If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Emergency Parachute questions | Jay Moreland | Aerobatics | 14 | December 3rd 04 05:46 PM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
Military jet makes emergency landing at MidAmerica | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 1st 03 02:28 AM |
Emergency landing at Meigs Sunday | Thomas J. Paladino Jr. | Piloting | 22 | August 3rd 03 03:14 PM |
First Emergency (Long Post) | [email protected] | Owning | 14 | July 23rd 03 02:46 AM |