Parachutes vs. BRS vs. nuttin'
Jim Harper
so...although it hasn't been beaten up this year. I know most of us
ALWAYS wear parachutes in gliders...altho I certainly don't when
flying power, and I suspect most don't. My contribution to this
question comes from a private pilot, ASEL, Glider who has a few
hundred parachute jumps, sport and military. I have also flown
ultralights, and have been a member of that community.
Reading through old threads I have come across various statements in
support of wearing 'chutes, and a couple of posts referring to a 50/50
chance of surviving a parachute jump. So, the first thing I did, being
an analytical kind of guy, was to review the NTSB data over the last 5
years. Around 208 glider accidents. Two successful bailouts...one for
a structural failure (in a JAR approved glider) and one for an unusual
attitude associated with high speeds in an homebuilt. One documented
attempted bailout...the victim would appear to have been killed (or
rendered unconcious) by the departing canopy, and landed with the
airplane. There may have been some other attempts at escape, but they
are not documented in the 205 other reports. As we all know, the vast
majority of accidents are blown landings, blown outlandings and
stall-spin events on approach. None of those would have been helped by
parachutes. There were a few misassembly accidents, with a couple of
fatalities...at no time did any of those aircraft get to the point
that egress would have been useful. There were three mid-air
collisions, all power vs. gilder, two fatal. It is possible that
parachutes would have helped there.
So in 208 accidents over the last 5 years, with a depressing number of
fatalities (actually, the whole experience of reviewing these crashes
was depressing), there were two parachute saves, 1 parachute fatality,
and several cases where the event was too low for a parachute to help.
Now, let us consider the unused BRS. I believe that the BRS is
sufficiently developed for gliders, altho there is a significant
concern regarding installation in many gliders...one is lief to cut a
hole in a monoque fuselage of fiberglass. However it is possible to
design in such a thing, and there are some gliders which could be
retrofitted. If BRS's were in use, one would think that the two saves
would have been saves regardless, and there is a significant
possiblity that the canopy wouldn't have hit the unfortunate fellow's
head if he had used a BRS. We could reasonably expect that the
misassemblies would have been saves...at least those where the
aircraft got to more than a couple of hundred feet before the final
fall. The collisions? Who knows what injuries the occupants sustained
from the collision? BRS's have an amazing success rate amongst the
ultralight corps...with many, many saves. One of the objections raised
in a two-year old thread was the rate at which you hit the ground
under BRS...ask the ultralighters...it ain't that bad.
Finally, perhaps the other, more nihlistic point of view would be to
suggest: "why wear a parachute at all?" I suppose the two guys who had
saves would argue why not! And they would have a point, but their
experience (as a stasticial phenomena) is reduced by the 1 case where
an attempted egress resulted in death. I hear the old sky-gods say
that they fly with other gliders and as such are at increased risk of
collision, but at least in the last 5 years as reported to the NTSB,
glider to glider collisions don't happen. Yes, one glider fell apart
in the air, but among the tens-of-thousands of flights of gliders over
the five year period, one would suggest that the statistical
possibility is very low. I would not have considered skydiving without
a reserve...well, and of course it would not have been legal...but
heck, we would see a reserve ride every few days at a busy DZ. We
don't see very many soaring accidents that the use of a parachute
would be useful at all.
So, I guess my thesis is, based on the last 5 years of U.S. reported
accidents is: If you CAN add a BRS to your glider, do so. If you
can't, don't bother to wear a parachute at all. The chance of needing
the BRS is very slight, but given that one only needs to repack it
every 5-6 years, it is relatively automatic to use, it doesn't
increase the risk of a difficult situation to use it, and it requires
no annoying putting on and such, it makes sense. Further it costs
about twice what a backpack 'chute costs...and figuring in the repack
cycle, I believe that it would be pretty close after 12 years...in
cost.
I would suggest that the opinion stated is mine alone, and no one
whatsoever should make any life-and-death decisions based on MY
opinion. I am just in a wondering mood, and I wonder what y'all, most
all of you being ever so much more smart than I, would say about those
considerations.
Now THAT ought to start a discussion!
Jim
JJ Sinclair
Competition pilots wear chutes because the rules require it and also most
cockpits are made for a chute, so you will need a bunch of padding in the seat,
anyway. Why not make the padding your chute? I agree completely on the BRS
system, however most sailplanes haven't been certified for that system and just
installing it would be foolhardy, if not flat illegal. I am putting a Genesis
2, back together and have been thinking about the BRS system that is certified
for this bird. I worry about the mid-air in the pattern, BRS is the only way to
survive that.
Got to go, Santas coming, A big Happy Happy to all my ras buddies,
JJ Sinclair
Al
Great post there Jim.
The furhter question then would be, what are the legal requirements to
fitting one to an experimental glider?
Regards
Al
"JJ Sinclair" <jjgl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021225155403...@mb-fo.aol.com...
Joseph L. Hyde
Great post! I used to jump WAY long ago when chutes were still round
(even jumped a "thunderbow") When I started this sport last Feb. I was
surprised at the casual approach everyone takes to the parachute. People
store them in damp hangar cabinets and basically think they are a seat
cushion that will save their lives. Back when I jumped we all carried
suspension line knives in a pocket on the harness. Safe, cheap and only
about $10. I am guessing that if someone decides to abandon their glass
toy, they will probably be unstable after the exit. If they are lucky they
will only be caught in a line or have a mae west. The statistics bear out a
much worse fate. There should be some basic parachute training material
available through SSA (maybe something for Larry to do)
At any rate, where I am leading with this rambling is that the true
safety device should be considered the BRS. It provides an increase in
safety in the measure of magnitudes over parachutes. (just flowery language
I do not have the data to quantify that comment) The push should be to
encourage the manufacturers to make this an option. We should keep in mind
that WE/US/CONSUMERS are the driving factor. We will have to be willing to
pay for this. The DG web site has some interesting articles on the cost of
safety. A worthy read during the off season.
I have spent the last 10 years in commercial aviation safety work.
There every improvement is bought with blood. At least there we protect the
innocent public. We will have to decide in soaring if we are willing to pay
out or our own pockets for these improvements. There are no innocents to
protect here, so hopefully this will never become a regulatory issue.
For everyone who decides for what ever reason to stay with parachutes,
PLEASE invest some time and study into basic parachute care and feeding.
If possible at least take a ground course in parachute procedures.
Thanks tolerating my Xmas night ramblings....maybe too much eggnog???
Take Care and Fly Safe,
Joe
"Jim Harper" <jha...@knology.net> wrote in message
news:8c8a70de.0212...@posting.google.com...
Steve Pawling
one reason the ASW-28 w/ OEM BRS is so interesting to me. However, I
like flaps and the last I heard there was no plan to install BRS in an
ASW-27. I also wonder how many ASW-28s actually have been delivered w/
BRS. I would guess not many (if it ever became available).
There is another aspect that I think limits widespread implementation
of BRS and that is that "safety does not sell". Go to the DG website
and read of the several safety options that DG has available and how
few buyers purchase even the more affordable options (2% of the fleet
purchased retrofit Roeger Hooks). I agree with what Herr Weber says in
the website and loudly applaud his efforts to manufacture safer
sailplanes. I expect that other manufacturers are similar proponents
of safety but they don't seem to be as vocal about it as DG. Reality
is that the only way we will ever see BRS become as commonplace in
sailplanes as seatbelts is for BRS to be required original equipment
in all countries the sailplane is sold.
In the meantime, I'll continue to wear a Wedge Softie in my LS-3a and
minimize risk to the best of my ability.
All the best,
Steve
jha...@knology.net (Jim Harper) wrote in message news:<8c8a70de.0212...@posting.google.com>...
Jim Harper
that I started here. Yeah, I started jumping with a 5TU, evolved to a 7TU
and finally, drool, bought a para-commander! Hot stuff then. I lusted after
a thunderbow.
No question that not assuming a stable face-to-earth position will increase
the chance of a malf in an emergency bailout...and then, there ya are, body
against the world with a bad...or non-existent canopy. Also, not being adept
at a PLF (parachute landing fall) will increase the chance of injury even
with a good canopy. And of course (and I don't know the answer) how many of
you who count on your backpack parachute faithfully have it repacked on
schedule? If you do, you are maximizing your chances in an emergency. If you
don't?
BRS takes all of that out of the equation. The repack cycle for even the
softpack (assuming it is not in the weather, as within the fuselage of your
lovely glass ship) is 6 years. And, even if because of the aircraft's
position when you fire it, you have a malfunction, you still have all of
that airplane around you to absorb some of the shock on landing.
Of course, legality is an issue for us retrofitters. I am the proud owner of
an experimental glider (homebuilt) and there is a lovely space where I
believe a softpack BRS 900 will fit, and only minor mods will be necessary
to give it an area for egress. I guess I will need to call my friendly local
FAA, huh?
"Joseph L. Hyde" <av8...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:caxO9.99045$C06....@news.bellsouth.net...
JJ Sinclair
nothing like just reaching down and pulling the little handle.
I just learned the BRS for the Genesis 2 was NOT certified. Work was stopped
due to lack of interest by the customers. I don't want Big Brother in our
business, but that is the only was safety is made mandatory.
JJ Sinclair
JJ Sinclair
the proud owner of
>an experimental glider (homebuilt) and there is a lovely space where I
>believe a softpack BRS 900 will fit, and only minor mods will be necessary
>to give it an area for egress. I guess I will need to call my friendly local
>FAA, huh?
Most Experimental Airworthiness certificates contain wording like, "Any major
change, invalidates this certificate." So, if you added a BRS system, you
should call up your friendly Federally and ask for another Airworthiness
inspection and certificate. I have done this after cutting off the tail of a
Nimbus 3D and gluing on a larger fin. No problem, the only comment from my
inspector was, "I've seen better plans in a model airplane kit." The plans
contained some hand drawn art work.
I would be more concerned about not knowing if the BRS would deploy cleanly and
what attitude the sailplane would assume after deployment. Remember, your
playing, You bet your A**, here. I believe a proper flight test of the BRS
system in your ship is called for.
JJ Sinclair
tjward
"Steve Pawling" <paw...@tminet.com> wrote in message
news:a0ffa3c4.02122...@posting.google.com...
Here's a question:
Would a pilot in a BRS-equipped ASW-28 still be required to wear a parachute
in a competition?
I don't know how the rules are written.
If a personal chute were not required, then it might be sold as a small
performance improvement.
The reasoning is that it is almost certainly possible to make the pilot more
comfortable if what he's sitting in has making the pilot more comfortable as
it's single design criteria.
A comfortable pilot should be less fatigued, making fewer mistakes, and
therefore performing better.
Tim Ward
Bob Kuykendall
* BRS systems are not a silver bullet. As yet, there is very little
data about their deployment from sailplanes under real-world
conditions. Some questions that remain to be answered:
- What about deployment in a spin? Nobody's tried it yet, and there's
good reason to believe that there's a substantial risk of airframe
entanglement.
- Deployment at high speed? Simulation suggests that there's a
substantial risk of the glider doing an Immelmann (half-loop) around
the canopy, and then falling down onto it.
- Deployment after a BFO (Bits Fallen Off) accident? What will the
deployment and descent be like with a wing off or the tailboom broken?
You can be sure that descent with the tail kinked will likely be more
nose-down than otherwise. What about deployment with broken bits of
the aircraft in the way?
* BRS systems have a substantial cost in terms of weight, expense, and
complexity. The extra weight increases stall speed, with commensurate
increase in takeoff and landing speeds - that can only make everyday
operation more dangerous. The extra expense represents money that
might possibly be more effectively spent on other risk-reduction
strategies. The added complexity means that there's a non-zero
probability that a less-than-perfectly developed installation will
interfere with other aircraft systems.
With all that said, I must say that I'm not at all opposed to BRS
systems. I'm just not ready to depend on them 100% as a post-accident
recovery strategy. I think that before that happens, BRS systems will
have to get substantially lighter, and we'll need substantially better
data about how they perform under a multitude of real-world
situations.
In the HP-24 design, right from day one I've been reserving volume for
BRS near the aft wing carrythrough. I've also developed the fuselage
internals to incorporate a non-structural exterior panel in that area
for a BRS deployment window. So if someone else wants to develop a BRS
installation for the ship, they at least have a good starting point.
Thanks, and best regards to all
Janusz Kesik
training, however in not always helps.
In Poland we used to have a baist training of three parachute jumps inckuded
in the glider pilot training, however it no longer exist.
In general most of people think, that parachute training does much good in
case of emergency bail out, but only when the pilot has rather much
experience with parachutes. In case he has one, two or three jumps it helps
not much, but if one has a hundred or two hundred jumps - it helps
significantly.
Where does it come... In opinion of many pilots I talked to, the guy with a
hundred of jumps is very familiar with jumping into "nothing", leaving a
shadow of safety which even the damaged glider gives. The one in damaged
glider even falling without any control, needs a few seconds to force
himself to "go out", to leave the safety ensuring canopy (of course provides
safety no longer, but it's his psychical belief that he feels safer there),
and those few seconds matter very much in the situation when the glider
falls uncontrollably after a midair. The experienced parachutist who became
a glider pilot is free of those few seconds of hesitation - he just jumps as
he used to do it previously.
> The statistics bear out a
> much worse fate. There should be some basic parachute training material
> available through SSA (maybe something for Larry to do)
The BRS seems to be the most effective safety device which helps to survive
the midair or forced landing in totally unlandable terrain.
In needs no specialistic training, no altitude to deploy, and no forcing to
get_out. Just in case of emergency, pull the handle and pray for it works.
I know it's expensive, but with time, and the rising popularity, the price
will go down, and there's also an additional field of getting a discount on
life insurance for ones who have it in their ships, or maybe there will be a
chance of tax discount (for improving safety) one day. (well I don't know US
tax regulations at all).
> At any rate, where I am leading with this rambling is that the true
> safety device should be considered the BRS. It provides an increase in
> safety in the measure of magnitudes over parachutes. (just flowery
language
> I do not have the data to quantify that comment) The push should be to
> encourage the manufacturers to make this an option. We should keep in
mind
> that WE/US/CONSUMERS are the driving factor. We will have to be willing
to
> pay for this. The DG web site has some interesting articles on the cost
of
> safety. A worthy read during the off season.
>
Unfortunately it's true, that the aviation regulations were written with the
blood of died pilots, however if those who make regulations, will se that
due to the BRS there's "less blood to write with", they will make BRS a
mandatory requirement for new gliders, which I would like to hear one day.
I know it's expensive, but it will be mandatory, the production will rise,
and prices surely will be lower then. Just look at airbags in cars. Is now
there in US any new passenger car sold without an airbag in standard
equipment? I don't think so. It's the same story, however the scale is
different.
> There every improvement is bought with blood. At least there we protect
the
> innocent public.
