Glider Cockpit Safety

[Kevin Christner]

I think anyone who has read the "too many deaths" thread has been sobered. When we take to the air, we are accepting a far greater degree of risk than the vast majority every will. We do it because of the personal satisfaction we receive, which makes our lives brighter as a whole.

But I also wonder whether, as a community, we should be applying pressure to manufacturers to focus more on safety, rather than finding that last .01% of performance, in their new glider designs. I've watched a lot of Formula 1 lately, where 200mph+ crashes are a regular occurrence. More often than not, the drivers walk away without a scratch.

What is to prevent glider cockpits from implementing similar safety designs?

[Auxvache]

I have said this for years. But a heavy lift given the scale of our sailplane manufacturers. I suspect complying with new easa g requirements has already required a lot of effort.

But I would buy a little heavier and draggier new glider if it had a cage that meant less certainty of vertebral and ankle fractures with most glider impacts. Stick one human in a downsized two-place fuselage surrounded by whatever cage the F1 guys have, and there would have to be less morbidity, wouldn't there? What does a cage weigh?

I love this sport more than anything, except seeing my family after an awesome flight...

[JS]

I've seen some older designs after a serious crash where there wasn't much left of the cockpit. Sometimes there's nothing forward of the bulkhead behind the pilot.
...Gerhard Waibel started responding to your request with the ASW24.
Pilots should also participate in their own safety by avoiding loose stuff or pieces protruding into the cockpit that can either injure or just get in the way of egress. Senna was killed by something loose, even though the F1 roll cage held.
Does any glider manufacturer offering engine/motor options also offer a fire extinguisher option?
The ankle/leg injury solution is a tough one. This problem is still evident in "cab-over" trucks and there's much more money behind them.
Jim

[markm...@gmail.com]

I've watched a lot of Formula 1 lately, where 200mph+ crashes are a regular occurrence. More often than not, the drivers walk away without a scratch.
>
> What is to prevent glider cockpits from implementing similar safety designs?

The primary factor that imparts superior crashworthiness to F1 and Indy cars is the suspension and wings that are sheared away during impact. As components are peeled off, energy is expended and deceleration happens over a longer period of time. By the time the "tub" surrounding the driver's cockpit is next in line for a pounding, the deceleration that has already taken place reduces the energy imparted to the remaining structure. Additionally, the design of the cockpit has multiple layers of extremely strong carbon fiber and Kevlar formed in such a way that forces are redistributed around the structure and withstand penetration and crushing. The many and regular crashes occurring over the years have provided a wealth of data for the design of each succeeding generation of racing cars. Very little data is collected for the teeny-tiny sailplane market, with only three or four manufactures worldwide.

Modern sailplanes comply with CS-22 crashworthiness standards that spell out minimum requirements for structural rigidity and cockpit penetration. Unfortunately, bringing crashworthiness up to F1 standards would require a cockpit that would be lots heavier and might not help much at all, as the deceleration of the little pink body inside is difficult to control. You can scramble an egg inside the shell.

Perhaps the next generation of composites (graphene, etc.) will allow for more robust structural integrity, but be prepared for a large price increase.

[Ramy]

Ballistic chutes would save more lives then safety cockpit. Too bad that ballistic chutes are not built into every glider. There would be far less fatalities.

Ramy

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

OK, a couple posts by me since I can't do a multi copy on iPad...

Yes, AS started with crashworthy cockpits with the -24. I was shortly on scene to a Discus(?) crash due to hitting low wires on final.
Result......Canadian pilot with broken ankles/lower legs that a -24 "may" have prevented. He still flies.
Later AS ships have similar cockpit protection. Likely part of their marketing today.
I believe other mfr's do similar now.

Many peeps frown on SGS sailplanes, they (the mfr) knew about this maybe 50 years ago?
Sigh.......now it's a big thing?

Sorta peeves me off.

Yes, cockpit structure can help lessen injuries, that, is a good thing,

[WB]

If SGS knew about cockpit protection, then they should have extended that knowledge to energy dissipation in the landing gear of the 2-33. Anyone sitting in the backseat of a 2-33 is sitting right over a very rigid structure that will transmit all the energy of a hard landing right into their back. Saw a 2-33 land hard, dropping in from about 4-6 feet (They were still trying to complete a turn from base to final and were literally dragging the wing on the ground!). The instructor was lifted out of the cockpit and carried away on a backboard.

[Paul Agnew]

Perhaps a first step would be to follow BGA's lead and require cushions to be energy-absorbing foam.

PA

[Waveguru]

The safest thing would be for us all to just fly Condor, eh?

Boggs

[golfsie...@gmail.com]

This may be of interest :

https://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/en/library/safety-does-not-sell

Nick.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

While they were not perfect, they did better than quite a few early/mid glass ships. Too many back then would "eggshell" with a reasonable nose down hit leaving the pilot hanging out there from the hips (or so) down just sitting in wreckage.
Saw a few of them as well.
I never said they were great, but many bad landings had peeps walking away in a SGS compared to a lot of glass ships. I was there in the retrieval on both.

Yes, pretty much all mfr's do better now. Then again, I have been around this for about 45 years, so I have seen a lot of the progression over time as well as the aftermath.
No mfr is perfect, even now, but yes, they are mostly better.

Sorta like saying, "why didn't auto manufacturer so and so make their cars safer in the 60's?". Sheesh, a lot of cars then around the world had seat belts as an option. Most are pretty good today, provided you at least "sorta" use what is already there. Belts are number 1. They work on their own, they also make airbags a LOT more effective when needed. Airbags without seat belts may actually be worse in some cases!

Carry on with the discussion.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Likely a lot cheaper.
Not nearly as fun and more likely to miss the group gatherings at a Soaring site or contest. That is, to me, part of the draw.
But yes, safer other than the constant upgrades for faster PC and Internet connections.......LOL.....

[WB]

I didn't really mean to slam SGS. The certainly did no worse than any others, and maybe better in some ways concerning structural robustness. Remember the 1-36 that got over-gee'd, bending the wings up into a distinct "V"and it still flew for a couple hours and landed safely?

I've flown a 301 Libelle for over 20 years. You can very nearly read a newspaper through the fuselage. I think that's a safety feature. No one dares crash in one.

[Dan Marotta]

Everything Mark said, however the F1 crashing into the wall most often
hits it with a glancing blow allowing parts to shed whereas the glider
quite often hits the ground head on.  I wonder how survivable an F1
crash directly into the wall at 200 mph would be...

--
Dan, 5J

[Kevin Christner]

Appears to be pretty survivable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loNgEDxeQc8

[Charlie Quebec]

My DG 202 has a double wall safety cockpit, there is no removable seat pan for this reason.

[krasw]

On Sunday, 9 September 2018 19:26:19 UTC+3, Ramy wrote:
> Ballistic chutes would save more lives then safety cockpit. Too bad that ballistic chutes are not built into every glider. There would be far less fatalities.
>
> Ramy

Yes, safety cockpit can save you or your back in occasional landing gone bad, probably survivable anyway. Spinning to ground or crashing ridge at flying speed is not survivable with any cockpit, there is too much energy and too little structure to absorb this.

European ultralights (LSA with 1000lb MTOW) are mostly (?) equipped with airframe rocket parachutes. Cost doesn't seem to be prohibitive, judging from number of them in use. This should have been mandatory equipment for gliders since 90's, think of lives saved after midairs.

[Chris Rowland]

At 05:56 10 September 2018, krasw wrote:
>On Sunday, 9 September 2018 19:26:19 UTC+3, Ramy wrote:
>> Ballistic chutes would save more lives then safety cockpit. Too bad
that

>=

>ballistic chutes are not built into every glider. There would be far less

>f=
>atalities.=20
>>=20

>> Ramy
>
>Yes, safety cockpit can save you or your back in occasional landing gone

>ba=

>d, probably survivable anyway. Spinning to ground or crashing ridge at

>flyi=

>ng speed is not survivable with any cockpit, there is too much energy and

>t=

>oo little structure to absorb this.
>
>European ultralights (LSA with 1000lb MTOW) are mostly (?) equipped with

>ai=

>rframe rocket parachutes. Cost doesn't seem to be prohibitive, judging

>from=

> number of them in use. This should have been mandatory equipment for

>glide=

>rs since 90's, think of lives saved after midairs.
>

Ballistic chutes can only protect against problems at altitude, high enough
for the chute to deploy. If the accident only starts to happen at low
altitudes then it won't help at all. And the chute has to be menually
deployed so the piilot has to recognise there is going to be an accident
while still at altitude. Not sure how many glider accidents meet these
criteria. Midairs are the only ones I think.

Chris

[waremark]

Is there any aircraft which has room for a ballistic shute and an engine aft of the cockpit? I think it is the popularity of engines which has prevented more widespread fitment of ballistic chutes.

[Ross]

The weight of an F1 tub is about the same as a std class glider out if the moulds. I have made plenty of both

Yes, you can make a glider cockpit like a F1 tub but the cost will be crazy.
Where you currently have 3-4 plies of carbon kevlar in a Discus 2 you then need 15-20 and honeycomb etc to make the F1 tub.

Designing it to withstand the different crash situations is the problem.
F1 is tested straight ahead against a wall at something like 750kg and 15m/s. It only has to work like that, not at 45 deg
Likewise the side crash and squeeze tests.

A good challenge and should be done, but not the easiest to realize

[krasw]

maanantai 10. syyskuuta 2018 13.08.08 UTC+3 waremark kirjoitti:
> Is there any aircraft which has room for a ballistic shute and an engine aft of the cockpit? I think it is the popularity of engines which has prevented more widespread fitment of ballistic chutes.

GP 14/15E has a tiny fuselage that likely has less wetted area than any other glider fuselage. It has room for both chute and engine.

[Auxvache]

Thanks, Ross--very interesting. Spent yesterday reading about f1 cockpit design, about which I was clearly ignorant, other than being amazed at how well drivers are protected. Hadn't realized the tub was part of the car's structure. Or so heavy.

And yes--whole different impact profiles to consider.

The DG link was also a great read--thanks for sharing.

[markm...@gmail.com]

Only 15 m/s? That seems very slow considering the speeds in F1.

[johnsin...@yahoo.com]

Chris,
Ballistic chutes have been successfully deployed as low as 300 feet and BRS claims 386 lives saved, so far! Deployment requires 35 pound pull on the "little red handle", which fires the rocket hooked to a long sleeve with the parachute inside. Rocket and sleeve completely separate, leaving chute with a slider ring up near the fabric. Chute only partially fills at first, then the slider drops and allowes full deployment..........thus preventing chute failure from high speed deployment. My BRS 1050 system is good for 1050 G/W and 130mph at deployment.
JJ

[Ramy]

I would say half of fatalities meet this criteria. Especially this year most fatalities were not low altitude stall/spin in which ballistic chute may not help.

Ramy

[gregg...@gmail.com]

One thing to mention is the difference in physical condition between the average F1 driver and the average sailplane pilot. Just cause the numbers say a healthy meatbag will survive the deceleration doesn't mean all meatbags will.
Then there is the Peltzman effect. And that it'll take 50 years to cycle safety cockpits into the whole glider fleet.
They should make them safer, if they reasonably can, but it isn't going to change the risk or reduce fatality numbers.

[Ben Hirashima]

The GP14 and GP15 come with ballistic chutes and safety cockpits as standard equipment.

[Nick Kennedy]

The slow motion of that F1 crash was hard to watch.
I too would really like a BRS system in my plane. Those things work good! They have had alot of saves.
I had one on my Hang glider back in the day from 1989- 2000

[Andor Holtsmark]

At 15:18 09 September 2018, Kevin Christner wrote:
"But I also wonder whether, as a community, we should be applying pressure
to manufacturers to focus more on safety, rather than finding that last
.01% of performance, in their new glider designs. I've watched a lot of

Formula 1 lately, where 200mph+ crashes are a regular occurrence. More
often than not, the drivers walk away without a scratch.

What is to prevent glider cockpits from implementing similar safety
designs?"

Dear Mr. Christner,
this has already been done.
Two directions of research came together in the design of the Antares
crash-cockpit.

First of all, the sailplane crash-cockpit research performed by TÜV
Rheinland and Prof. Röger of FH Achen was utilized.
TÜV Rheinland had crash-tested 4 cockpits, each time improving the next
cockpit based upon what had been learned from the previous test. Lange then
hired these experts to design a 5th cockpit; the cockpit of the Antares.

Secondly, a Formula 1 crash cockpit designer was brought in to provide
additional expertize on crash cockpit design. This designer had, so far in
his career, crashed some 150 F1 crash cockpits, and so he could provide
exact data for how composite structures behave in a crash situation.

The resulting Antares crash-cockpit design was one that all involved
parties take pride in. Its crash worthiness exceeds the latest CS22
requirements by far. In many ways, it IS a Formula 1 cockpit. However,
there are some differences:

1: Whereas the cockpit was lengthened to make room for an energy absorbing
nose-cone, this could not be built as long and straight as that of a F1
racecar. As a result, the energy absorbing failure mechanism of the
composite had to be modified to accommodate for this.

2: Compared to F1 designs of that period, the Antares cockpit does not use
Kevlar or interwoven Carbon-Kevlar. These materials suffer from various
problems, amongst others, with the resin-fiber interface, and their
utilization proved not suitable for the load-cases that a sailplane cockpit
sees.
For more information see:

https://www.lange-aviation.com/en/produkte/antares-20e/sicherheit/

As things stand, the question therefore remains whether, as a community, we
should be applying pressure to glider-pilots to focus more on safety, as
well as finding that last .01% of performance, in their new glider
purchases :)
Disclosure: I am an employee at Lange. However, In this post I represent
myself.

[Kevin Christner]

This is a great start!

[Kevin Christner]

As you state above, however, there is no doubt BRS's save lives.

[Dan Marotta]

Given the angle of rebound, I'd say that was not a head-on crash.

--
Dan, 5J

[Dan Marotta]

The Stemme might have room in the engine bay.  I'll have to take a look next time I remove the turtle deck.  Too bad it's a certificated ship and I don't know of any STC to install a parachute.

On 9/10/2018 4:08 AM, waremark wrote:

Is there any aircraft which has room for a ballistic shute and an engine aft of the cockpit? I think it is the popularity of engines which has prevented more widespread fitment of ballistic chutes. 

--
Dan, 5J

[jpg...@gmail.com]

Andor, I am curious about how far the Antares crashworthiness figures exceed current CS 22?

For reference CS 22 Amendment 1 requirements are:

(b) The structure must be designed to give each occupant every reasonable chance of escaping serious injury in a crash landing when proper use is made of belts and harnesses provided for in the design, in the following conditions:

(1) The occupant experiences, separately, ultimate inertia forces corresponding to the accelerations shown in the following:

Upward - 7·5 g
Forward - 15·0 g
Sideward - 6·0 g
Downward - 9·0 g

(2) An ultimate load of 6 9 times the weight of the sailplane acting rearwards
and upwards at an angle of 45° to the longitudinal axis of the sailplane and sideward at an angle of 5° acts on the forward portion of the fuselage at the foremost point(s) suitable for the application of such a load a suitable point not behind the pedals.

[Andor Holtsmark]

At 19:29 10 September 2018, jpg...@gmail.com wrote:
>Andor, I am curious about how far the Antares crashworthiness figures

>excee=

>d current CS 22?
>
>For reference CS 22 Amendment 1 requirements are:
>
>(b) The structure must be designed to give each occupant every reasonable

>c=

>hance of escaping serious injury in a crash landing when proper use is

>made=

> of belts and harnesses provided for in the design, in the following

>condit=

>ions:
>
>(1) The occupant experiences, separately, ultimate inertia forces

>correspon=

>ding to the accelerations shown in the following:
>

>Upward - 7=C2=B75 g
>Forward - 15=C2=B70 g
>Sideward - 6=C2=B70 g
>Downward - 9=C2=B70 g

>
>(2) An ultimate load of 6 9 times the weight of the sailplane acting

>rearwa=
>rds
>and upwards at an angle of 45=C2=B0 to the longitudinal axis of the
>sailpla=
>ne and sideward at an angle of 5=C2=B0 acts on the forward portion of the
>f=

>uselage at the foremost point(s) suitable for the application of such a

>loa=

>d a suitable point not behind the pedals.

Writing from home, I do not have hard numbers at hand, but I believe the
cockpit is designed for approximately 34 g forward.
Beyond this point, you are likely not to survive the shock even if the
cockpit holds.

We had one cockpit that saw in excess of 27 g in real life. however, the
load-case did not conform to CS22.

Luckily, the Antares passive safety has so far prevented a real test of
ultimate active safety / survivability from having to take place (touching
wood).

One thing that is worth to mention is that getting the gear out can
significantly improve your chances if things get iffy. Those few
centimeters of added deceleration can do wonders for reducing peak vertical
g-forces.
Ripping out the gear backwards can also dissipate a lot of energy.

