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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
BRS chutes. Why doesn't everyone use them?
On Jan 19, 8:35*pm, Sparkorama
wrote: I'm just getting back into the sport after a long hiatus. I've seen that a lot of glider pilots fly with parachutes (ones they wear) and I have seen Ballistic Recovery System parachutes in planes as well. From my layman's view, it appears that getting out of a plane using a traditional chute after a mid-air collision seems exceedingly difficult and time-consuming. On the other hand, BRS chutes seem to deploy very fast and can be deployed very close to the ground. They can lower the entire plane safely to the ground in almost any terrain, and a few bruises to your bird or your body seems a lot better than certain death if you can't get out of a plane after a mid-air. So if this is true, and I am happy to say I am no expert, then why isn't everyone using these things? I think they should be mandatory in every new glider built. Thoughts? Spark -- Sparkorama Do I not remember a Sparrow Hawk glider that was built with a BRS and sold for a military application. The test pilot exceeded VNE due to some ASI calibration errors. The glider came apart, in the process the BRS self deployed because the cable pulled tight with the failing airframe. On BRS deployment the resulting opening shock caused the seat belt attach points to fail and the pilot was ejected through the canopy. Lucky he was also wearing a backpack parachute and he survived. BRS is not a cure all if the structure fails. T |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
BRS chutes. Why doesn't everyone use them?
On 1/21/2011 4:35 PM, bildan wrote:
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. And pedestal mounted panels like the DG single seaters, and swivel panels like the Ventus uses. Maybe not good with a Nimbus 3 canopy mounted to the cockpit sills, and similar panels. Maybe they have a version with limited inflation - worth asking. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
BRS chutes. Why doesn't everyone use them?
On 1/21/2011 10:49 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 1/21/2011 4:35 PM, bildan wrote: 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. And pedestal mounted panels like the DG single seaters, and swivel panels like the Ventus uses. Maybe not good with a Nimbus 3 canopy mounted to the cockpit sills, and similar panels. Maybe they have a version with limited inflation - worth asking. That should be "panel mounted to the cockpit sills", not "canopy". I did consider the NOAH system years ago, but decided the need for it was so unlikely, it wasn't worth the cost to install and maintain. I do make sure I can get out of my glider easily under 1 G conditions by pushing myself out of the cockpit after landing, wearing the parachute. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
BRS chutes. Why doesn't everyone use them?
Another way to look at it...
Of all the ways we can spend dollars and pounds (of weigh) to improve safety, is a BRS chute the most effective? Will it save the most lives per pound (or per dollar?) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
BRS chutes. Why doesn't everyone use them?
On Jan 22, 11:32*am, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 1/21/2011 10:49 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote: On 1/21/2011 4:35 PM, bildan wrote: 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. And pedestal mounted panels like the DG single seaters, and swivel panels like the Ventus uses. Maybe not good with a Nimbus 3 canopy mounted to the cockpit sills, and similar panels. Maybe they have a version with limited inflation - worth asking. That should be "panel mounted to the cockpit sills", not "canopy". I did consider the NOAH system years ago, but decided the need for it was so unlikely, it wasn't worth the cost to install and maintain. I do make sure I can get out of my glider easily under 1 G conditions by pushing myself out of the cockpit after landing, wearing the parachute. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) Another thought. (subject to revision) Getting out is difficult because of a lack of "grab handles". I wonder if it is possible to add an extending strut with a grip which deploys when the canopy is jettisoned. I'm thinking of a 35mm diameter carbon fiber tube which extends vertically between the pilots knees as the canopy ejects. A gas strut could power it and lift the front of the canopy. A strategically positioned grab handle plus an inflatable seat cushion "butt lifter" (Perhaps triggered by a hard pull on the grab handle) could make it pretty easy to get out. If egress with a personal 'chute can be assured, I'd have little interest in a BRS system. Bill Daniels |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
BRS chutes. Why doesn't everyone use them?
Martin wrote:
Another way to look at it... Of all the ways we can spend dollars and pounds (of weigh) to improve safety, is a BRS chute the most effective? Will it save the most lives per pound (or per dollar?) A reasonable question to pose for any safety device; consider: A PowerFLARM costs ~US$1800 per plane and can prevent only midair collision accidents - but presumably only if a large proportion of other aircraft invest the same amount. How much does one's safety improve for that investment? A BRS costs ~US$3100 to ~US$4500 per plane and can can prevent injury or death after midair collision accidents and in other situations. No other aircraft need to invest in it to make it work for your aircraft. What fraction of fatal accidents would a BRS have turned into non-fatal accidents? How much does one's safety improve for that investment? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
BRS chutes. Why doesn't everyone use them?
On Jan 23, 10:18*am, Jim Logajan wrote:
A BRS costs ~US$3100 to ~US$4500 per plane... Is that just for the BRS system, or does that include installation? Thanks, Bob K. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
BRS chutes. Why doesn't everyone use them?
Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Jan 23, 10:18*am, Jim Logajan wrote: A BRS costs ~US$3100 to ~US$4500 per plane... Is that just for the BRS system, or does that include installation? Thanks, Bob K. That is just for the BRS, as I presume you already know. I think you would have a better idea of installation costs than I would. I'm sure it depends somewhat on whether it is designed in from the start, or after the fact. Since LSAs have been designed with it in mind and their cost has not been that much above those without BRS, I would guesstimate installation cost to be as much as an additional $1000 to $2000. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
BRS chutes. Why doesn't everyone use them?
At 18:18 23 January 2011, Jim Logajan wrote:
A reasonable question to pose for any safety device; consider: A BRS costs ~US$3100 to ~US$4500 per plane and can can prevent injury or death after midair collision accidents and in other situations. No other aircraft need to invest in it to make it work for your aircraft. A BRS will make *some* otherwise fatal midairs survivable. Some midairs are survived by continuing to fly the glider to a landing. Some midairs are not survivable under any circumstances, if the pilot is killed in the collision. What fraction of fatal accidents would a BRS have turned into non-fatal accidents? How much does one's safety improve for that investment? Given that most gliders are flown by pilots wearing parachutes, seems to me what we have to consider is what fraction of accidents are made survivable by a BRS that would not be survivable with an individual parachute. Inability to get out of the aircraft is the only circumstance that comes to my mind. BRS probably sells best to power planes where the occupants typically do *not* wear parachutes. Jim Beckman |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
BRS chutes. Why doesn't everyone use them?
Jim Beckman wrote:
Given that most gliders are flown by pilots wearing parachutes, seems to me what we have to consider is what fraction of accidents are made survivable by a BRS that would not be survivable with an individual parachute. Inability to get out of the aircraft is the only circumstance that comes to my mind. I know of several accidents where pilots didnt't get out of the glider, and I even knew some of those personally. A BRS may or may not have saved their lives. The main problem is that is is very difficult if not impossible to retrofit a BRS to most existing gliders. And new glider types are mostly built around existing fuselages, whle a BRS would require a complete redesign of the fuselage. |
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 08:40 PM |
Square Chutes... | sisu1a | Soaring | 4 | December 9th 08 07:04 PM |
Puchaz spin - now wearing 'chutes | Bill Daniels | Soaring | 60 | February 14th 04 09:08 PM |