, and I don't carry the BRS in expectation of a wing
spontaneously folding up. Nor do I plan on running into someone in a
gaggle. But if it happens, I am comforted in knowing that it's there.

BRS parachutes DO meet their claimed descent rates. Look at their
data. They have tested these things extensively. I would suggest that
an aero engineer who had worked for a parachute manufacturer may have
had a bias just like any other fellow...and that WAS 12 years ago. I
guess that if you are making a decision based on one person's opinion
during the last millenium, no matter how experienced, well, more power
to you. I prefer doing a bit more research than that. Once again, with
all due respect, and no offense intended.

Jim

There are parachutes for static lines used in gliders (although less and
less) and manual ones.

To this whole discussion :
- it's almost impossible to retrofit a BRS to a glider
- that means that BRS will only be installed in gliders with a "crashworthy"
cockpit
- the only thing I'm really afraid of in soaring are midairs. Having a
midair in the Alps in the vivinity of a ridge, a BRS is basically the only
option to survive.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Jim Vincent" a écrit dans le message de
...
just out of interest, how many of those of us who wear
chutes, use a deployment line attached to that odd
looking ring usually found by your left shoulder?

Be very careful about this. The parachutes we use in gliders are not
designed
for static line deployment; they're designed for the pull of a hand in a
particular direction. If you rig a static line directly to the ripcord,
you
risk a very good chance of just ripping off the handle.

On a parachute, the container is kept closed by little cones and rings.
The
ring goes through the cone, and in the case of a ripcord, there is a pin
going
through a hole in the cone to keep the cone in place. For static line, a
piece
of line is wrapped around the static line and then through the hole in the
cone. When you jump out, the pull of the static line breaks the thin
piece of
line, releasing the pilot chute.

Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

Jim Harper wrote:

Are your gliding club members smart enough to avoid inadvertent
deployment of a ballistic chute in the hangar? At one club I used to
belong to the new ASW20B got wheeled up twice in a month or so - in
the hangar as people said "what does this lever do?". In the chute
case you would hope nobody else was standing behind the wing looking
into the cockpit.


The BRS system has a remove before flight safety pin. With the pin in
place, the BRS cannot be deployed. If some yahoo starts playing with
my glider and REMOVES the safety tag/pin and then pulls the handle? I
would, under those circumstances, hope he DOES have his face in front
of it. He will certainly have exceeded any reasonable "what does THIS
lever do" level of curiosity in my book.

THe BRS web site says it is a 35-40 pound pull, a rather stout effort,
and well beyond what you need to collapse the gear on an ASW20B. A key
lock could be used to prevent removal of the safety tag and pin, if one
is really concerned.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

The group demonstrates the spectrum of opinions on this subject from
"Not me, brother," to "Anyone opposed should be held criminally
liable."

Gerhard Waibel said it best (paraphrase): "If I can get the parachute
off the pilot's back, I have the space I need to build a cockpit that
will protect him."

In the under 2000 ft agl realm, a rocket deployed chute is very, very
desirable. Or if the pilot is incapacitated as a result of collision.
Or if the pilot is physically unable to exit the aircraft due to
infirmity or high g loading. Or if the pilot would prefer to stay with
his significantly more visible glider and its reliable ELT.

Control is also very desirble. In mountainess terrain, it might be
better to have a square on your back. Nice to have options. Including
deploying your recovery system, then taking your time to decide if and
how to evacuate the cockpit.

Schempp Hirth has put BRSs in several gliders during the past year. My
order was a little too early, or I'd have had one myself.

In article ,
Andreas Maurer wrote:

Not to mention the possible extremely high (220 kts) speed of a
glider with a missing tail or wing. The deployment speed of the BRS of
the Cirrus is limited to a pretty low speed (iirc 150 kts IAS).

Several BRS saves were quite a bit faster than the "rated"
system velocity.

Like parachute repack recommendations and Vne, the velocity recommendations
are primarily to protect the manufacturer from liability, and
are generously safesided to be far within the
actual limits of the equipment.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 06:29:51 +1000, Mike Borgelt
wrote:

I figure that the choice with a personal chute is small but with a
whole ship chute it is zero.

I once saw a movie of the BRS drop test on a C150 simulating its
arrival under a deployed BRS chute. I doubt that the Cessna was
useable again even though it was a symmetrical level attitude when it
hit with no drift. I'd hate to hit at a similar descent rate in a
glider. In Oz we've had a few people do hard landings in the last
couple of years. Some are considered lucky to be walking but the
gliders are repairable. Air bags may be essential.

