Puchaz spin count 23 and counting

Robert Ehrlich wrote:
Mark James Boyd wrote:
...
I think REQUIRING parachutes for ALL glider operations is absurd.
...

This is what the french regulations requires. Although I can admit that
our regulations have many absurd points, I would not count this one among
them. It is the same thing for seat belts in cars: if the regulation don't
make installing and using them mandatory, the statistics prove that cases
where they should be used and are not are way over the cases where they are
used and this causes some inconvenience.

Show me a single-seat car which has a miniscule chance of
injuring another person. Show me the safety statistics for
this...and perhaps you have a parallel to certain glider operations.

I liked Rod Machado's quote from Feb 2004 AOPA pilot:

"So the next time you hear the word always, only or never
used in an aviation sentence, think about asking the
question: So what?"

"Sorry, but no cigar today."

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:4026791b$1@darkstar...

I think it would be absurd to require parachutes for EVERY flight in
a 2-33 (a glider I've only flown ONCE above 3000 feet). 30 extra pounds
on every flight in a glider with no fatalities in 30 years, hardly
enough elevator to stall in any legal CG, and flown mostly below
3000 feet? Silly, in my opinion.

People have died because their parachutes failed to open.

Parachutes have been found damaged - sufficient to prevent them
opening - on inspection.

If, as seems likely, the probability of parachute damage increases
with each use, wearing them for winch circuits may well increase the
overall danger of a gliding operation.

Fun stuff, safety statistics.

Ian

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:4026791b$1@darkstar...
Vaughn wrote:
"Mark Stevens" wrote in
Chris,
snip
Yes, that is true. In my experience, most owners of single-seat
glass
wear parachutes, but most clubs and commercial operations using 2-seat
gliders do not. It is just part of the culture. I think part of the
reason
for this is the disincentive created by the US requirement that all
chutes,
regardless of technology, be repacked every 120 days. An out-of-date
chute
discovered in any operating aircraft is an invitation for an expensive
and
inconvenient FAA violation notice.

I think it would be absurd to require parachutes for EVERY flight in
a 2-33 (a glider I've only flown ONCE above 3000 feet). 30 extra pounds
on every flight in a glider with no fatalities in 30 years, hardly
enough elevator to stall in any legal CG, and flown mostly below
3000 feet? Silly, in my opinion.

4 in last 29 years, one ruled suicide, a few more before that, but nothing
like Puchaz. IS-28B2 had a similar reputation years ago when instructors
were spinning into the ground

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 15:54:18 GMT, "Vaughn"
wrote:

From a UK
perspective that seems criminally negligent and we
accept the cost of running parachutes for all seats
in all club gliders as simply something it would be
inconceivable to do.. And yes, they have saved lives...

I don't disagree, like helmets on motorcycles, it is (or is not) part
of the local safety culture and the majority naturally conform. That said,
is chute use normal in all small UK aircraft, or is it just gliders? If
only gliders, why?

AFAIK the UK practise of always wearing chutes in gliders dates from
the lightning strike on an ASK-21 about 8 years ago. Its occupants
were wearing chutes and both survived. They would not have done so
without them. Having said that, chute use is not entirely universal:
we never wear them in our T-21b, but that's the only exception I know.
I'm not clear on the reason for this.

I wasn't in gliding when that accident happened though I have read the
report, but by the time I started in 2000 chutes had become universal.
It think its the view that it would be silly to need one and not have
it that tipped the balance and all clubs quietly started using chutes
virtually all the time. Apart from that, all training gliders
routinely thermal or run ridges near the field, often in gaggles,
often up to 4000+ ft AGL, so wearing chutes makes sense to me.

I've never worn a chute in a light plane, and that includes SF-25s, or
even seen one in the cabin on the relatively few occasions I've flown
in GA aircraft in the UK. I'd always assumed that had a lot to do with
the relative difficulty of getting out of a GA plane in a hurry
compared with a glider. That has to make the chute much less useful.

A question for the PPLs amongst us: just how high would you need to be
to start egress from a full 4-place GA plane for everybody to exit
with room for the chute to open?


