In Flight Emergency

On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 12:57:58 PM UTC+13, Martin Gregorie wrote:
By the time I joined a gliding club and started learning to fly in 2000,
almost exactly a year after that lightning strike, nobody flew or was
flown at my club without a parachute, a discipline that we still follow.
I've always heard that is a direct result of the accident.

If you assume it takes 2 minutes to put on and take off parachutes, and that each of the pilots gained 50 years of life as a result, then parachutes are worth it if needed once in every 26 million flights.

How many glider flights are there in the world in a year? I'd wild-ass-guess 15000 in NZ with about 1000 pilots. Is it 80k pilots in Europe and maybe 10k in USA? Let's say 100k world-wide. So maybe 1.5 million glider flights a year world wide.

Is there such a lightning strike every 16 years? No. It's the only one ever.

Of course that's not the only risk parachutes protect against. The main other one is mid-air collision. How often do those happen with students/rides?

The only mid-airs I've heard of either involved cross country and contest pilots, or were at low level in the airfield vicinity where a chute is not going to help.

There are lies, there are 'wild-ass lies' and THEN.....there are statistics :P

I listened to G Dale speak of his midair and how his parachute saved his life, the G forces experienced, the threat of the canopy knocking you out, his loss of consciousness during the event and his current strategies should the devil knock twice.

I now practice my bailout technique at regular intervals, only release my harness outside the glider (seatbelt only within) and strap my Spot to the chute, no longer the shelf behind my head.

Alan Silver put out a good vid on practicing emergency egress, techniques when hanging under the silk & landing as well as poignantly noting that any "survival equipment" not tethered to you or your rig is actually "camping equipment" for an outlanding - cos it's not going to be with you when you bail out.

My humble opinion.

CJ

I know of at least 3 Swedes that is still alive thanks to the chute. On jumped back in the old days (70-ish) and two jumped in the 00-ich. The two first was in competition but the last was in the local of the airfield. We have also experience of some mid-air where the pilots have been able to fly home with only minor damages.

And yes, it is mandatory to use parachute when gliding in Sweden, the only exception is the flight instructor in back-seat during training. However is that based in the non-comfortable backseat in the Scheibe Bergfalke, today when almost all training is done in glassglider would I guess that 90% on the instructors also uses parachute for the comfort and for the educational argument to the requirement for the student to use it but not the instructor.

I would keep the parachute even if it was not mandatory, it is an not to expensive life saving device.

At 16:55 17 March 2015, Dan Marotta wrote:
Yes, and I wear a chute when I fly my glider, but not when I'm giving
rides in a Grob, Blanik, 2-33, or Lark. Neither do I wear a parachute
when flying the tug and I've had four engine failures while flying tow
planes, in none of which would I have considered bailing out.

Does Poland really require parachutes in gliders? Are passengers with
no training required to wear a parachute?

*** I wonder about the outcome if
one of them should attempt to jump****

You could ask this chap? I suspect he was rather grateful to be wearing a
chute!

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...pdf_500699.pdf

Surely it is safer to wear a chute than not? Is it not flawed logic to fly
one glider with a chute and another without?

I recently had a lovely experience flying in the USA, however I felt very
uncomfortable without a chute.

I have 9 friends whom I still have a beer with.....only because they had a
chute on. One of those is the instructor of the K21 which had the
lightening strike.



Not really...

Thanks for posting that, though. After filtering through the standard
broadcast TV BS, it made a really interesting story. Glad they came out
of it OK.

I would question taking passengers under a thunder storm. Isn't that
like poking a bear? Have I done that? Sure. Have I done it with a
passenger? No f**king way!

And yes, I still wear my parachute when I fly my glider. And it's a ram
air canopy just like shown in the video. Do you really use those in
gliders on the east side of the Atlantic?

On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 10:00:05 PM UTC+13, Justin Craig wrote:
Surely it is safer to wear a chute than not? Is it not flawed logic to fly
one glider with a chute and another without?

It is even safer to stay on the ground.

But marginal increases in safety do not automatically trump all other factors such as convenience, cost, excitement, and the satisfaction of mastering skills. They have to be weighed up carefully, bearing in mind that no matter how careful we are we won't be here more than about 80 years on average .... and never more than about 110.

I've been a member of the same gliding club for 29 years now. It has generally had 80 - 100 members. During that time no one has died flying a glider. I'm pretty sure no one has used their parachute either. Several gliders have been written off, and one guy broke his ankle or lower leg. About 10 - 15 of our members regularly take part in competition flying, and a number of them have been national champion in various classes or undertaken record attempts (some of them with Steve Fossett, who also didn't die in a glider).

Certainly there is danger, but it's not like, say, motorcycling or bicycling. I've lost a number of friends in both those.

If we have the misfortune of colliding in the air, I will be sure to
comfort your grieving widow.




At 11:09 18 March 2015, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 10:00:05 PM UTC+13, Justin Craig wrote:
Surely it is safer to wear a chute than not? Is it not flawed logic to
fl=
y
one glider with a chute and another without?=20

It is even safer to stay on the ground.

But marginal increases in safety do not automatically trump all other
facto=
rs such as convenience, cost, excitement, and the satisfaction of
mastering=
skills. They have to be weighed up carefully, bearing in mind that no
matt=
er how careful we are we won't be here more than about 80 years on
average
=
.... and never more than about 110.

I've been a member of the same gliding club for 29 years now. It has
genera=
lly had 80 - 100 members. During that time no one has died flying a
glider.=
I'm pretty sure no one has used their parachute either. Several gliders
ha=
ve been written off, and one guy broke his ankle or lower leg. About 10 -
1=
5 of our members regularly take part in competition flying, and a number
of=
them have been national champion in various classes or undertaken record
a=
ttempts (some of them with Steve Fossett, who also didn't die in a
glider).

Certainly there is danger, but it's not like, say, motorcycling or
bicyclin=
g. I've lost a number of friends in both those.

Excellent report. What does 'feeling very draughty' mean? Is that a
British idiom? Or does it simply mean he felt a draft?

Would someone please explain to me how only the aileron control system,
and not the adjacent air brake system, being damaged by the lightening
strike indicates that it was a positive discharge? Why was only one
system damaged? Why not both? Why one vs. the other?

I'm only half way through the report but have to leave to fly the tug.
I'll finish this evening.

So far, I think the apparent magnetic deformation of the aileron control
rod indicates a current level not attainable by a negative strike, hence
the assumption of a positive strike. I'm still contemplating why only
the aileron system was damaged. Perhaps because it extended further
into the wing (closer to the tip) and so took the full current,
bypassing the air brake.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

On 3/18/2015 2:51 AM, Justin Craig wrote:
At 16:55 17 March 2015, Dan Marotta wrote:
Yes, and I wear a chute when I fly my glider, but not when I'm giving
rides in a Grob, Blanik, 2-33, or Lark. Neither do I wear a parachute
when flying the tug and I've had four engine failures while flying tow
planes, in none of which would I have considered bailing out.

Does Poland really require parachutes in gliders? Are passengers with
no training required to wear a parachute?
*** I wonder about the outcome if
one of them should attempt to jump****
You could ask this chap? I suspect he was rather grateful to be wearing a
chute!

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...pdf_500699.pdf




--
Dan Marotta

I guess the problem with statistical measures is that glider pilots are a
fairly small population so that it is difficult to judge the reality of the
risk to an individual- maybe a statistician could help!

I have been flying for just under 40 years and I guess I know a few hundred
pilots by name. In that time two people I know personally have had to jump
(with 'chutes!) and survived - one mid air, one structural failure. One
person I know was struck by lightning and landed (his LS4 was a write-off)
and another good friend was killed in a mid-air where he was too injured to
jump.

When I started flying we did'nt bother with chutes for instructional
flying, now they are always used, partly I suspect as the modern 'glass
two seaters have seats which work better when you are wearing a parachute.


So I guess comes down to how you assess the risks and what the downsides
are.

(PS I also ride horses and drive motorcycles - both more dangerous IMHO
than flying !

At 11:09 18 March 2015, Bruce Hoult wrote:

It is even safer to stay on the ground.

But marginal increases in safety do not automatically trump all other
facto=
rs such as convenience, cost, excitement, and the satisfaction of
mastering=
skills. They have to be weighed up carefully, bearing in mind that no
matt=
er how careful we are we won't be here more than about 80 years on
average
=
.... and never more than about 110.

I've been a member of the same gliding club for 29 years now. It has
genera=
lly had 80 - 100 members. During that time no one has died flying a
glider.=
I'm pretty sure no one has used their parachute either. Several gliders
ha=
ve been written off, and one guy broke his ankle or lower leg. About 10 -
1=
5 of our members regularly take part in competition flying, and a number
of=
them have been national champion in various classes or undertaken record
a=
ttempts (some of them with Steve Fossett, who also didn't die in a
glider).

Certainly there is danger, but it's not like, say, motorcycling or
bicyclin=
g. I've lost a number of friends in both those.

Dan:

We know the lightning strike in the British accident was an extremely severe positive ground stroke for several reasons:

1) The EA technology lightning location system identified the likely stroke and estimated its peak current at 80 kA (it could have been higher)

2) The compression magnetic forces that deformed the push rod were extremely large and the effect could not be reproduced in the lab (and several tried!)

3) The quantity of metal melted indicates a very high charge transfer, likely in excess of 200 coulombs.

4) The damage incurred indicated a strike that exceeded the tests used for certification of aircraft and they are pretty conservative.

This was an unusually severe event that is unlikely to be experienced again any time soon. Most aircraft lightning involves fairly low current and low energy air discharges or leaders and it's pretty rare for an aircraft to be involved as part of the circuit in a ground flash, let alone a severe positive one.

If you stay half a mile horizontally away from any active storm cell and keep out of the precipitation shaft you are unlikely to be hit.

Mike (who plays with lightning a little bit)

On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 8:43:44 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Excellent report.* What does 'feeling very draughty' mean?* Is that
a British idiom?* Or does it simply mean he felt a draft?



Would someone please explain to me how only the aileron control
system, and not the adjacent air brake system, being damaged by the
lightening strike indicates that it was a positive discharge?* Why
was only one system damaged?* Why not both?* Why one vs. the other?


I'm only half way through the report but have to leave to fly the
tug.* I'll finish this evening.



So far, I think the apparent magnetic deformation of the aileron
control rod indicates a current level not attainable by a negative
strike, hence the assumption of a positive strike.* I'm still
contemplating why only the aileron system was damaged.* Perhaps
because it extended further into the wing (closer to the tip) and so
took the full current, bypassing the air brake.



Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...




On 3/18/2015 2:51 AM, Justin Craig
wrote:



At 16:55 17 March 2015, Dan Marotta wrote:


Yes, and I wear a chute when I fly my glider, but not when I'm giving
rides in a Grob, Blanik, 2-33, or Lark. Neither do I wear a parachute
when flying the tug and I've had four engine failures while flying tow
planes, in none of which would I have considered bailing out.

Does Poland really require parachutes in gliders? Are passengers with
no training required to wear a parachute?


*** I wonder about the outcome if


one of them should attempt to jump****


You could ask this chap? I suspect he was rather grateful to be wearing a
chute!

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...pdf_500699.pdf








--

Dan Marotta