Regards,
--
Janusz Kesik
janusz...@gazeta.pl
------------------------
Take a look at interesting websites:
www.ksse.com.pl
www.kssse.pl
Greg Arnold
>
> * BRS systems are not a silver bullet. As yet, there is very little
> data about their deployment from sailplanes under real-world
> conditions. Some questions that remain to be answered:
>
> - What about deployment in a spin? Nobody's tried it yet, and there's
> good reason to believe that there's a substantial risk of airframe
> entanglement.
>
> - Deployment at high speed? Simulation suggests that there's a
> substantial risk of the glider doing an Immelmann (half-loop) around
> the canopy, and then falling down onto it.
>
> - Deployment after a BFO (Bits Fallen Off) accident? What will the
> deployment and descent be like with a wing off or the tailboom broken?
> You can be sure that descent with the tail kinked will likely be more
> nose-down than otherwise. What about deployment with broken bits of
> the aircraft in the way?
And what about the risk of substantial injury to the pilot when the glider
under chute hits the ground at a substantial speed?
Jim Harper
> * BRS systems are not a silver bullet. As yet, there is very little
> data about their deployment from sailplanes under real-world
> conditions. Some questions that remain to be answered:
>
> - What about deployment in a spin? Nobody's tried it yet, and there's
> good reason to believe that there's a substantial risk of airframe
> entanglement.
The BRS website shows deployment from a a Cirrus SR 20 in a spin. No
biggie...the canopy deploys, the spin stops. I suspect that the logic holds
for a longer-winged sailplane.
> - Deployment at high speed? Simulation suggests that there's a
> substantial risk of the glider doing an Immelmann (half-loop) around
> the canopy, and then falling down onto it.
Hard to understand the mechanics of that one. The deceleration is
amazing...they show some movies of high-speed deployment in Cessna products
and no way could the aircraft get back to the parachute. Consider how much
energy is being dissapated by canopy deployment. I suspect that the
deceleration is sufficient to make the aerodynamics of the glider
inconsequential very quickly...hence no immelmann.
> - Deployment after a BFO (Bits Fallen Off) accident? What will the
> deployment and descent be like with a wing off or the tailboom broken?
> You can be sure that descent with the tail kinked will likely be more
> nose-down than otherwise. What about deployment with broken bits of
> the aircraft in the way?
We see that in ultralights...which have a propensity to fall apart all the
time. The canopy gets out and the decent happens. Is the aircraft in an
optimal position to land under canopy after the breakage? Nope, but it beats
how the aircraft would hit WITHOUT the canopy. Another point...how easy is
it to egress the glider after a BFO accident? I suspect the argument is
identical.
> * BRS systems have a substantial cost in terms of weight, expense, and
> complexity. The extra weight increases stall speed, with commensurate
> increase in takeoff and landing speeds - that can only make everyday
> operation more dangerous.
Well, let us consider that. The BRS 900 softpack weighs 21 pounds and costs
$2395. The Strong Paracushion (for example) weighs 17 pounds and costs (from
Sky Kat) $1295. So, the "substantial" cost in weight is 4 pounds, and in
dollars, around $1100. I cannot dispute the $1100 being substantial, but the
weight increase of 4 pounds isn't worth dispute. I will take it one step
farther...for me, the BRS slightly behind the center of gravity will reduce
the amount of tail ballast I will need if I wear the Strong paracushion.
As far as complexity? Well, once it is installed, all I need to do to make
ready is pull a safety pin. To use that Strong, I need to strap it on...and
have you ever made an error strapping on your 'chute? Once whilst skydiving,
I did...thank God my partner noticed. Who checks out your chute when you go
flying?
> With all that said, I must say that I'm not at all opposed to BRS
> systems. I'm just not ready to depend on them 100% as a post-accident
> recovery strategy. I think that before that happens, BRS systems will
> have to get substantially lighter, and we'll need substantially better
> data about how they perform under a multitude of real-world
> situations.
Regarding lighter...I am just not impressed with 4 pounds. Depending on them
100%? Of course not. Heck, to avoid the vast majority of accidents, even
fatal accidents, just keep your speed up on approach, and avoid fences.
Conversely, if all else fails, I am happier with pulling a handle than
trying to get out of a glider in it's death throes.
>
> In the HP-24 design, right from day one I've been reserving volume for
> BRS near the aft wing carrythrough. I've also developed the fuselage
> internals to incorporate a non-structural exterior panel in that area
> for a BRS deployment window. So if someone else wants to develop a BRS
> installation for the ship, they at least have a good starting point.
Outstanding! No doubt you are carrying on the tradition of change started by
Dick Schraeder!
Jim
Richard Brisbourne
> I hear the old sky-gods say
>that they fly with other gliders and as such are at increased risk of
>collision, but at least in the last 5 years as reported to the NTSB,
>glider to glider collisions don't happen.
Statistics elsewhere (eg: the UK) are very different. Unfortunately
the link I have to the BGA accident database appears not to work.
Memory suggest a cluster over the last 3-4 years running at 1-2 a
year, plus occasionall collisions between gliders and light aircraft.
I have personally witnessed two. In one, there was one fatality. He
wasn't wearing a parachute. The other resulted in two comprehensively
wrecked gliders in the trees, and two perfectly healthy (albeit
shaken) pilots, who baled out successfully.
To be fair, even with a parachute, collisions are often not
survivable. But the odds are very much improved.
Moreover, next time I am in a pre-start line gaggle with 25 other
gliders no statistic on earth is going to convince me that "glider to
glider collisions don't happen"
--
"Curmudgeonly is the new cool" (Terry Wogan)
(The real name at the left of the e-mail address is richard)
Michael
> ALWAYS wear parachutes in gliders...altho I certainly don't when
> flying power, and I suspect most don't. My contribution to this
> question comes from a private pilot, ASEL, Glider who has a few
> hundred parachute jumps, sport and military. I have also flown
> ultralights, and have been a member of that community.
My experience is similar to yours, and I've reached many of the same
conclusions. The last time I wore a parachute in a glider was when I
test flew a wood-and-fabric bird that hadn't flown in years and sat in
a hangar on a trailer. Yes, it had a fresh annual - but I figured
there was always the chance the annual missed something. I don't
normally wear one when flying power either, but I did when I dropped
the first few loads of jumpers from an airplane not normally used for
that anymore. Special risks call for special safety measures, but I
don't consider normal glider flying to be a special risk that
necessitates a parachute.
> I hear the old sky-gods say
> that they fly with other gliders and as such are at increased risk of
> collision, but at least in the last 5 years as reported to the NTSB,
> glider to glider collisions don't happen.
I think the reason these are so rare is because we are so aware of
them. When sharing a thermal, I know the other gliders are foremost
in my attention, probably to the detriment of extracting the most
altitude. I suspect most pilots are the same way - nobody wants to
risk a midair. Midairs are also quite rare when flying formation -
and again, because we are very aware of the risk. Most midairs seem
to happen during routine flying, when our vigilance is low.
> I would not have considered skydiving without
> a reserve...well, and of course it would not have been legal...but
> heck, we would see a reserve ride every few days at a busy DZ. We
> don't see very many soaring accidents that the use of a parachute
> would be useful at all.
Familiarity breeds contempt. It's not at all rare for skydivers to
rush packing the main parachute, or to do so in less than optimal
conitions of wind, lighting, or personal sobriety. I'm guilty of
having jumped a few less-than-optimal packjobs myself, and once it
ended in a reserve ride. I used to BASE jump for a while, and we
didn't wear reserves most of the time. Funny, never did see a
situation where having one would have done any good. But we sure were
more careful about packing and body position on opening.
Many skydivers were way more casual about reserve use than any glider
pilot will ever be about emergency parachute use - because most of the
time, a main that had to be cut away could be found and reused. A
glider you bail out of is a total loss.
I question how much sense a BRS really makes. The fact is that even
with the 200+ fatal accidents you've looked at, certainly less than
10% would have been prevented by a BRS. A BRS is certain to be
expensive. Is that where we can get the most bang for the buck?
Both midairs and structural failures seem to be very rare. Assembly
errors are not, but I expect that keeping gliders assembled (under
some kind of cover) would make assembly and disassembly fairly rare
events and make pilots much more careful - which, I suspect, would
make assembly errors as rare as midairs. What would be cheaper - a
minimal hangar or a BRS? Funds are finite.
And most accidents are still of the 'failure to fly the aircraft'
variety - I have a feeling that the best bang for the buck would not
be in hangars or BRS parachutes but recurrent training, or even just
flying more hours.
Michael
Jim Harper
accidents in the last 5 years, only 30 of them were fatal accidents. A few
of those were multiple deaths, two two-place gliders, and a couple of
collisions...power v glider.
As to the rest of your observations, I agree. The short version would be to
avoid getting killed in a glider, keep your speed up on approach, don't
collide with terrain while ridge running, and make damn sure you do a
positive control check EVERY time you assemble your glider. Heck, and not to
speak harshly of the dead, one pilot so hastily assembled his glider (it
would appear) that the horizontal stabilizer fell off as the tow plane
accelerated into its takeoff run.
The BRS might make sense (at least it does to me) when the clown in a Cessna
(and I fly Cessnas too) decides to run you down whilst he is talking to his
girlfriend, or in case the gnomes in Germany didn't put enough glue on the
spar of your brand new glass slipper.
The final point was likely the only real positive parachute save in the
whole 5 year database. The only other successful parachute egress was from a
homebuilt which was inverted and accelerating. The pilot reportedly wanted
to NOT explore the high speed regime in a glider type famous for aileron
flutter (two other accidents, one fatal, during the same 5 years). The
decision left him alive, but perhaps so would have flying the airplane. No
critisicm of him implied, just want to be fair...he left a completely intact
aircraft in an unusual (albeit conducive to leaving) attitude.
A long explanation to say, yep, yer right. More training, and don't
disassemble your glider...or if you do, make sure you do a positive control
check.
"Michael" <crwd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:449a3d6e.02122...@posting.google.com...
Andreas Maurer
<jimh...@mach500.net> wrote:
>The BRS website shows deployment from a a Cirrus SR 20 in a spin. No
>biggie...the canopy deploys, the spin stops. I suspect that the logic holds
>for a longer-winged sailplane.
Depends. If your glider is in a "standard" spin, deployment of the BRS
will probably work. But only if you are high enough - and with
sufficient height you can easily stop the spin without the need of a
BRS deployment. Once you are in a spin at low height, the parachute of
a BRS will not open fast enough to save you.
And how will a BRS deploy from an inverted spin (that might happen
when the tail is missing due to a midair)?
>> - Deployment at high speed? Simulation suggests that there's a
>> substantial risk of the glider doing an Immelmann (half-loop) around
>> the canopy, and then falling down onto it.
>
>Hard to understand the mechanics of that one. The deceleration is
>amazing...they show some movies of high-speed deployment in Cessna products
>and no way could the aircraft get back to the parachute. Consider how much
>energy is being dissapated by canopy deployment. I suspect that the
>deceleration is sufficient to make the aerodynamics of the glider
>inconsequential very quickly...hence no immelmann.
Hansjoerg Streifeneder has done the flight tests with the BRS.. and it
happened exactly as described - the glider ( a Discus) climebd over
the opening parachute and barely missed it when coming down again.
>> - Deployment after a BFO (Bits Fallen Off) accident? What will the
>> deployment and descent be like with a wing off or the tailboom broken?
>> You can be sure that descent with the tail kinked will likely be more
>> nose-down than otherwise. What about deployment with broken bits of
>> the aircraft in the way?
>
>We see that in ultralights...which have a propensity to fall apart all the
>time. The canopy gets out and the decent happens. Is the aircraft in an
>optimal position to land under canopy after the breakage? Nope, but it beats
>how the aircraft would hit WITHOUT the canopy. Another point...how easy is
>it to egress the glider after a BFO accident? I suspect the argument is
>identical.
Hmmm... I know of pretty many German ultralight accidents where the
BRS did not work. And landing with a sink rate of 7.5 meters/sec is
possible if you have 2.5 feet of landing gear that will take the
energy of the impact. In a glider my butt is one, two inches from the
ground in the moment of the impact... pretty short way to stop the
sink rate.
You cannot compare BRS systems of aircraft like the Cirrus or
Ultralights to the ones needed in gliders. For example, deployment
speed limit of any ultralight BRS is 270 kp/h - and a glider in a
vertical dive due to a missing wing or tail needs only seconds to
accelerate to that speed (not to mention the higher weight of the
glider). Even the BRS of the Cirrus is not rated to Vne (but I fail to
remember ist maximum deployment speed).
Afaik it has never been tested in real life to deploy a BRS from an
inverted flight or a vertical dive at or over Vne. There have been
some tests with real production gliders in Germany, but the results
were not encouraging as soon as the BRS was deployed from a
non-standard situation.
Sure - having a BRS is better than having none... but it's a long way
to get a relible system for gliders. A BRS is certainly not a
replacement for a conventional parachute that is worn by the pilot.
In many fatal bail-out cases it had been sufficient to have a brake
parachute to stabilize the spinning glider, and keep its speed low, to
enable (=give him enough time and minimize the g-loads) the pilot to
perform a conventional bail-out.
In my opinion there is no need for a BRS that saves the complete
glider - I'd rather prefer a device that pulls me out of the cockpit
(and maybe opens my chute), nothing else. Like the Soteira project of
the Akaflieg Darmstadt.
Bye
Andreas
Jim Harper
Andreas, thank you for your comments. I would like to respond to a few
> Depends. If your glider is in a "standard" spin, deployment of the BRS
> will probably work. But only if you are high enough - and with
> sufficient height you can easily stop the spin without the need of a
> BRS deployment. Once you are in a spin at low height, the parachute of
> a BRS will not open fast enough to save you.
While the scenario you describe is possibly true (if you read the BRS
webpage, there are several "saves" from altitudes of less than 100
feet, but these are ultralights), even so...do you think you can
successfully egress from a sailplane in a spin at low height? Let us
assume that to save a glider, it will take twice what it takes to save
an ultralight...so can you get out of a glider, in a spin and
successfully deploy your backpack parachute at 200 feet?
> And how will a BRS deploy from an inverted spin (that might happen
> when the tail is missing due to a midair)?
It deploys just fine from ultralights in amazingly wierd attitudes.
One winged beasts and all. Many of the ultralight setups have the
parachute deploying DOWN...and as such it STILL winds up over the
aircraft.
> Hansjoerg Streifeneder has done the flight tests with the BRS.. and it
> happened exactly as described - the glider ( a Discus) climebd over
> the opening parachute and barely missed it when coming down again.
That is fascinating to me, and no doubt it happened. Conversely, it
did, in fact, miss the canopy.
> Hmmm... I know of pretty many German ultralight accidents where the
> BRS did not work. And landing with a sink rate of 7.5 meters/sec is
> possible if you have 2.5 feet of landing gear that will take the
> energy of the impact. In a glider my butt is one, two inches from the
> ground in the moment of the impact... pretty short way to stop the
> sink rate.
re: "BRS did not work". It is interesting. Here in the US, the NTSB
really doesn't get involved in ultralight accidents. For instance, in
the last 5 years, there are only 15 reported UL accidents, yet the BRS
webpage shows on the order of 29 saves for the same period of time.
Ultralights are not subject to the same rules applying to aircraft, so
the lack of accident data is not surprising. I have reviewed a couple
webpages associated with accidents in ultralights, and there were no
reported failures of BRS's. This doesn't mean it doesn't happen, just
that the data is not available.
As far as the rate of descent? It's gotta be lower with a canopy than
without. It is interesting that most of the ultralight accidents
associated with BRS deployment avoid injury. I agree that an
ultralight has more structure to absorb energy. Maybe we should have
the sailplane descend laterally...and have a wing hit the ground
first. That last was more-or-less tongue-in-cheek.
>
> You cannot compare BRS systems of aircraft like the Cirrus or
> Ultralights to the ones needed in gliders. For example, deployment
> speed limit of any ultralight BRS is 270 kp/h - and a glider in a
> vertical dive due to a missing wing or tail needs only seconds to
> accelerate to that speed (not to mention the higher weight of the
> glider). Even the BRS of the Cirrus is not rated to Vne (but I fail to
> remember ist maximum deployment speed).
BRS does report that they have tested the Cirrus parachute in a
dead-weight "drop at 190 mph even at 125% of gross weight." The
parachute has a slider which keeps it closed until there has been
significant deceleration.
> Afaik it has never been tested in real life to deploy a BRS from an
> inverted flight or a vertical dive at or over Vne. There have been
> some tests with real production gliders in Germany, but the results
> were not encouraging as soon as the BRS was deployed from a
> non-standard situation.
Inverted flight: See above. BRS have been installed UNDER ultralights
and are deployed downward. Just works fine, so the inverted thingy
isn't an issue. Over VNE? Well, we do have that 195mph
deployment...but you are right. Again, how easy is it to egress your
glider at greater than VNE?
> Sure - having a BRS is better than having none... but it's a long way
> to get a relible system for gliders. A BRS is certainly not a
> replacement for a conventional parachute that is worn by the pilot.
>
> In many fatal bail-out cases it had been sufficient to have a brake
> parachute to stabilize the spinning glider, and keep its speed low, to
> enable (=give him enough time and minimize the g-loads) the pilot to
> perform a conventional bail-out.
>
> In my opinion there is no need for a BRS that saves the complete
> glider - I'd rather prefer a device that pulls me out of the cockpit
> (and maybe opens my chute), nothing else. Like the Soteira project of
> the Akaflieg Darmstadt.
Reliable system? Well, based on the data, jumping out is NOT a
reliable system. It will certainly work, sometimes. I believe that a
BRS is more reliable. I would like to stress that what I just said was
MY BELIEF. There isn't any data one way or another.
A device that pulls you out of the cockpit? Now THAT is a can of
worms. I was at a DZ when one of the students unfortunately pulled her
reserve as she was getting on the step. She was pulled OUT of the
airplane, all right...right THROUGH the horizontal stabilizer. Closed
coffin funeral. Fortunately the other people in the airplane had
parachutes and were able to egress.
The energy of an open parachute at speed is awesome, and very
destructive.
If you are starting to talk about an ejection-type-seat, then I refer
you to Bob Kuykendall's comments. This would add excessive weight,
wear and tear, and speed to landing and take-off operations. Ejection
seats make sense in military aircraft, as folks are likely to shoot at
one whilst flying over them. Further, military aircraft have a number
of systems which are more prone to failure than our gloriously simple
gliders. The military DID recognize the need for not having someone
crawl out on wing (ok, not fair...that whole supersonic thingy does
come into play...). My point is that, let's face it, one of my
original thoughts was the concept of why wear a parachute at all? I
mean, the chances of needing it AND being able to use it are very
slim. Adding a BRS is a small (relatively) cost to perhaps add some
reliability...altho it is clearly not perfect.
Michael had the right of it, I think. Use all of this effort to become
better pilots, don't disassemble our gliders (or do a positive control
check EVERY time) and keep your speed up on final.
Jim
chris
> Here's a question:
> Would a pilot in a BRS-equipped ASW-28 still be required to wear a parachute
> in a competition?
> I don't know how the rules are written.
No, I remember some language being put into US competition rules a
couple years ago that allow a BRS type parachute to be used instead of
or in addition to a personal 'chute. I think this was prompted by the
availablity of the Genesis system.
But this should not be a deciding factor, as these rules are easy to
change worldwide.
Chris
chris
Aircraft Recovery System:
http://www.streifly.de/enews3-99.htm
Chris
Chris OCallaghan
full recovery system was delivered last year. (I don't think it was
translated into English, so see the german language site.)
greeneg...@att.net (chris) wrote in message news:<ad9f51be.02122...@posting.google.com>...
Eric Greenwell
jha...@knology.net says...
> My point is that, let's face it, one of my
> original thoughts was the concept of why wear a parachute at all? I
> mean, the chances of needing it AND being able to use it are very
> slim.
I wear one because I already own one to fly in contests, it fits the
seat properly, I do fly often, and in situations where collision or
failure of the aircraft is a possibility. While the chances of ending
up under the parachute are very small, the consequences of not having
one when needed are fatal. Also, I personally know at least two people
that have successfully bailed out of a glider (Graham Thompson and
Dick Johnson (twice)), so the possibility doesn't seem so remote to
me.
> Adding a BRS is a small (relatively) cost to perhaps add some
> reliability...altho it is clearly not perfect.
The cost of a BRS system in a sailplane designed for it, such as the
in-production SparrowHawk and Russia AC-4, and out-of-production
Genesis, is only a few thousand dollars. If you want one that has
actually been tested, you'll have to wait for the ASW 28 (and others
coming) and pay a lot more. It's the design, testing and certification
to achieve a proven system that is expensive, not the actual
installation, but the cost should drop as they become available in the
certified sailplanes.
Personally, I'm not excited at the idea of paying the $5000US or more
it would cost to retrofit a BRS to an existing glider. That seems like
a lot to pay for a device that I am unlikely to need and that might
not work. The same might be said for my parachute, except that is only
$1000. I do like the idea of the certified versions, and would likely
get one if I bought a new glider.
Some people with the BRS units have adopted the strategy of wearing a
parachute: if the situation allows them to bail out, out they'll go;
otherwise, they'll pull the handle and hope the BRS does the trick.
--
Delete the REMOVE from my e-mail address to reply directly
Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)
JJ Sinclair
words to be,"Yuodumbshit, youdumbshit, youdumbshit, SPLAT
JJ Sinclair
Fred Blair
too lat to go back and get it. I had the tail section of an Open Cirrus
break off in turbulence in 1988, my first try a jumping. The chute worked
perfectly and I am still flying gliders.
Fred Blair
"Eric Greenwell" <REMOVEeg...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.187663426...@flashnews.prodigy.net...
Ian Johnston
: BRS
: webpage shows on the order of 29 saves for the same period of time.
One has to apply great caution in defining "saves". Does it mean
"resulted in the pilot surviving" or does it mean "resulted in the
pilot surviving from a situation which would otherwise have been
fatal"?
Ian
--
Joseph L. Hyde
"Youdumbshit"
Gee JJ I do not know how you have managed to get copies of the CVR in
some of my most recent flights as an IOE checkairman.....those words sound
soooooo familiar.
<<GRIN>>
"JJ Sinclair" <jjgl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021227170132...@mb-mv.aol.com...
Bob Kuykendall
> ...The BRS 900 softpack weighs 21 pounds and costs
> $2395.