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

In article , Martin Gregorie
writes:

I wasn't in gliding when that accident happened though I have read the
report, but by the time I started in 2000 chutes had become universal.
It think its the view that it would be silly to need one and not have
it that tipped the balance and all clubs quietly started using chutes
virtually all the time. Apart from that, all training gliders
routinely thermal or run ridges near the field, often in gaggles,
often up to 4000+ ft AGL, so wearing chutes makes sense to me.

Another good reason to always wear chutes when instructing. What would you say
at an inquest or to your insurance company when a pupil died because he could
not bale out as he did not have a 'chute? I have little doubt you and or cyour
club could be successfully sued for negligence.

Duty of care in a big issue over here.

As an instructor of nearly 30 years I would not fly with a pupil in any glider
without a chute if it were possible to fit one in. Additionally, all of our
club aircraft are fitted with impact absorbing cushions for the same reason.

Barney
UK

BAToulson wrote:

Another good reason to always wear chutes when instructing. What would you say
at an inquest or to your insurance company when a pupil died because he could
not bale out as he did not have a 'chute? I have little doubt you and or cyour
club could be successfully sued for negligence.

I'd never wear a chute and not give one to a student. If it isn't
a dual flight, then I'd refer them to the PIC (solo) for the flight
(oops, he's dead), and then I'd show them the statistics for
lightning strikes and prove that wearing a chute increased the
chance of being hit by lightening, and this was a much
greater risk than what we estimated was the risk of
being the first fatal accident in the 2-33 in over 30 years,
much less one that might require a chute...

Then I'd take them for a flight with chutes, and at a nice high
altitude ask them if they'd rather jump out, or land with me...


Duty of care in a big issue over here.

As an instructor of nearly 30 years I would not fly with a pupil in any glider
without a chute if it were possible to fit one in. Additionally, all of our
club aircraft are fitted with impact absorbing cushions for the same reason.

Cushions are useful for EVERY landing...well, at least the ones
I make :P An excellent, low cost, high benefit idea...

And having flown with many instructors, there are certainly a few
I'd rather wear chutes with... :PPPPP


Barney
UK

Martin Gregorie wrote in message . ..


A question for the PPLs amongst us: just how high would you need to be
to start egress from a full 4-place GA plane for everybody to exit
with room for the chute to open?


Modern emergency parachutes are designed to be fast opening. But in
the end, the decision that is being weighed when seriously considering
whether to bail out of a broken airplane or to stay with it is this:
what are the relative probabilities of survival? If there is
absolutely zero chance of survival if the pilot elects to stay with
the airplane, then perhaps there is no real "minimum" bail out
altitude...

That issue aside, I did some research that wound up as an article in
Sport Aerobatics magazine awhile back on the subject of emergency bail
outs. In one case, one pilot successfully bailed out at about 300 feet
AGL. See http://www.richstowell.com/bailout.htm for the full article.

Rich (still leaning on the "power" crutch)
http://www.richstowell.com

On 9 Feb 2004 16:45:49 -0800, (Rich Stowell)
wrote:

Martin Gregorie wrote in message . ..


A question for the PPLs amongst us: just how high would you need to be
to start egress from a full 4-place GA plane for everybody to exit
with room for the chute to open?


Modern emergency parachutes are designed to be fast opening.

Yes, but that isn't what I was asking. Given that a 4-seat GA aircraft
has at most two doors, that the pilot leaves last and that normal
seating is installed:

- how long would it take three adults to leave by one door, followed
by the pilot out his side?

- how much height would be lost during that time? gliding? spinning?

- given typical GA cruising heights, which often seem to be around
3000 ft in the UK, how high would the plane be when the last occupant
left?

In other words, given typical operating conditions and loads for a
typical GA aircraft is there any point in all occupants wearing
chutes? That's even ignoring the volume and weight of the chutes.

Remember that this isn't either a blame or a GA-bashing exercise, but
merely an attempt to discover if a chute is more use to a glider pilot
than it is to the occupant of a typical GA aircraft. I suspect that
its more use to a glider pilot because of the egress problem and that
is why we use 'em and GA pilots don't but it would be nice to have
some factual confirmation or otherwise of this.

