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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
BRS chutes. Why doesn't everyone use them?
On Jan 19, 8:35*pm, Sparkorama
wrote: ...I think they should be mandatory in every new glider built... Thoughts? I think that the idea is well-intentioned but ill-conceived. Others have already pointed out that BRS totals the aircraft in most deployments, usually results in injuries to the occupants, and is otherwise very far from being a panacea. If there were an affordable and reliable system that was guaranteed to work in all sailplanes across a wide variety of conditions, I'd probably not object so strenuously. However, that is not the case. The systems that are available are bulky and expensive, and can be difficult or impossible to fit into something small aircraft where interior volume is so scarce. Sailplanes present special challenges for ballistic recovery systems. Their requirement for low drag can make it difficult to install the suspension bridles without performance-robbing bulges and blisters, and their wide range of operating weights makes it hard to tailor the parachute size to the aircraft mass. My strongest issue with the idea is the underlying assertion that there is or should be some bureau or agency responsible for making BRS "mandatory in every new glider built." Required for gliders that receive type certificates after some certain date, I can sort of see that. That's the sort of thing that the NTSB might recommend to the FAA in a decade or two, and which the FAA might take under advisement for a similar span. But required for gliders being manufactured under current type certificates? No, sorry, I think that retroactive requirements like that set a very, very bad precedent. And required for Experimental, Amateur-built, and Experimental, Racing gliders? No way. That would very much stifle the kind of innovation and competition that those (non-)certification categories are designed to foster. That said, in the glider I am developing now, I have indeed reserved a modest volume for a ballistic parachute system should some customers express an interest in it. However, that volume is not available in sustainer or self-launch versions, so you would have to choose between the motor and the parachute. In the overall scheme of things, the place to look for the deployment of new systems like this are customers and insurance companies. Both of them vote with dollars, and in the free market that's pretty much the only vote that matters. Thanks, Bob K. http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
BRS chutes. Why doesn't everyone use them?
I think that the idea is well-intentioned but ill-conceived. Others
have already pointed out that BRS totals the aircraft in most deployments, usually results in injuries to the occupants, and is otherwise very far from being a panacea. To me the key issue and logic for BRS is: a low altitude mid-air collision where getting out and deploying your chute is going to be dicey at best. Like in the traffic pattern or near the pattern which is where most collisions occur. Best example of a BRS being worth it at low altitude: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrVxp_gyTcI Considering how light our gliders are--I think it's worth having--but not mandatory. Bob GE2 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
BRS chutes. Why doesn't everyone use them?
On Jan 20, 2:16*pm, Bob D wrote:
I think that the idea is well-intentioned but ill-conceived. Others have already pointed out that BRS totals the aircraft in most deployments, usually results in injuries to the occupants, and is otherwise very far from being a panacea. To me the key issue and logic for BRS is: a low altitude mid-air collision where getting out and deploying your chute is going to be dicey at best. Like in the traffic pattern or near the pattern which is where most collisions occur. Best example of a BRS being worth it at low altitude:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrVxp_gyTcI Considering how light our gliders are--I think it's worth having--but not mandatory. Bob GE2 But I don't believe that near the pattern is where most glider collisions occur-- I believe the major risk happens in thermals and when entering/exiting thermals. And I don't say that lightly, as we lost two pilots in Northern California in a collision between a glider and towplane in the pattern not too long ago. The issue is BRS is pretty invasive to install its a large package to fit into a small space. My motorglider has *no* room for a BRS and I see not practical way of adding room. Its not an endless list of thigns we could/should have all of saftey related technologies involve tradeoffs, effectiveness, cost, complexity, reliability, weight, space, ... There are other saftey technologies (like effective use of VHF radio and beyond that also adding PowerFLARM, transponders (in appropriate areas), etc) that I would much rather see people invest their money in than a BRS. If you do all that then maybe look at a BRS. And I would be horrified to see attempts at mandating or even pushing BRS and its potential to take away money that would potentially be used to purchase VHF radios, PowerFLARM, transponders etc. I assume everybody out there is wearing a personal parachute, and if your are not its your life, but at least using a radio effectively and a PowerFLARM can help save other lives not just your own. And possibly the best saftey investment pilots can make in the next few months is... (you all thought I was going to say a PowerFLARM right...) is a spring checkout with an instructor. Should we mandate those? :-) Darryl |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
BRS chutes. Why doesn't everyone use them?