Good point. The problem is that that system is rated for a maximum
weight of 900 lbs.
The HP-24, like most contemporary Standard- and 15-Meter class ships,
has a ballasted gross weight on the porky side of 1100 lbs. Should a
BRS system be fitted that is not rated for the maximum weight
possible? Should the gross weight be derated at a substantial
competitive disadvantage? These are important questions that I'm not
comfortable trying to answer for others, especially given the paucity
of real-world reference data.
And yes, there's no call to be rescuing all of that ballast water
along with the aircraft. But dumping it takes, on average, four
minutes. Maybe the BRS canopy should be connected to a steel cable
that slices open the wings and releases the water quickly. Maybe. But
I'd sure hate to be the guy who signs off on that one!
And, for comparison, the BRS systems rated for 1200 lbs generally
weigh around 32 lbs, cost around $3200 uninstalled, and occupy around
1500 cubic inches of volume. With development amortization,
installation, inspection, and testing, the out-the-door cost is
probably at least $5000 per aircraft, and likely much more.
Again, I'm not against BRS. It think it's a good idea. I just haven't
seen the signs I'm waiting for to show that it's definitely ready for
prime time. But I admit that the signs might be there and I missed
them.
> ...No doubt you are carrying on the tradition of change started by
> Dick Schraeder!
Dunno about that. Everytime I try to keep things the same, they change
as if by magic. And every time I try to change things, they end up the
same. Who'da thunk it? :)
Tim Mara
"sometimes" having survived a bail-out already from a not so high (not
exactly sure what altitude but well under 2000' anyway)......and walked away
relatively unharmed...
I know of several others who have done the same....
BRS or no BRS.....I wear a parachute...always will
Tim
"Jim Harper" <jha...@knology.net> wrote in message
> Reliable system? Well, based on the data, jumping out is NOT a
> reliable system. It will certainly work, sometimes. I believe that a
> BRS is more reliable. I would like to stress that what I just said was
> MY BELIEF. There isn't any data one way or another.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 12/26/2002
Al
normally.
Anyone got any stats on sink rates in the Discus test done by Striefineder?
I would hate to have survived the BRS deploy only to break my back in the
landing from it.
Al
"Tim Mara" <t...@wingsandwheels.com> wrote in message
news:aujg0...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Andy Durbin
> news:a0ffa3c4.02122...@posting.google.com...
> > I agree that BRS is preferable over a backpack parachute and that is
> > one reason the ASW-28 w/ OEM BRS is so interesting to me. However, I
> > like flaps and the last I heard there was no plan to install BRS in an
> > ASW-27. I also wonder how many ASW-28s actually have been delivered w/
> > BRS. I would guess not many (if it ever became available).
> Here's a question:
> Would a pilot in a BRS-equipped ASW-28 still be required to wear a parachute
> in a competition?
To the best of my knowledge the BRS is not available for the ASW 28.
Yes, it is included in the brochures, but it was not on any option
list when I bought mine.
Anyone know of an ASW 28 delivered with BRS. I doubt it was ever
certified.
Andy Durbin
JJ Sinclair
are willing to offer the system without proper certification. I tried to buy
the big BRS a couple of years back, BRS didn't want to sell it to me, then I
contacted Stiefenader (sp) and he said, "No way, will I have anything to do
with an instillation that isn't certified. These people know about the bereaved
widow, sewing everybody in sight.
JJ Sinclair
Steve Pawling
http://www.streifly.de/enews3-99.htm, there seems to be a discrepancy
between the two descriptions. Here are quotes from the streifly.de
page:
"...the bigger main parachute opened - as planned and expected - above
the glider. The glider made a short swinging movement under the
parachute. After a sufficiently long steady rate of descent (without
any rotation), Hans-Jörg Streifeneder detached the parachute system
from the fuselage and landed..."
"Three more flight tests on Friday 28th of May and on Friday 4th of
June 1999 were equally successful."
So, what's the rest of the story?
SP
(wore a big "parachute" yesterday -- went paragliding)
jha...@knology.net (Jim Harper) wrote in message news:<8c8a70de.02122...@posting.google.com>...
> Andreas Maurer <alph...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:<cdhn0vgd85l48tst9...@4ax.com>...
>
Jim Harper
"Bob Kuykendall" <b...@hpaircraft.com> wrote in message
news:42f0299c.02122...@posting.google.com...
> The HP-24, like most contemporary Standard- and 15-Meter class ships,
> has a ballasted gross weight on the porky side of 1100 lbs. Should a
> BRS system be fitted that is not rated for the maximum weight
> possible? Should the gross weight be derated at a substantial
> competitive disadvantage? These are important questions that I'm not
> comfortable trying to answer for others, especially given the paucity
> of real-world reference data.
I am humbled in the face of your superior knowledge (no, not sarcasm). I
didn't even begin to consider the aircraft with ballast. My bad. And of
course not, we shouldn't plan on severing the water-filled wings, nor should
we de-rate the aircraft.
> And yes, there's no call to be rescuing all of that ballast water
> along with the aircraft. But dumping it takes, on average, four
> minutes. Maybe the BRS canopy should be connected to a steel cable
> that slices open the wings and releases the water quickly. Maybe. But
> I'd sure hate to be the guy who signs off on that one!
>
> And, for comparison, the BRS systems rated for 1200 lbs generally
> weigh around 32 lbs, cost around $3200 uninstalled, and occupy around
> 1500 cubic inches of volume. With development amortization,
> installation, inspection, and testing, the out-the-door cost is
> probably at least $5000 per aircraft, and likely much more.
Of course, even at 32 pounds, we are only talking about an increase of 15
pounds over the backpack parachute...so your original complaint about the
"substantial...weight...cost" is sort of overstated. On the other hand,
especially for a certified installation, your cost estimate is reasonably
close to true, I suspect.
All said and done, I would like to thank everyone for their opinions on this
thread. I learned from it, and I hope some of y'all did too. To you who have
actually saved your butts by hitting the silk, thank goodness, and I am
proud to hear from you.
For me, the take-home is (as I have hit a few times before)...I am going to
pursue the option of getting a BRS in my experiemental glider. I won't
flight test it. If I can accomplish that (and it is by no means a certain
deal) I will fly with ONLY that parachute. Failing that, I will seek to
improve the canopy jettison system (current system is non-existant) and fly
with a parachute. I am comfortable with that decision, as I have a bunch of
real-world free-fall parachute experience, and am confident that I can leave
an airplane in a timely fashion, and optimize my position for the best
possible chance of having a good canopy over me after I leave. I will attach
a rigger's knife to the parachute harness to correct any malfunctions, if
necessary and possible. I will also ask someone at the field to check out my
backpack parachute for errors in putting it on every time I go flying.
I will use a checklist for assembly, take-off, and landing and I will also
(as part of my checklist) do a positive control check EVERY time I assemble
the glider, and (as part of my checklist) I will remind myself every time I
enter the pattern that the stall-spin accident in pattern is the most common
cause of fatal accidents whilst flying.
A most happy and prosperous New Year to all, and may all of us stay off of
that really dreary NTSB accident list in 2003.
Jim
Eric Greenwell
a.du...@netzero.net says...
> To the best of my knowledge the BRS is not available for the ASW 28.
> Yes, it is included in the brochures, but it was not on any option
> list when I bought mine.
>
> Anyone know of an ASW 28 delivered with BRS. I doubt it was ever
> certified.
When I talked to Gerhard Waibel at the Sailplane Homebuilders
Association meeting in September, he said much of his last year (till
Aug 2003) with Schleicher will be devoted to completing the
certification of the glider rescue system for the ASW 28. 28s
delivered before that might retrofittable - check with your dealer.
Bob Kuykendall
There's word on RAH (for whatever that's worth) that a Pipistrel Sinus
or Virus motorglider descended under BRS canopy sometime in the last
few days. In France, they say.
If this report is true, it'll be interesting to see what the causes
and effects were.
Bob K.
Andreas Maurer
>While the scenario you describe is possibly true (if you read the BRS
>webpage, there are several "saves" from altitudes of less than 100
>feet, but these are ultralights), even so...do you think you can
>successfully egress from a sailplane in a spin at low height?
Nope.. but given an ejection system like Soteira - why should I wait
for a huge canopy to open if a smaller one that rescues only me opens
several times faster?
>> And how will a BRS deploy from an inverted spin (that might happen
>> when the tail is missing due to a midair)?
>
>It deploys just fine from ultralights in amazingly wierd attitudes.
>One winged beasts and all. Many of the ultralight setups have the
>parachute deploying DOWN...and as such it STILL winds up over the
>aircraft.
Hmmm... we are talking about speeds of 200 mph+ here... lots of
inertia and aerodynamic forces involved here.
>That is fascinating to me, and no doubt it happened. Conversely, it
>did, in fact, miss the canopy.
Yes. And led to the conclusion that the BRS system he is using still
has some huge holes in its envelope.
>As far as the rate of descent? It's gotta be lower with a canopy than
>without. It is interesting that most of the ultralight accidents
>associated with BRS deployment avoid injury. I agree that an
>ultralight has more structure to absorb energy. Maybe we should have
>the sailplane descend laterally...and have a wing hit the ground
>first. That last was more-or-less tongue-in-cheek.
Good idea... but what are you going to do if the glider hits the
ground with the belly first, one inch under your butt?
>> You cannot compare BRS systems of aircraft like the Cirrus or
>> Ultralights to the ones needed in gliders. For example, deployment
>> speed limit of any ultralight BRS is 270 kp/h - and a glider in a
>> vertical dive due to a missing wing or tail needs only seconds to
>> accelerate to that speed (not to mention the higher weight of the
>> glider). Even the BRS of the Cirrus is not rated to Vne (but I fail to
>> remember ist maximum deployment speed).
>
>BRS does report that they have tested the Cirrus parachute in a
>dead-weight "drop at 190 mph even at 125% of gross weight." The
>parachute has a slider which keeps it closed until there has been
>significant deceleration.
Some info about SR-20's BRs system:
--- snip ---
The Cirrus SR20 system went through eight airborne tests. In-flight
deployments for FAA certification included:
at power-off stall with slow entry
after one full turn into a spin
at maneuvering speed (135 knots)
Note: The Cirrus SR20 parachute system is placarded for deployment at
135 knots (155 mph) although it survived dead-weight drops at speeds
up to 190 mph even at 125% of gross weight.
--- snip ---
135 kts deployment speed... Vne of the SR20 is 200 kts. Sounds as if
the Cirrus guys are not really trusting their BRS at higher speeds,
don't you agree?
For a glider we are talking about deployment speeds of 200 kts+...
with huge aerodynamic parts still more or less attached. Pretty hard
to predict the behaviour of such a beast.
>Inverted flight: See above. BRS have been installed UNDER ultralights
>and are deployed downward. Just works fine, so the inverted thingy
>isn't an issue. Over VNE? Well, we do have that 195mph
>deployment...but you are right. Again, how easy is it to egress your
>glider at greater than VNE?
We are not comparing BRS to current manual bailout here - we are
comparing BRS to other pilot saving devices here like NOAH or Soteira.
>Reliable system? Well, based on the data, jumping out is NOT a
>reliable system.
You are completely right. This is exactly the cause why we are
discussing a rescue system, isn't it? ;)
>A device that pulls you out of the cockpit? Now THAT is a can of
>worms. I was at a DZ when one of the students unfortunately pulled her
>reserve as she was getting on the step. She was pulled OUT of the
>airplane, all right...right THROUGH the horizontal stabilizer.
.. and? I somehow fail to see any similarity to a pilot rescue system.
>If you are starting to talk about an ejection-type-seat, then I refer
>you to Bob Kuykendall's comments. This would add excessive weight,
>wear and tear, and speed to landing and take-off operations.
I think I already mentioned that I am in fact taking about Soteira - a
small rocket that pulls the pilot out of his seat. He is attached to
his standard parachute. This system has nothing in common with an
ejection seat apart from the rocket.
> My point is that, let's face it, one of my
>original thoughts was the concept of why wear a parachute at all? I
>mean, the chances of needing it AND being able to use it are very
>slim.
Hmmm.... I have three friends who needed to bail out of a glider after
a midair. One did not survive.
>Michael had the right of it, I think. Use all of this effort to become
>better pilots, don't disassemble our gliders (or do a positive control
>check EVERY time) and keep your speed up on final.
.. and pray that the other pilot always sees you...
Bye
Andreas
Andreas Maurer
wrote:
>If Andreas is describing the same tests reported on
>http://www.streifly.de/enews3-99.htm, there seems to be a discrepancy
>between the two descriptions. Here are quotes from the streifly.de
>page:
>
>"...the bigger main parachute opened - as planned and expected - above
>the glider. The glider made a short swinging movement under the
>parachute. After a sufficiently long steady rate of descent (without
>any rotation), Hans-Jörg Streifeneder detached the parachute system
>from the fuselage and landed..."
>
>"Three more flight tests on Friday 28th of May and on Friday 4th of
>June 1999 were equally successful."
>
>So, what's the rest of the story?
There were bad problems when deploying the BRS at higher speed (the
tests at lower speed worked well). The helicopter that carried an
un-manned LS-3 crashed when it dropped the glider, killing its pilot
(but this accident was not related to the BRS).
To my knowledge Streifeneder has stopped all testing of his BRS.
Please correct me if someone knows more details about the current
status.
Bye
Andreas
patrick bayle
Yes I have heard about it. It come from an overspeed at 7000 feet at
indicated and registered speed of 280 km/h ie at normal ground
pressure around 290/300 km/h.
The left wing and the tail have brocken probably by flutter.
The chute has opened and to my knowledge no harm for pilot and
passenger.
Patrick bayle
Louis E Frank
serviceable chute, and others who are no longer capable of expressing an
opinion: I belong to the former group...
Lou Frank
Jim Harper
sophisticated as a glider pilot than I, and I defer to your wisdom in most
things. However, I do need to comment on a few of your observations.
> Nope.. but given an ejection system like Soteira - why should I wait
> for a huge canopy to open if a smaller one that rescues only me opens
> several times faster?
I've done some research on the Soteira, and I guess I need to ask about
complexity, weight and cost. I am not sure I want a rocket to fire straight
"up" in an inverted spin, for instance. The rocket unit _looks_ pretty
heavy. Any data on the weight?
> Hmmm... we are talking about speeds of 200 mph+ here... lots of
> inertia and aerodynamic forces involved here.
>
> >That is fascinating to me, and no doubt it happened. Conversely, it
> >did, in fact, miss the canopy.
> Yes. And led to the conclusion that the BRS system he is using still
> has some huge holes in its envelope.
Actually the system used in sailplanes by Streifeneder is NOT to my
knowledge a BRS system. Rather he has a home-grown system. I would point out
that the BRS has a patented reefing system that keeps the canopy closed at
high speeds...allowing some deceleration before the canopy deploys.
Streifeneder has a "two-canopy" system, with, at least reportedly, no
reefing system. Perhaps this is a matter of comparing apples to oranges.