That issue aside, I did some research that wound up as an article in
Sport Aerobatics magazine awhile back on the subject of emergency bail
outs. In one case, one pilot successfully bailed out at about 300 feet
AGL. See http://www.richstowell.com/bailout.htm for the full article.

Good article. Thanks for the link.


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 15:54:18 GMT, "Vaughn"
wrote:

From a UK
perspective that seems criminally negligent and we
accept the cost of running parachutes for all seats
in all club gliders as simply something it would be
inconceivable to do.. And yes, they have saved lives...

I don't disagree, like helmets on motorcycles, it is (or is not) part
of the local safety culture and the majority naturally conform. That said,
is chute use normal in all small UK aircraft, or is it just gliders? If
only gliders, why?

Helmets, like much safety equipment, can increase the chance
of an accident but usually reduce the injury when one happens.
Somewhere in there is a good balance...


AFAIK the UK practise of always wearing chutes in gliders dates from
the lightning strike on an ASK-21 about 8 years ago. Its occupants
were wearing chutes and both survived. They would not have done so
without them. Having said that, chute use is not entirely universal:
we never wear them in our T-21b, but that's the only exception I know.
I'm not clear on the reason for this.

Aha! Chute use is NOT mandatory for ALL UK glider operations!
Excellent! Very civilized. And I think a much better way
since at least to some extent now pilots need to ask
themselves "why should I wear a chute" which is MUCH more
important a mental exercise than the rote donning of the
silk...

I've never worn a chute in a light plane, and that includes SF-25s, or
even seen one in the cabin on the relatively few occasions I've flown
in GA aircraft in the UK. I'd always assumed that had a lot to do with
the relative difficulty of getting out of a GA plane in a hurry
compared with a glider. That has to make the chute much less useful.

A question for the PPLs amongst us: just how high would you need to be
to start egress from a full 4-place GA plane for everybody to exit
with room for the chute to open?

C'mon Martin, it's a glider newsgroup. How about, how high would
YOU voluntarily exit a glider with a chute.

For me, somewhere between 1500-2500 feet AGL sounds right.
Below that, I'd rather think I'd try to fly and perhaps
bugger it in...

On 9 Feb 2004 23:28:52 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 15:54:18 GMT, "Vaughn"
wrote:

From a UK
perspective that seems criminally negligent and we
accept the cost of running parachutes for all seats
in all club gliders as simply something it would be
inconceivable to do.. And yes, they have saved lives...

I don't disagree, like helmets on motorcycles, it is (or is not) part
of the local safety culture and the majority naturally conform. That said,
is chute use normal in all small UK aircraft, or is it just gliders? If
only gliders, why?

Helmets, like much safety equipment, can increase the chance
of an accident but usually reduce the injury when one happens.
Somewhere in there is a good balance...


AFAIK the UK practise of always wearing chutes in gliders dates from
the lightning strike on an ASK-21 about 8 years ago. Its occupants
were wearing chutes and both survived. They would not have done so
without them. Having said that, chute use is not entirely universal:
we never wear them in our T-21b, but that's the only exception I know.
I'm not clear on the reason for this.

Aha! Chute use is NOT mandatory for ALL UK glider operations!
Excellent! Very civilized. And I think a much better way
since at least to some extent now pilots need to ask
themselves "why should I wear a chute" which is MUCH more
important a mental exercise than the rote donning of the
silk...

I've never worn a chute in a light plane, and that includes SF-25s, or
even seen one in the cabin on the relatively few occasions I've flown
in GA aircraft in the UK. I'd always assumed that had a lot to do with
the relative difficulty of getting out of a GA plane in a hurry
compared with a glider. That has to make the chute much less useful.

A question for the PPLs amongst us: just how high would you need to be
to start egress from a full 4-place GA plane for everybody to exit
with room for the chute to open?

C'mon Martin, it's a glider newsgroup. How about, how high would
YOU voluntarily exit a glider with a chute.

For me, somewhere between 1500-2500 feet AGL sounds right.
Below that, I'd rather think I'd try to fly and perhaps
bugger it in...

That sounds about right for me too, provided the aircraft is still on
one piece and (potentially) flyable.

See my recent post earlier in the thread for a fuller explanation of
why I asked about the GA experience.

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :