emergency chute

Jack wrote:

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.

I think this is the bigger problem. Those that don't get out of the
glider usually die. Once most pilots have Roeger hooks on their gliders
and the muscle strength to lift themselves out of the cockpit easily,
then it might be worthwhile trying to minimize the landing injuries.

Even better is to avoid the collision in the first place. The Europeans
now have an additional choice beyond "see and avoid": the "Flight Alarm"
device from www.flarm.com. Over 450 of these devices have been
delivered, and 2000 more are scheduled for delivery this year.

However, if a couple of jumps appeal to a pilot, it sounds like learning
to use a square reserve would be enjoyable and, in addition, provide
some slight additional safety for soaring.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Eric Greenwell wrote:

Even better is to avoid the collision in the first place. The Europeans
now have an additional choice beyond "see and avoid": the "Flight Alarm"
device from www.flarm.com. Over 450 of these devices have been
delivered, and 2000 more are scheduled for delivery this year.

But this device (whether useful or not, we will see) will never be sold
in the USA. An excerpt from the manual, translated from German:

FLARM must not be used in the USA or in Canada or by US or Canadian
pilots or in aircraft which are immatriculated or insured in the USA or
in Canada. The use of FLARM is forbidden when there are persons on board
who live in the USA or in Canada or who are citizens of the USA or
Canada. The use of FLARM is forbidden when the place of departure,
destination or of any intermediate landing is in the USA or in Canada.

Guess why!

Stefan

I think we are getting off the point here. I accept
that a square chute gives a descent speed of less than
the 18-22fps of a conical chute but the square chute
requires training.
If we compare the number of bailouts to the number
of flights undertaken in gliders we come up with a
very small statisical chance of ever having to resort
to using them.
If every glider pilot was trained using a square chute,
bearing in mind the age and fitness of all pilots are
we able to say that the chances of injury would be
reduced. I suspect not, in fact the chances of accidental
injury could rise dramitically. Every jump carries
the chance of injury, not jumping does not carry that
risk.
The question is therefore, given the unlikehood of
needing to abandon the glider is it sensible to undergo
that training? Remember that if only 1 in 4 people
are injured so 3 in four abandon and land with no injury
at all. If all glider pilots trained then the number
of injuries caused by parachute descents can only rise,
more jumps more injuries. Statistcally the chances
of injury are much less if we only jump the once ie
when we have to undergoing training could be a case
where the cure is worse than the disease.

The original question was, should we use round or square
chutes. The answer is simple, unless you feel the need
to parachute jump the square is not a sensible option.
Given that many people only ever take one ride in a
glider and may have to use a parachute then round is
the only sensible answer. As having two types of parachute
available presents the opportunity of someone wearing
the wrong one there really is no choice.
Sorry if your business is parachute training.


At 21:00 08 April 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Jack wrote:

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.

I think this is the bigger problem. Those that don't
get out of the
glider usually die. Once most pilots have Roeger hooks
on their gliders
and the muscle strength to lift themselves out of the
cockpit easily,
then it might be worthwhile trying to minimize the
landing injuries.

Even better is to avoid the collision in the first
place. The Europeans
now have an additional choice beyond 'see and avoid':
the 'Flight Alarm'
device from www.flarm.com. Over 450 of these devices
have been
delivered, and 2000 more are scheduled for delivery
this year.

However, if a couple of jumps appeal to a pilot, it
sounds like learning
to use a square reserve would be enjoyable and, in
addition, provide
some slight additional safety for soaring.

--
Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Stefan wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote:

Even better is to avoid the collision in the first place. The
Europeans now have an additional choice beyond "see and avoid": the
"Flight Alarm" device from www.flarm.com. Over 450 of these devices
have been delivered, and 2000 more are scheduled for delivery this year.


But this device (whether useful or not, we will see) will never be sold
in the USA. An excerpt from the manual, translated from German:

FLARM must not be used in the USA or in Canada or by US or Canadian
pilots or in aircraft which are immatriculated or insured in the USA or
in Canada.

My contact with the FLARM people suggests the liability question can be
resolved. After all, we already use similar devices in North America,
but they are effective only if the other aircraft has a transponder.

A bigger problem, I think, is getting enough people in the US excited
about the value of the Flarm device. In fact, it may not have much value
here, except in the one or two places where glider traffic is very
dense. This would include the White Mountains near Minden, and perhaps
the Allegheny ridges near the East coast.

If the Flarm device was also an IGC approved flight recorder, as they
have considered doing, this would make it more likely to find use in the
USA.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

So, all this talk of how dangerous a round chute is.

In the last 8 years I've been back in soaring, I only recall hearing of
3 saves. I'm sure there are others.

Are there any statistics on how many people in America have been able to
save themselves with a parachute, over the last 10, 20, 30 years? Any
numbers on unsuccessful attempts? By unsuccessful attempts, I mean,
situations where it looked like the pilot was attempting to bail but ran
out of time.

Sincerely,
David Walsh


Sven Olivier wrote:
What is best: a round or square chute? Do they differ in time to open? Are
previous experience or training jumps with a square chute mandatory? Is a
static line better - if so why?
(we have a packer at our club that has recommended square chutes, but
apparently two training jumps are mandatory - we are based in South Africa)

Sven
EY

Eric Greenwell wrote:

I think this is the bigger problem. Those that don't get out of the
glider usually die. Once most pilots have Roeger hooks on their gliders
and the muscle strength to lift themselves out of the cockpit easily,
then it might be worthwhile trying to minimize the landing injuries.

I should point out if the pilot installs a NOAH system, he can reduce
the muscle strength requirement considerably.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Michael wrote:
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

Funny, I have a Pioneer tri-conical (round) chute of 29' diameter. It is 19
years old and never been open except in the riggers for checking. Pretty much
the way I like it.

At 235lbs with an already weak leg It's going to hurt if I ever use it...

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:27:13 +0200, Bruce wrote:

Michael wrote:
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

Funny, I have a Pioneer tri-conical (round) chute of 29' diameter. It is 19
years old and never been open except in the riggers for checking. Pretty much
the way I like it.

At 235lbs with an already weak leg It's going to hurt if I ever use it...

I have landed under the same canopy at 230#. It hurts unless you do a
good PLF.

Hi

While it is clear that square reserves are a good idea for the few
glider pilots who have some parachuting experience, there was a good
posting which pointed out that far more injuries would happen if all
glider pilots had to undergo even minimal parachute training then
currently occur when pilots bail out under round reserves with no
training, which fortunately does not happen very often.

I have a hypothetical question for for those with parachuting
experience, if your hands were tied to each other and to your waste,
(withjust enough movement to operate the rip cord) and you were thrown
out of an airplane strapped into your glider reserver, would you prefer
to have a round canopy or a square one?

It seems some chutes, like this one

I use a Rigging Innovations "Aviator" P-124, which has a ram-air
(square) chute designed for airmen who may have no prior jump
experience. The web page for the product is he

http://www.rigginginnovations.com/products/aviator.html

might be no worse that a round one, but what about a more typical square
reserve chute that we are likely come across in South Africa, like this
one?

If you are in South Africa there is manufacturer under the name PISA,
which manufactures a very good square canopy Tempo.


Thanks


Ian

Bruce wrote:
Michael wrote:
Round emergency parachutes are not made in sizes larger than
28 ft.

Funny, I have a Pioneer tri-conical (round) chute of 29' diameter. It
is 19
years old

I am well aware of the Pioneer. It's a fine canopy. My understanding
is that none have been manufactured this century. I could be wrong.

At 235lbs with an already weak leg It's going to hurt if I ever use
it...

Yes it is.

Michael