On Jan 21, 3:57*am, Sparkorama
wrote: Darryl Ramm;760474 Wrote: On Jan 20, 2:16*pm, Bob D wrote:-- I think that the idea is well-intentioned but ill-conceived. Others have already pointed out that BRS totals the aircraft in most deployments, usually results in injuries to the occupants, and is otherwise very far from being a panacea.- To me the key issue and logic for BRS is: a low altitude mid-air collision where getting out and deploying your chute is going to be dicey at best. Like in the traffic pattern or near the pattern which is where most collisions occur. Best example of a BRS being worth it at low altitude:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrVxp_gyTcI Considering how light our gliders are--I think it's worth having--but not mandatory. Bob GE2- But I don't believe that near the pattern is where most glider collisions occur-- I believe the major risk happens in thermals and when entering/exiting thermals. And I don't say that lightly, as we lost two pilots in Northern California in a collision between a glider and towplane in the pattern not too long ago. The issue is BRS is pretty invasive to install its a large package to fit into a small space. My motorglider has *no* room for a BRS and I see not practical way of adding room. Its not an endless list of thigns we could/should have all of saftey related technologies involve tradeoffs, effectiveness, cost, complexity, reliability, weight, space, ... There are other saftey technologies (like effective use of VHF radio and beyond that also adding PowerFLARM, transponders (in appropriate areas), etc) that I would much rather see people invest their money in than a BRS. If you do all that then maybe look at a BRS. And I would be horrified to see attempts at mandating or even pushing BRS and its potential to take away money that would potentially be used to purchase VHF radios, PowerFLARM, transponders etc. I assume everybody out there is wearing a personal parachute, and if your are not its your life, but at least using a radio effectively and a PowerFLARM can help save other lives not just your own. And possibly the best saftey investment pilots can make in the next few months is... (you all thought I was going to say a PowerFLARM right...) is a spring checkout with an instructor. Should we mandate those? :-) Darryl It seems I caused a bit of a stir with the "mandatory" comment. I can see that it may not be so simple. However, I think the BRS system needs some good competition and maybe a glider-specific model. I wonder if in a few years they could bring down cost and size to make it more accessible to the soaring community. I imagine a well thought out glider model would be something a lot of people might consider. Does anyone know the stats or have personal info about getting out of a glider with a personal chute after a mid-air? -- Sparkorama You can't just stick one of these on an aircraft without doing some extensive design and testing and the testing would involve trashing the test bed. There is no one size fits all like a radio or transponder. You have to look at the numbers of prospective customers and retrofitting a chute to the relatively small glider market is not financially plausible. If you've got very deep pockets anything's possible--this just doesn't look profitable. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
BRS chutes. Why doesn't everyone use them?
On Jan 21, 1:57*am, Sparkorama
wrote: Darryl Ramm;760474 Wrote: On Jan 20, 2:16*pm, Bob D wrote:-- I think that the idea is well-intentioned but ill-conceived. Others have already pointed out that BRS totals the aircraft in most deployments, usually results in injuries to the occupants, and is otherwise very far from being a panacea.- To me the key issue and logic for BRS is: a low altitude mid-air collision where getting out and deploying your chute is going to be dicey at best. Like in the traffic pattern or near the pattern which is where most collisions occur. Best example of a BRS being worth it at low altitude:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrVxp_gyTcI Considering how light our gliders are--I think it's worth having--but not mandatory. Bob GE2- But I don't believe that near the pattern is where most glider collisions occur-- I believe the major risk happens in thermals and when entering/exiting thermals. And I don't say that lightly, as we lost two pilots in Northern California in a collision between a glider and towplane in the pattern not too long ago. The issue is BRS is pretty invasive to install its a large package to fit into a small space. My motorglider has *no* room for a BRS and I see not practical way of adding room. Its not an endless list of thigns we could/should have all of saftey related technologies involve tradeoffs, effectiveness, cost, complexity, reliability, weight, space, ... There are other saftey technologies (like effective use of VHF radio and beyond that also adding PowerFLARM, transponders (in appropriate areas), etc) that I would much rather see people invest their money in than a BRS. If you do all that then maybe look at a BRS. And I would be horrified to see attempts at mandating or even pushing BRS and its potential to take away money that would potentially be used to purchase VHF radios, PowerFLARM, transponders etc. I