BRS for emergencies

On Sep 14, 12:36 pm, Ian wrote:
But remember the Idaflieg survey which found no evidence that anyone
had ever made the decision to use a parachute from a glider below
500m and survived.

I posted a link to an accident report earlier where a pilot had a
collision at 1,500' (slightly less than 500 m), and survived by
bailing out.

In the accident I referred to where the pilot was not wearing a
parachute, the collision occured at 2,500'; however, the report did
note that it whether the pilot would have had time to bail was an
unknown (the glider impacted the ground 30 s after collision - must
have been a very uncomfortable period).

With driving, there are too many other vehicles and too many poor
drivers to guarantee that you can avoid having a collision, so I drive
the safest car I can afford (going by the SafeCar and EuroNCAP tests).

With gliding, however, you have really only yourself to blame if you
have an accident. While I fully support FLARM, there's no stealth
gliders out there which you can't see before they hit you. Whether or
not you stall/spin at below 500' and whether or not you land in a safe
field is entirely down to oneself. So I don't particularly go out of
my way to fly gliders with good crash impact performance (i.e., any
ASW from 24 on, followed by DG 101s on). I still wear a parachute
though - that's a no-brainer, with a proven record of saving lives.


Dan

Ian,

Just a couple of years ago, a friend of mine told me he didn't use a chute
as he had back problems. I invited him to sit in my glider and see how
comfortable a well fitted chute could be (I've added Confor lumbar padding a
sheepskin so it really is comfy.).

He didn't take me up on the offer, but asked if I used a parachute in my
certified Mooney. When I answered, "No", he said, "There - - same thing, my
glider is certified too. If I have a problem I'll ride it down."

He was dead two month later, not a mid-air, but the wings came of the ship
and . . . he rode it down.

Your comment reminds me of the people who refuse to wear seat belts, saying
that if they do have and accident, they'd rather be "thrown clear" so as to
avoid the wreckage. No offense, but that makes about as much sense.

bumper
ZZ Minden


"Ian" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 14 Sep, 10:05, Dan G wrote:
On Sep 13, 7:33 pm, Paul Hanson

wrote:
Wear your chutes folks

A pilot in Britain died in 2002 when his glider was damaged in a
collision but he did not have a parachute. The pilot who had flown the
glider previously did not use a parachute due to his size, and when
the accident pilot got into the glider afterwards he did not get a
parachute to use himself. When a person helping him board commented on
the lack of a parachute, the accident pilot replied "it'll be
alright".

But remember the Idaflieg survey which found no evidence that anyone
had ever made the decision to use a parachute from a glider below
500m and survived. There were a fair number of cases when the actual
deployment happened much lower but it seems that the time it takes to
leave a glider as about the time it takes a badly damaged glider to
fall 500m.

I don;t wear a parachute when flying myself: I prefer "not hitting
things" to "trying to survive after hitting things"...

Ian

On Sep 14, 6:43 pm, Ian wrote:
Did you know that there is now good evidence that the thick A-posts
required for side airbags reduced visibility to such an extent that
the accident rate is noticeably increased.

While I have no desire to drag this thread off-topic, you really need
to provide a reference for that statement, or withdraw it. I've
certainly heard no such thing.


Dan

On Sep 14, 4:36 am, Ian wrote:
On 14 Sep, 10:05, Dan G wrote:

On Sep 13, 7:33 pm, Paul Hanson

wrote:
Wear your chutes folks

A pilot in Britain died in 2002 when his glider was damaged in a
collision but he did not have a parachute. The pilot who had flown the
glider previously did not use a parachute due to his size, and when
the accident pilot got into the glider afterwards he did not get a
parachute to use himself. When a person helping him board commented on
the lack of a parachute, the accident pilot replied "it'll be
alright".

But remember the Idaflieg survey which found no evidence that anyone
had ever made the decision to use a parachute from a glider below
500m and survived. There were a fair number of cases when the actual
deployment happened much lower but it seems that the time it takes to
leave a glider as about the time it takes a badly damaged glider to
fall 500m.

I don;t wear a parachute when flying myself: I prefer "not hitting
things" to "trying to survive after hitting things"...

Ian

Interesting. I take it that you never fly above 500m and that you have
a shield around your glider protecting it from other "things" hitting
it, especially from behind. Or maybe you believe that "see and avoid"
really works. We just had a guy last year at Minden which was above
500m and was hit by a thing and survived only thanks to his
parachute.

Ramy

Ramy wrote:

I don;t wear a parachute when flying myself: I prefer "not hitting
things" to "trying to survive after hitting things"...

Ian

Interesting. I take it that you never fly above 500m and that you have
a shield around your glider protecting it from other "things" hitting
it, especially from behind. Or maybe you believe that "see and avoid"
really works. We just had a guy last year at Minden which was above
500m and was hit by a thing and survived only thanks to his
parachute.