> Good idea... but what are you going to do if the glider hits the
> ground with the belly first, one inch under your butt?
Excellent point. I believe that the current wisdom for gliders is to have
them hit the ground nose down, giving some shock absorption. In truth, this
is one of the shortcomings of the BRS system. No question that 21fps is a
whack against the ground. I am a bit disappointed that your glider won't
protect you in the event of a drop from 7 feet off the ground, but I agree
that this is a problem. On the other hand, do you realize the theoretical
risk of your body dangling under a parachute descending at a somewhat less
rate of descent? You can land in power lines, trees, water, any number of
unpleasant and life and limb threatening environments. When I was in the
Army, every time we parachuted, we had a briefing on powerline landings,
tree landings and water landings. Do you know what you would do when it
appears likely that you will hit powerlines? How about on that nice wave
day? Are you prepared to land in your parachute in ground winds on the order
of 20 plus knots? Trust me, it gets sporty WITH capewells (parachute quick
releases). I wouldn't even want to consider trying it in a parachute without
quick releases.
I am not bringing this up to be argumentative. I am just pointing out that
for every oh-dear secenario you can point out in the BRS, I can point out
the equivilent when you suspend your completely unarmored body from that
parachute.
> For a glider we are talking about deployment speeds of 200 kts+...
> with huge aerodynamic parts still more or less attached. Pretty hard
> to predict the behaviour of such a beast.
It's true. However it is equally true that in MOST fatal soaring accidents
the airspeed is well below VNE at some significant point in the catastrophe.
Heck, the majority of events (stall-spin on approach) the airspeed is very
low.
> >Inverted flight: See above. BRS have been installed UNDER ultralights
> >and are deployed downward. Just works fine, so the inverted thingy
> >isn't an issue. Over VNE? Well, we do have that 195mph
> >deployment...but you are right. Again, how easy is it to egress your
> >glider at greater than VNE?
>
> We are not comparing BRS to current manual bailout here - we are
> comparing BRS to other pilot saving devices here like NOAH or Soteira.
Again, I give you Soteira inverted and low. Oh dear.
> >Reliable system? Well, based on the data, jumping out is NOT a
> >reliable system.
>
> You are completely right. This is exactly the cause why we are
> discussing a rescue system, isn't it? ;)
Agree completely.
> >A device that pulls you out of the cockpit? Now THAT is a can of
> >worms. I was at a DZ when one of the students unfortunately pulled her
> >reserve as she was getting on the step. She was pulled OUT of the
> >airplane, all right...right THROUGH the horizontal stabilizer.
>
> .. and? I somehow fail to see any similarity to a pilot rescue system.
I can. Try something at the greater-than VNE speeds we were just referring
to. A rocket that gets you clear of the cockpit standing still may have
entirely different characteristics at speed. I was unable to find any
high-speed testing of the Soteira system. Doesn't mean that it doesn't
exist. Only professing MY ignorance.
> >If you are starting to talk about an ejection-type-seat, then I refer
> >you to Bob Kuykendall's comments. This would add excessive weight,
> >wear and tear, and speed to landing and take-off operations.
>
> I think I already mentioned that I am in fact taking about Soteira - a
> small rocket that pulls the pilot out of his seat. He is attached to
> his standard parachute. This system has nothing in common with an
> ejection seat apart from the rocket.
That rocket (in the web-page) doesn't look all that small to me. Don't
forget that it will also need something to: 1. automatically jettison the
canopy; 2. Remove the instrument panel; 3. Jettison itself after parachute
deployment. All of these add complexity and weight. Again, do you include a
microchip (low weight, high complexity) do decide if the glider is inverted?
And then do you add vectoring nozzles (high weight and complexity) to pull
you upright from an inverted position? Finally, what are going to do about
your unprotected body hanging from that parachute harness as you cotact
power lines?
> > My point is that, let's face it, one of my
> >original thoughts was the concept of why wear a parachute at all? I
> >mean, the chances of needing it AND being able to use it are very
> >slim.
> Hmmm.... I have three friends who needed to bail out of a glider after
> a midair. One did not survive.
I understand your point. My point was that the vast majority of fatal
accidents in the US over the last 5 years were not even associated with a
docmmented attempt at escape. Interestingly enought, the data on those that
were documented to try to escape, the statistics were the same as your
friends...3 attempst, 2 survivors.
> >Michael had the right of it, I think. Use all of this effort to become
> >better pilots, don't disassemble our gliders (or do a positive control
> >check EVERY time) and keep your speed up on final.
>
> .. and pray that the other pilot always sees you...
Amen, brother.
Jim
mbor...@borgeltinstruments.com
<jimh...@mach500.net> wrote:
>
-24, like most contemporary Standard- and 15-Meter class ships,
>> has a ballasted gross weight on the porky side of 1100 lbs. Should a
>> BRS system be fitted that is not rated for the maximum weight
>> possible? Should the gross weight be derated at a substantial
>> competitive disadvantage? These are important questions that I'm not
>> comfortable trying to answer for others, especially given the paucity
>> of real-world reference data.
>
>All said and done, I would like to thank everyone for their opinions on this
>thread. I learned from it, and I hope some of y'all did too. To you who have
>actually saved your butts by hitting the silk, thank goodness, and I am
>proud to hear from you.
>
>For me, the take-home is (as I have hit a few times before)...I am going to
>pursue the option of getting a BRS in my experiemental glider. I won't
>flight test it. If I can accomplish that (and it is by no means a certain
>deal) I will fly with ONLY that parachute. Failing that, I will seek to
>improve the canopy jettison system (current system is non-existant) and fly
>with a parachute. I am comfortable with that decision, as I have a bunch of
>real-world free-fall parachute experience, and am confident that I can leave
>an airplane in a timely fashion, and optimize my position for the best
>possible chance of having a good canopy over me after I leave. I will attach
>a rigger's knife to the parachute harness to correct any malfunctions, if
>necessary and possible. I will also ask someone at the field to check out my
>backpack parachute for errors in putting it on every time I go flying.
>
>I will use a checklist for assembly, take-off, and landing and I will also
>(as part of my checklist) do a positive control check EVERY time I assemble
>the glider, and (as part of my checklist) I will remind myself every time I
>enter the pattern that the stall-spin accident in pattern is the most common
>cause of fatal accidents whilst flying.
>
>A most happy and prosperous New Year to all, and may all of us stay off of
>that really dreary NTSB accident list in 2003.
>
>Jim
Jim,
One thing about the BRS type system is that it about doubles the
chances of you or the chute system being disabled in a mid air.
Mike Borgelt
>
>
Shawn
>
> One thing about the BRS type system is that it about doubles the
> chances of you or the chute system being disabled in a mid air.
>
> Mike Borgelt
>
Huh?
Bruce Hoult
scu...@amigo.net (Shawn) wrote:
I expect he means that since the parachute and the pilot are in
different locations in the aircraft, there is a higher chance of one or
the other being damaged to the point that the system as a whole doesn't
work. Compared to a pilot wearing a personal chute, that is.
Of course he is correct that the risk of escape system damage is
increased, but 1) I wouldn't expect it to be doubled, since the BRS is
in a strong and protected location (as long as the wing roots themselves
can't damage it), and 2) it seems to me that the risk of the cockpit
area being hit and the pilot injured so that he can't escape is a *lot*
less than the risk of a wing or tailboom or tailfeathers being damaged
and necessitating an escape.
Whether the pilot himself is injured or uninjured (or shaken up) in the
original collision, it's *got* to be easier to deploy a BRS than to jump
out of an aircraft that is flailing around.
-- Bruce