Just pull the little red handle!

"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.

"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
...
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.
snip

Personally I know one glider pilot whose life was saved after a mid-air by
his parachute, and I know of at least one more. I also know of a poor chap
who managed to egress from his glider but whose parachute malfunctioned.

So, your parachute as well as being a pricey cushion might save your life
one day.

How easy it is go get out might also depend on the glider design as well as
what has happened to it. It seems likely to me that the AS front canopy
hinge designs with a lifting panel leave a lot more room than the SH side
hinge ones especially if the panel is non-lifting. I got in a Discus with a
non-lifting panel once, and the thought crossed my mind that it would
probably be very difficult to get out in a hurry, whereas my own has a
front-hinged canopy and a massive gap once it's open - or the canopy is
removed.

BTW I pulled the handle on my parachute last time it was repacked - was
surprised how little force was needed, and how little happened given I was
stood on the floor in the packing room!

"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

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

Interesting! I had wondered about this possibility, but never saw
anything on it. Sounds like you know more than you're saying - where
could I go for more details? Send it to me off line, if you like.

-John

On Sep 1, 2:18 pm, "kirk.stant" wrote:
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!

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!

I know a glider pilot that did this (pull the ripcord while seated in
the sailplane), the pilot chute deployed and she was extracted from
the cockpit OK.

I knew another pilot that tried this, the chute deployed right into
the tail feathers! A tumbling mass of glider, nylon and pilot
descended back to earth.

We need something more reliable with predictable results.

JJ

On Sep 1, 4:27*pm, JJ Sinclair wrote:
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!

I know a glider pilot that did this (pull the ripcord while seated in
the sailplane), the pilot chute deployed and she was extracted from
the cockpit OK.

I knew another pilot that tried this, the chute deployed right into
the tail feathers! A tumbling mass of glider, nylon and pilot
descended back to earth.

We need something more reliable with predictable results.

JJ





For decades at least once or twice each contest I use to practice
getting out of the cockpit with my chute on after a flight. In the
1990s (my late 60s and 70s) I got too old to easily and quickly do it.
I was (and am still) convinced that I would be unable to exit under
any positive G situation (even +1). I had lost more than a couple of
friends who I thought maybe could have survived if able to jump. I
thought (and still think) this ability is a major safety
consideration. So during the last four or five years I competed
(1998-2003) I used a NOAH like system I designed. Cost was 100 bucks.
At a paint ball store I got most of the parts…a small on board CO2
tank (about 3to4” dia. And 15-18”long) and a gallon or two size refill
tank for the crew car or front of the trailer. I found a small 90
degree valve with handle (not knob) at the hardware, two high pressure
lines, one from the tank (wedged behind the seat) along the side just
below the gunwale to the valve mounted there next to my water dump
lever (in a Discus, later my LS-8 and finally my ASW-28). Another line
ran from the valve down under my cushion to the bladder. I sketched up
a neat expandable bladder but never found the right source to make it
so I continued to use an ATV inner tube folded over I found for
initial testing.
With about 1200psi in the tank a flick of the valve would raise my
fanny, with chute, up to the gunwale in about 2 seconds. I did many
tests in my shop and it was effortless to roll out and fall on the
mattress beside the cockpit.
Later when DG developed the NOAH system they had to incorporate
complicated canopy and seat belt release systems which made it
expensive. For liability reasons no company (or person) could make
such a system for resale without the automatic systems. A BIG factor
in my system was my reliance on my personal drill while in the cockpit
with it armed. I developed a rigid 1,2,3 drill I practiced when I got
in and just before take off. 1) release canopy, 2) twist belt release,
3) twist valve. My checklist include touching each in order just
before rolling. Once in my shop while testing I inadvertently hit the
valve with the belts tight. It really pushed me hard against the belts
but not painfully so and I did not feel incapacitated (just silly!)
After that, just as another backup I keep a knife in the side pouch to
deal with the bladder if necessary.
For liability reasons I never made another system for friends who
requested. Several wanted one just to get out on the ground after a
flight. I used mine this way many times. Cracking the valve slowly
raised you up so you could easily step out. It took less than five
minutes to recharge the tank.
The system was rather gut simple but potentially dangerous. I was a
licensed professional engineer and an FAA A&P at the time. My gliders
were “experimental”. I never did any “paperwork”.
This post is a discussion of my experiences and is in no way a
recommendation of any kind.
Ed Byars

On 9/1/2010 8:48 AM, Surfer! wrote:


"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.

A Flarm is less than £1k, isn't it? And what are the EASA hoops you'd
have to jump through to put a small, self-contained box on top of your
instrument panel?

--
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

On Aug 31, 7:40*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
The choice of the actual frequncy to be used has
been done for years (and your Flarm units will probalby tune to that
frequncy if you brought them here). The first chance for USA pilots to
adopt this technology will be the upcoming PowerFLARM product.


More clarity requested.

If Existing FLARM supports the freq to be allocated in US why are not
manufacturers of those units jumping on the US market and getting FCC
certification. I know what freqs are supported by FLARM as I have the
documentation. What freq is being used for USA and where is that
published?

Why are we waiting for PowerFLAM with it's still undocumented new
features when FLARM products already exist?

On the other hand, if Power FLARM is being built with an RF section
that is unique to USA then potential purchasers may want to know that.
It could limit both resale value and its usefulness for US pilots that
fly overseas.

So why is US PowerFLARM not identical with PowerFLARM being marketed
to the rest of the world and are the systems interoperable?

Andy

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 17:31:59 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:


More clarity requested.

If Existing FLARM supports the freq to be allocated in US why are not
manufacturers of those units jumping on the US market and getting FCC
certification.

US lawyers and US product liability.


Regards
Andreas