assume everybody out there is wearing a personal parachute, and if your are not its your life, but at least using a radio effectively and a PowerFLARM can help save other lives not just your own. And possibly the best saftey investment pilots can make in the next few months is... (you all thought I was going to say a PowerFLARM right...) is a spring checkout with an instructor. Should we mandate those? :-) Darryl It seems I caused a bit of a stir with the "mandatory" comment. I can see that it may not be so simple. However, I think the BRS system needs some good competition and maybe a glider-specific model. I wonder if in a few years they could bring down cost and size to make it more accessible to the soaring community. I imagine a well thought out glider model would be something a lot of people might consider. Does anyone know the stats or have personal info about getting out of a glider with a personal chute after a mid-air? -- Sparkorama I think you have it backwards, the market does not need more vendors/ different technology/competition. Potential vendors need a practically addressable market. Your trying to sell a marginal improvement (benefits of BRS vs personal parachute) at significant increase in cost and complexity and installation hassles/limitations. I don't see any dramatic changes in technology that will shrink the package or make a fully installed (and approved/STCed etc. if needed) and allow a price point of interest to most glider owners. BRS systems are available now in some motorgliders (when the motor is not installed and the new glider cost is enough that the purchaser is more likely to be willing to accept the BRS system cost) and its great to see them being designed into those aircraft, and Bob's HP-24, for owners who want that option (and don't want an engine). Darryl |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
BRS chutes. Why doesn't everyone use them?
BRS type systems are still attractive for gliders. We've had quite a
few crashes in which pilots were not able to get out of gliders, but perhaps could have pushed a button. For gliders, the Streifender system is probably the most relevant. http://www.streifly.de/gesamtrettungssystem-e.htm It seems to be legal and all. What happened? Is it simply that most poeple are putting the motor where it should go? John Cochrane |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
BRS chutes. Why doesn't everyone use them?
At 18:03 21 January 2011, John Cochrane wrote:
BRS type systems are still attractive for gliders. Seems to me it's a lot easier to get out of a glider in an emergency than from the average light airplane. (Well, OK, the open cockpit jobs like Stearmen are different.) The only time I've worn a parachute in a power plane was when we were going for an aerobatic ride. And one of those instances was in a Cessna Aerobat, which would have been sort of difficult to exit if it was tumbling out of control. Jim Beckman |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
BRS chutes. Why doesn't everyone use them?
On Jan 21, 11:03*am, John Cochrane
wrote: BRS type systems are still attractive for gliders. We've had quite a few crashes in which pilots were not able to get out of gliders, but perhaps could have pushed a button. For gliders, the Streifender system is probably the most relevant. http://www.streifly.de/gesamtrettungssystem-e.htm It seems to be legal and all. What happened? Is it simply that most poeple are putting the motor where it should go? John Cochrane I'd be more impressed with BRS chutes if videos of the tests didn't show the flight test guy jumping with his own personal 'chute after the BRS deployment. It suggests he knows riding the darn thing down isn't good for his health. I'd like the NOAH idea better if it was available as a mere "butt raiser" which lifts the pilots rump up and forward a few inches. I think just a little lift would make a huge difference in ease of egress. Raising the pilot in a reclining position, as the current NOAH unit does, only works with canopy mounted panels. Bill Daniels |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
BRS chutes. Why doesn't everyone use them?
I know there is at least one BRS system installed in a Schreder HP-16.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP...S_in_HP-16.htm There soon will also be one in a HP-14. (The '14 I'm referring to isn't mine.) Wayne http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F "John Cochrane" wrote in message ... BRS type systems are still attractive for gliders. We've had quite a few crashes in which pilots were not able to get out of gliders, but perhaps could have pushed a button. For gliders, the Streifender system is probably the most relevant. http://www.streifly.de/gesamtrettungssystem-e.htm It seems to be legal and all. What happened? Is it simply that most poeple are putting the motor where it should go? John Cochrane |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
F-104 Chutes out | Glen in Orlando | Aviation Photos | 0 | October 9th 09 07:01 PM |
Square chutes - ExtreemSports.wmv (0/1) | Tech Support | Soaring | 4 | December 15th 08 07:40 PM |
Square Chutes... | sisu1a | Soaring | 4 | December 9th 08 06:04 PM |
Puchaz spin - now wearing 'chutes | Bill Daniels | Soaring | 60 | February 14th 04 08:08 PM |