I know an FK-9 ultralight that has already survived three (!)
parachute landings (and is still flying - here's the photo:
http://www.fk-lightplanes.com/FK-History/9Mk3_3_57.jpg), and I read
about one SR-20 or 22 that is also flying again after a chute landing.

The problem of a glider that my butt is two inches from the ground in
a worst-case impact at 20 ft/sec (but the BRS systems for gliders are
designed in order to get an impact at 45 degrees nose down attitude,
maximizing the energy absorption of the fuselage nose).

Not to mention the possible extremely high (220 kts) speed of a
glider with a missing tail or wing. The deployment speed of the BRS of
the Cirrus is limited to a pretty low speed (iirc 150 kts IAS).

In Germany BRS systems are mandatory for ultralight aircraft (some of
these little planes reach cruise speeds in excess of 140 kts (limited
by the maximum deployment speed of the BRS) at a weight of about 1.000
pounds. Each year there are a couple of successful BRS savings.


Bye
Andreas

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:19:58 +0100, "Bert Willing"
wrote:

There are parachutes for static lines used in gliders (although less and
less) and manual ones.

To this whole discussion :
- it's almost impossible to retrofit a BRS to a glider
- that means that BRS will only be installed in gliders with a "crashworthy"
cockpit
- the only thing I'm really afraid of in soaring are midairs. Having a
midair in the Alps in the vivinity of a ridge, a BRS is basically the only
option to survive.

Right on the spot.

I have to admit that I'd prefer the Soteira system (a rocket that
pulls the pilot out of the glider). There's a cause why ejection seats
are used and not parachutes to save a complete B-52...


Bye
Andreas

I dont think this is as great a problem as Jim made
out.

All the chutes ive worn have the cable from the handle
channelled through a flexible steel pipe which is secured
to the shoulder strap through to the release pin inside
the chute. The pipe ensures that the direction of pull
is always the same, irrispective of the way you pull
the handle. The force to pull out the pin is not too
great, certainly considerably less than it would take
to tear the steel hose off the shoulder strap, or break
the swage that holds the handle onto the release wire.
The static line just simply acts as your hand as you
go over the side or get thrown clear.

How many seconds would we waste in free fall before
we got to pull the handle (let alone find it again!)?

What happens if in a mid air collision, you have your
arms injured such you can bearly just release the buckles
and canopy?

I think it would be great if those amongst us wrote
up their glider bail-out experiences...........

At 16:24 12 February 2004, Bert Willing wrote:
There are parachutes for static lines used in gliders
(although less and
less) and manual ones.

To this whole discussion :
- it's almost impossible to retrofit a BRS to a glider
- that means that BRS will only be installed in gliders
with a 'crashworthy'
cockpit
- the only thing I'm really afraid of in soaring are
midairs. Having a
midair in the Alps in the vivinity of a ridge, a BRS
is basically the only
option to survive.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 'TW'


'Jim Vincent' a écrit dans le message de
...
just out of interest, how many of those of us who
wear
chutes, use a deployment line attached to that odd
looking ring usually found by your left shoulder?

Be very careful about this. The parachutes we use
in gliders are not
designed
for static line deployment; they're designed for the
pull of a hand in a
particular direction. If you rig a static line directly
to the ripcord,
you
risk a very good chance of just ripping off the handle.

On a parachute, the container is kept closed by little
cones and rings.
The
ring goes through the cone, and in the case of a ripcord,
there is a pin
going
through a hole in the cone to keep the cone in place.
For static line, a
piece
of line is wrapped around the static line and then
through the hole in the
cone. When you jump out, the pull of the static line
breaks the thin
piece of
line, releasing the pilot chute.

Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

I'm a bit miffed with the obtuse information about BRS chutes. Name one, just
one, save done by a BRS chute in an airplane, or glider, that was NOT an
ultralight or hang glider, and was done from an out-of-control situation.



In article 402c2ce4$1@darkstar, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:
In article ,
Andreas Maurer wrote:

Not to mention the possible extremely high (220 kts) speed of a
glider with a missing tail or wing. The deployment speed of the BRS of
the Cirrus is limited to a pretty low speed (iirc 150 kts IAS).

Several BRS saves were quite a bit faster than the "rated"
system velocity.

Like parachute repack recommendations and Vne, the velocity recommendations
are primarily to protect the manufacturer from liability, and
are generously safesided to be far within the
actual limits of the equipment.