emergency chute

Michael wrote:

If by that you mean that you won't train to use your emergency
equipment, then you are correct. Stick with the round. Just don't be
surprised if it lands you in the hospital. Remember - those maximum
loadings are based on a fit man in his 20's wearing boots with ankle
support. For a middle aged man wearing tennis shoes, they really ought
to be reduced by 30% or so.

I personally know two pilots who had to jump. One broke a leg on
landing, the other sprayed an ankle. But believe it or not: Neither of
them complained.

Stefan

Michael, I get your point however like many others
I hope that I will never have to use my parachute and
if I do I will take my chances. The only thing that
I want from it is that it works so how do I judge that?
I look at one of the most sucessful canopies there
is and think to myself, OK that works I want that one.
In my case it is the same canopy that is pressed into
the headbox of every MB ejector seat, an Irvin conical,
an identical canopy to the one in my pack. I am sure
that other canopies are just as good but to my way
of thinking, as I never intend to test it I will go
with something that will save my life even though I
am stupid enough not to get any training in it's use.
How do I know the canopy works, take a look at this.

http://www.joe-ks.com/Multi_Media/HarrierEjection.htm

The pilot was a tad unlucky, he broke his ankle when
he landed on his aircraft. I know that the actions
of the seat contribute but just look at the rate of
descent when the seat clears the cockpit. The seat
was actually outside it's required sucess envelope
but still the canopy deployed and saved the pilots
life.

At 19:30 07 April 2005, Michael wrote:
Thanks for that.

You're welcome.

It would seem therefore that the standard
conical chute is the only choice for the majority
of
glider pilots on the grounds that it is likely that
we will only ever use it if we have to.

If by that you mean that you won't train to use your
emergency
equipment, then you are correct. Stick with the round.
Just don't be
surprised if it lands you in the hospital. Remember
- those maximum
loadings are based on a fit man in his 20's wearing
boots with ankle
support. For a middle aged man wearing tennis shoes,
they really ought
to be reduced by 30% or so. Not so the weights on
squares - they are,
if anything, conservative if you know how to land one.

I am firmly of the opinion that people who jump out
of perfectly serviceable aeroplanes are .........how
can I put it.......... lacking in some way. :-)

As opposed to the spectacular good sense exhibited
by those who fly
airplanes that don't even have engines
Glass houses, stones, etc.

Michael

Don Johnstone wrote:
http://www.joe-ks.com/Multi_Media/HarrierEjection.htm

So, did he get reprimanded for hovering that close to a beach crowded
with people?

In my book, the MB ejection seat and Irvin chute are a winning combination.

http://www.soaridaho.com/Family_Pict...e/Cat_Club.jpg

Wayne
(Harold Wayne Paul)
HP-14 N990 "6F"




"Don Johnstone" wrote in
message ...
I look at one of the most sucessful canopies there
is and think to myself, OK that works I want that one.
In my case it is the same canopy that is pressed into
the headbox of every MB ejector seat, an Irvin conical,
an identical canopy to the one in my pack. I am sure
that other canopies are just as good but to my way
of thinking, as I never intend to test it I will go
with something that will save my life even though I
am stupid enough not to get any training in it's use.
How do I know the canopy works, take a look at this.

http://www.joe-ks.com/Multi_Media/HarrierEjection.htm

The pilot was a tad unlucky, he broke his ankle when
he landed on his aircraft. I know that the actions
of the seat contribute but just look at the rate of
descent when the seat clears the cockpit. The seat
was actually outside it's required sucess envelope
but still the canopy deployed and saved the pilots
life.

No it was an air display at Lowestoft, I was there
when it happened. The crowd were impressed.

At 22:30 07 April 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
Don Johnstone wrote:
http://www.joe-ks.com/Multi_Media/HarrierEjection.htm

So, did he get reprimanded for hovering that close
to a beach crowded
with people?

I personally know two pilots who had to jump. One broke a leg on
landing, the other sprayed an ankle.

