There are some good article on the DG web site about
safety features, they do explain why they went for
the NOAH system. given the cost and structural issues
with balistic recorery systems and the life of plastic
gliders (50-100 years?) it would be a very long time
before many people had one. I dont think they can cope
with water ballast (200kg+ in newer 15/18m)

80-90% of new German gliders have an engine, so space
and the extra weight are also issues, even turbos reduce
weak weather perfformance

the Noah can be retrofitted to a lot of the existing
DG fleet and is not prohibitively expensive. To be
fair it is also more likely to give DG a return on
the investment. The system will only work with a mushroom
type instrument binnacle or similar which you legs
can get round either side

the reaon for the Noah is why i would lean toward using
the stable platform. Some test were done a while ago
to simulate bailout with spin G loading by strapping
weights to pilots of various ages, and seing if they
could roll out of a static cockpit, the older ones
simply could not get out of the cockpit

as for the airbrake open warning DG also make the Piggot
Hook, which is a sawtooth plate which catches the airbrake
handle if it trys to slide back when not locked, could
easily be copied and retrofitted to lots of types,
especially in Experemental world.

Pete

At 21:01 11 September 2007, Mike Schumann wrote:
I don't understand the NOAH system. Why not just put
a ballistic recovery
chute in the glider? That way you don't need to worry
about getting out,
you are somewhat protected when you hit the ground,
and your chute will
deploy even if you pull the cord at 300 ft.

Mike Schumann

'Bill Daniels' wrote in message
...

'bagmaker' wrote in message
...

-
You've had a whack, but everything feels fine. Do
you
stay in the
glider, or leave? Just how reliable are the parachutes
we use? I
understand that they're fairly simple quick-opening
designs, but
there's no reserve, right? Has a glider-pilot parachute
ever failed?


Dan

-

Dan,
Simply, there is no blanket answer, way too many variables
exist.
Derek Piggot writes a fascinating account of his bail-out
in some of his
gliding books, I would suggest reading them.
Gliding Kiwi has a great article this month on a NZ
instructor landing a
rudderless puch with a PAX - more heart stopping reading!

Basically if it does fly after a hit, check to see
that it will keep
flying with some harsh movements -height limits withstanding-
long enough
to land. Landing manuevering can be rough, you want
to be sure the thing
doesnt fail at 100 feet after nursing down from a
good bail out height.

Rough rule has been bandied about RAS about 1500 ft
as a minimum bail-out
altitude, many would disagree, but if you dont have
a choice.....

Bottom line is you are worth more than a glider, if
in doubt, get out

fly safe
Bagger

I've twice faced the decision to jump or land a crippled
glider. The
first was a Pratt-Read badly damaged from a mid-air.
I had fresh jump
training, a fresh repack and a stable jump platform
but I decided to land
it anyway. The critical decision was whether I could
control the glider
from the time it decended below a safe jump altitude
until it was on the
ground. I could and did. For the record, the other
pilot in the mid-air
did the same thing.

The second was an experimental flying wing where a
suposedly secure lead
shot bag shifted in flight so as to jam the elevator/aileron
bellcranks.
I found I could steer with rudder and slow it to 70Kts
with trim. That
let me hit the runway on a fast, shallow glide. It
was a rough landing
but the glider and I survived to fly again.

In both cases there was intense discussion post flight
about the wisdom of
my decisions. A slim majority said the conservative
action was to have
abandoned ship. My view was if the thing is more
or less controllable,
and you have a big airfield to aim at, land it. If
it is an airplane
loaded with fuel, that might shift the decision toward
jumping. However,
a glider that can be flown to hit a large flat area
at a shallow angle is
likely to be safer than the 'chute. If there is any
doubt that the glider
will remain controllable - jump.

The real problem here is struggling to rise from a
reclining position and
crawl over the side with a 15 pound 'chute on your
back. That's
difficult. Being old, out of shape and/or overweight
makes it impossible.
This is where the NOAH system from DG is so significant.
Of all the
safety related things that one could spend money on,
the NOAH system tops
the list for me.

Bill Daniels




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com