Hitting things, or getting hit, are not the only hazards, unfortunately:
the glider controls can malfunction; structures fail from undetected
damage or manufacturing errors; lightning strikes; getting sucked into
cloud; microbursts; unrecoverable spins from errors in CG location; and
likely others I don't recall. 30 years and 5000+ hours in gliders has
taught me that I'm fallible, mother nature is tricky, equipment fails,
and other pilots can be boneheads; therefore, I might need a parachute
or crashworthy glider, so I have both.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

On 14 Sep, 18:45, Ian wrote:
On 14 Sep, 14:36, Markus Gayda wrote:

Ian schrieb:

I don;t wear a parachute when flying myself: I prefer "not hitting
things" to "trying to survive after hitting things"...
Just in case you are serious about the above:
that is about the dumbest comment i have read on RAS in a loooong time.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

A friend of mine:
- didn't want a collision!
- had a FLARM! (as had his opponent)
- had a parachute!

- died anyway in a collision approx. 200m above a mountain two months ago in
our glider.

Proves my point. He should have learned to fly better, instead of
trusting the technology to save him. What happened to the poor guy he
hit?

I have reread my response at leisure, and have realise that I
overlooked the words "friend" and "our glider". So I apologize if I
sounded heartless - that wasn't my intention.

Ian

On 14 Sep, 19:43, Dan G wrote:
On Sep 14, 12:36 pm, Ian wrote:

But remember the Idaflieg survey which found no evidence that anyone
had ever made the decision to use a parachute from a glider below
500m and survived.

I posted a link to an accident report earlier where a pilot had a
collision at 1,500' (slightly less than 500 m), and survived by
bailing out.

Thanks. The Idaflieg report was some years ago.

With driving, there are too many other vehicles and too many poor
drivers to guarantee that you can avoid having a collision, so I drive
the safest car I can afford (going by the SafeCar and EuroNCAP tests).

I drive a selection of old cars ... carefully ...

With gliding, however, you have really only yourself to blame if you
have an accident.

I agree. I have always thought the the S&G accident reports should
have a meta-category of reasons (above "instructor failed to take over
in time", "rigging error" and so on) to include "plain bad luck" and
"plain bloody stupidity". The latter would, I am quite sure, cover at
least 90% of accidents.

I still wear a parachute
though - that's a no-brainer, with a proven record of saving lives.

Doesn't that sit uneasily with what you wrote above? It seems a bit
fatalistic.

Ian

On 14 Sep, 19:43, "bumper" wrote:
Ian,

Just a couple of years ago, a friend of mine told me he didn't use a chute
as he had back problems. I invited him to sit in my glider and see how
comfortable a well fitted chute could be (I've added Confor lumbar padding a
sheepskin so it really is comfy.).

He didn't take me up on the offer, but asked if I used a parachute in my
certified Mooney. When I answered, "No", he said, "There - - same thing, my
glider is certified too. If I have a problem I'll ride it down."

He was dead two month later, not a mid-air, but the wings came of the ship
and . . . he rode it down.

If the wings had come off 1000 feet above ground he'd have been dead
even with a parachute. "Making sure the wings don't come off" (why did
they?) seems to me a much more all-encompassing precaution than "Doing
something which increases my chances of survival a bit if the wings
come off at the right time"

Your comment reminds me of the people who refuse to wear seat belts, saying
that if they do have and accident, they'd rather be "thrown clear" so as to
avoid the wreckage. No offense, but that makes about as much sense.

And as much sense as people who don't wear parachutes in a certified
Mooney? Seriously, why not?

Ian

Just because you have a mid-air, it is not necessarily your fault or
something you could have avoided. A good example is being hit by a power
aircraft overtaking you from behind.

The reality is that seeing aircraft that are on a collision course with you,
even if you know where they are can be incredibly difficult. I am a big
believer in prevention (installing transponders, etc....) but having a BRS
is, like an airbag, a nice feature to have when everything else fails.

Mike Schumann

"Dan G" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 14, 12:36 pm, Ian wrote:
But remember the Idaflieg survey which found no evidence that anyone
had ever made the decision to use a parachute from a glider below
500m and survived.

I posted a link to an accident report earlier where a pilot had a
collision at 1,500' (slightly less than 500 m), and survived by
bailing out.

In the accident I referred to where the pilot was not wearing a
parachute, the collision occured at 2,500'; however, the report did
note that it whether the pilot would have had time to bail was an
unknown (the glider impacted the ground 30 s after collision - must
have been a very uncomfortable period).

With driving, there are too many other vehicles and too many poor
drivers to guarantee that you can avoid having a collision, so I drive
the safest car I can afford (going by the SafeCar and EuroNCAP tests).

With gliding, however, you have really only yourself to blame if you
have an accident. While I fully support FLARM, there's no stealth
gliders out there which you can't see before they hit you. Whether or
not you stall/spin at below 500' and whether or not you land in a safe
field is entirely down to oneself. So I don't particularly go out of
my way to fly gliders with good crash impact performance (i.e., any
ASW from 24 on, followed by DG 101s on). I still wear a parachute
though - that's a no-brainer, with a proven record of saving lives.


Dan




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

Ian wrote:

And as much sense as people who don't wear parachutes in a certified
Mooney? Seriously, why not?


They are just too busy flying beyond the range allowed by their fuel
[the number one cause of accidents] to worry abut jumping out when
they've done so.


Jack