My informal survey suggests that about a quarter of those who make
emergency bailouts on round parachutes go to the hospital afterwards,
so I'm not surprised. I've never heard of anyone bailing out on a
square parachute and getting hurt, but that doesn't mean much because
(a) they are still new, expensive, and relatively rare and (b) are
generally used by trained parachutists (everyone I know who uses one at
least went through some ground school and made a training jump) so how
much of this is gear and how much is training is hard to determine.

But believe it or not: Neither of them complained.

It's a matter of perspective. If a power pilot has to land off airport
and he walks away, even needing stitches, he feels great about the
experience because it's something he will do only in a dire emergency,
and probably never. If a glider pilot walks away from an off airport
landing with a trashed aircraft and stitches, he feels it was a pretty
bad outcome, and wonders what he should have done differently. This is
more of the same.

Sport parachute jumpers pretty much accept that they will eventually
use that emergency parachute they wear as a backup. Therefore, they
expect a certain level of performance. That's why when they wear a
bailout rig, they want a square. Glider pilots don't see it that way.

It's not right or wrong. It's your choice to accept an emergency
parachute that has a high probability of putting you in the hospital if
you use it. I simply feel it should be an informed choice.

Michael

Michael wrote:

My informal survey suggests that about a
quarter of those who make emergency
bailouts on round parachutes go to
the hospital afterwards....

It's your choice to accept an emergency
parachute that has a high probability of
putting you in the hospital if you use it.

One in four is no kind of "probability" at all, let alone a high one.

I'd be much more interested in seeing even an informal analysis of
unsuccessful attempts to bail out.


Jack

Jack wrote:
One in four is no kind of "probability" at all, let alone a high one.

Actuqally, it's 3 of 11. But that's not exactly a statistical
powerhouse either. That's why I said "informal survey suggests" rather
than "study shows."

I'd be much more interested in seeing even an informal analysis of
unsuccessful attempts to bail out.

The attempts were not unsuccessful. These people all bailed out and
saved their lives. The injuries were sustained on landing. They were
not life-threatening. In every case, the parachute loading was more
than I would recommend for a middle aged person wearing shoes with no
ankle protection, and the training was less than what I would recommend
for anyone (none, actually). But that was the case for the other 8 as
well. They got by with bumps and bruises.

I think the informal analysis reads like this:

Round parachute loadings are based on the old military tables. These
presuppose several factors, none of which are true for the average
glider pilot bailing out:
Healthy, strong, conditioned soldiers, usually in their 20's.
Jump boots providing ankle protection.
Very intense, very regular training in parachute landing falls.

Maximum allowable TSO loadings are even higher - they're based on the
ability to sustain opening shock at maximum altitude/airspeed, and
descent rate doesn't figure into it at all.

For the average middle aged (or older) glider pilot wearing typical
soaring footwear, using a round parachute at anything close to the
manufacturer's recommended maximum loading is asking for a landing
injury. That weight should be derated by at least 30%. Note that the
weight includes the weight of the rig.

For those who are light in weight, a 26 or 28 ft diameter canopy is
adequate. Round emergency parachutes are not made in sizes larger than
28 ft. In fact, I wouldn't know where to get a 28' rig anymore. For
those who are over 200 lbs (including the rig), there are no
appropriately sized round rigs. Their options include using a reserve
that is likely to put them in the hospital, or getting a square rig and
the training required to use it.

Michael

Michael wrote:

It's not right or wrong. It's your choice to accept an emergency
parachute that has a high probability of putting you in the hospital if
you use it. I simply feel it should be an informed choice.

My informedly cose between a chute which is fool proof albeit I might
break a leg on landing and one which is much better but which I might
not be able to handle. The choice seems obvious for a pilot who has no
parachute training at all and most probably will never have. (And who
doesn't know in which state his mind will be if -shudder- he really
needs that thing one day.)

Stefan

Michael wrote:

It's not right or wrong. It's your choice to accept an emergency
parachute that has a high probability of putting you in the hospital
if you use it. I simply feel it should be an informed choice.

I've informedly chosen between a chute which is fool proof albeit I
might break a leg on landing and one which is much better but which I
might not be able to handle. The choice seems obvious for a pilot who
has no parachute training at all and most probably will never have. (And
who doesn't know in which state his mind will be if -shudder- he really
needs that thing one day.)

Stefan