Again Posting as a private person with a passion for flight.

[Dave Walsh]

At 17:38 10 September 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:
>The Stemme /_might_/ have room in the engine bay.  I'll

have to take a
>look next time I remove the turtle deck.  Too bad it's a
certificated
>ship and I don't know of any STC to install a parachute.
>

Most French microlights have ballistic parachutes and many
lives have been saved by them. Same could be said for the
Cirrus aeroplane. Most of these aircraft have a fairly
substantial undercarriage that will collapse on impact, same
might be said of the Stemme S10. But in a glider the pilots
spine is typically just inches from the impact. Would a simple
BRS work well enough?
Reason I ask is that an earlier post (which I now can't find)
suggested that the Discus BRS system requires the pilot to
bail out after the BRS has deployed....

[2G]

Not good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDjKCoHD278

Tom

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Well, basically head first in an open cockpit is not a good judge of cockpit safety. Sorta like landing glider canopy first (upside down), the cockpit never really comes into play.

[JS]

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 5:15:41 PM UTC-7, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> Well, basically head first in an open cockpit is not a good judge of cockpit safety. Sorta like landing glider canopy first (upside down), the cockpit never really comes into play.

My favorite place during landing in the Ilyushin IL-76 was lieing head first on the navigator's window. In a crash it'd be over quickly.
Perhaps shows how enjoyable that job was.
Jim

[steph...@scarlet.be]

At the OSTIV meeting in Delft in 2007, a presentation was made before the delegates of Training and Safety Panel and Sailplane Development Panel by professor Antonio Dal Monte, the then Director of the Italian Institute for Sport Sciences. Prof Dal Monte had been involved in the official analysis of Senna's crash, and had also been instrumental in creating the detachable safety cockpit for racing speedboats after the fatal crash of Stefano Casiraghi, husband of Princess Caroline of Monaco while he was defending his world offshore title.

Having analized a series of fatal glider crashes, he concluded that the mass of the wing with the strong spar positioned right behind the head of the pilot was a major factor in the lethality of these crashes. As a matter of fact, a friend of mine was killed when his wooden Siebert 3 (similar to the Ka-6) spun in, and when picking up the pieces, we found the T-handle of one of the main bolts had been bent on impact. His head had been one foot in front of that bolt...

What Dal Monte proposed was a detachable safety cockpit for gliders, mounted on rails that would be angled approximately 30 degrees (more or less parallel to the backrest) and fixed by a suitable weak link. In case of a crash, the whole wing and rear fuselage would be guided under the cockpit instead of crushing it. He even suggested making a standard cockpit to be used by all manufacturers, as the real differences in profile at cockpit level are rather small and this would reduce the costs.

Unfortunately, the engineers from the main manufacturers, present at this reunion, simply laughed the proposition away without even seeming to consider the option. I always thought that, had the professor been a German instead of an Italian, they would at least have considered the pros and contras. But Italy = opera + mafia in the head of many people. It is also Ferrari, Maserati, Lamborghini...

[Muttley]

Same presentation by Professor Antonio Dal Monte was made to the IGC Plenum meeting.

[Dave Walsh]

I always thought that, had the professor been a German
>instead of an Italian, they would at least have considered the
pros and contras"

I seem to remember a few years ago a German Akafleig at
Friedrichshafen had a mock up of a two seater cockpit where a
BRS (Ballistic Recovery System) type system extracted the
pilots from the cockpit? A sort of jump seat for glider pilots.
Never heard whether they ever got it built or tested.
My guess is money & certification costs killed the project.

Then of course there's the fundamental problem, highlighted
on DG's website, that most glider purchasers will not buy
safety; safety does't sell gliders. One of DG's own contributions
to safety was the NOAH pilot ejection system, a very simple
system: pull one toggle, the seat belts undo and a gas bag
under the seat fills with nitrogen lifting the pilot up - all the
pilot has to do is roll out of the cockpit (if he has a parachute
with a static line, as in Germany, he doesn't even need to pull
the rip-cord).
Much to DG's annoyance very few purchasers stumped up the
few thousand Euros it cost.

A fit athletic 20 year old might have no problem exiting a
gyrating cockpit; how about an unfit overweight 60 year old?
Nothing personal!
>

[Andrzej Kobus]

The driver walked away so enjoy watching.