Andreas Maurer wrote:
On 8 Feb 2004 09:59:55 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

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

Sure, in some conditions. But how many people have they
killed invisibly? The guy wearing the chute for the
winch pattern tow? Not a chance he'd have enough altitude to
use the chute, but maybe the extra weight was just
enough to cause the cable break and the stall/spin?
Kinda an invisible possibility, isn't it?
No real way to determine that...

Well... at the moment I know four glider pilots in person who were
using the nylon letdown successfully.
One girl bailed out of their ASW-19 during a winch launch (elevator
not connected) [500 ft], one bailed out of his Ventus after he had
rammed another glider [5000 ft, unfortunately the other pilot was not
able to bail out], and two bailed out of their respective Ka-8(s after
they had collided at 700 ft.

Was the altitude the bailout or chute opening
altitude? Perhaps a better question is:

If I gave you a 2-22 and asked you to bail out solo,
how low would you do it?

I've static line chuted at 800 feet. The hard deck for novice
solo sport chuters is 2500ft. The firejumpers declare
500ft as "the last chance to deploy parachute and have it be effective",
and say that if the "aircraft is below 1000 feet, a decision
has to be made immediately."

The 500 ft and 700 ft are simply lucky.

www.richstowell.com/bailout.htm

was really great about the folks who had given up and started to
bail but died during impact (perhaps if they'd tried to
keep flying instead, might have survived), the canopy that
knocked a guy unconscious, and the chute on so the
pilot was too far forward.

As you can see, there are a LOT of very small disadvantages, that add up...


Note the altitudes [in brackets].

I know of not a single case where the additional weight of a parachute
caused a problem. I also have not even heard of any case where the
parachute caused a disadvantage.

As I said, no real way of determining that. How many investigators are
willing to say: "at the 23G's encountered at the moment of impact,
the 330 extra pounds exerted by the parachute on the back
of the victim were the difference between serious injuries and
fatality. We therefore conclude that the parachute was a
contributor to the fatality."

I read a recent well-worded report about why child safety seats
are not required in airplanes. In the end, the feds determined that
it would cost an additional $9 billion a year, and would save the
lives of six children a year from aviation deaths. On the other
hand, people would then fly less with their kids, and in the
150+ mile car trips, there would be 1000's of more fatalities.

I'm a big proponent of choice, especially for solo pilots.
I think the tremendous advantages of wearing a chute
happen so infrequently, and the minor disadvantages
occur so often, that we are dealing with

..83 x .0001

vs

..0002 x .41

and if any of these numbers are even a little off, the argument could
go either way. Very sketchy dealing with very big and very little
numbers...

so just let the pilots decide for themselves...


I think REQUIRING parachutes for ALL glider operations is absurd.

Any questions left?

Yes, how much does it cost ($$$) to tow an additional 15 pounds
aloft during every glider flight in the US in a year?
If this money were instead spent on flyers mailed to
every pilot about checking the elevator connection
before flight, would more lives be saved?

The child safety seat fed folks seemed to think it is best spent
increasing awareness about venetian blind cords strangling
infants...


Bye
Andreas