I think we are getting off the point here. I accept
that a square chute gives a descent speed of less than
the 18-22fps of a conical chute but the square chute
requires training.
If we compare the number of bailouts to the number
of flights undertaken in gliders we come up with a
very small statisical chance of ever having to resort
to using them.
If every glider pilot was trained using a square chute,
bearing in mind the age and fitness of all pilots are
we able to say that the chances of injury would be
reduced. I suspect not, in fact the chances of accidental
injury could rise dramitically. Every jump carries
the chance of injury, not jumping does not carry that
risk.
The question is therefore, given the unlikehood of
needing to abandon the glider is it sensible to undergo
that training? Remember that if only 1 in 4 people
are injured so 3 in four abandon and land with no injury
at all. If all glider pilots trained then the number
of injuries caused by parachute descents can only rise,
more jumps more injuries. Statistcally the chances
of injury are much less if we only jump the once ie
when we have to undergoing training could be a case
where the cure is worse than the disease.

The original question was, should we use round or square
chutes. The answer is simple, unless you feel the need
to parachute jump the square is not a sensible option.
Given that many people only ever take one ride in a
glider and may have to use a parachute then round is
the only sensible answer. As having two types of parachute
available presents the opportunity of someone wearing
the wrong one there really is no choice.
Sorry if your business is parachute training.


At 21:00 08 April 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Jack wrote:

Michael wrote:

My informal survey suggests that about a

quarter of those who make emergency
bailouts on round parachutes go to
the hospital afterwards....

It's your choice to accept an emergency
parachute that has a high probability of

putting you in the hospital if you use it.

One in four is no kind of 'probability' at all, let
alone a high one.

I'd be much more interested in seeing even an informal
analysis of
unsuccessful attempts to bail out.

I think this is the bigger problem. Those that don't
get out of the
glider usually die. Once most pilots have Roeger hooks
on their gliders
and the muscle strength to lift themselves out of the
cockpit easily,
then it might be worthwhile trying to minimize the
landing injuries.

Even better is to avoid the collision in the first
place. The Europeans
now have an additional choice beyond 'see and avoid':
the 'Flight Alarm'
device from www.flarm.com. Over 450 of these devices
have been
delivered, and 2000 more are scheduled for delivery
this year.

However, if a couple of jumps appeal to a pilot, it
sounds like learning
to use a square reserve would be enjoyable and, in
addition, provide
some slight additional safety for soaring.

--
Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA