A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

BRS chutes. Why doesn't everyone use them?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 22nd 11, 04:56 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
T[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 187
Default 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  
Old January 22nd 11, 07:49 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default 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  
Old January 22nd 11, 07:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default 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  
Old January 23rd 11, 03:20 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Martin[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default 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  
Old January 23rd 11, 07:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
bildan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 646
Default 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  
Old January 23rd 11, 07:18 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jim Logajan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,958
Default 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  
Old January 23rd 11, 08:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bob Kuykendall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,345
Default 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  
Old January 23rd 11, 09:30 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jim Logajan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,958
Default 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  
Old January 23rd 11, 10:59 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jim Beckman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 186
Default 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  
Old January 24th 11, 12:45 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 195
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.