emergency chute

Michael wrote:

It's not right or wrong. It's your choice to accept an emergency
parachute that has a high probability of putting you in the hospital if
you use it. I simply feel it should be an informed choice.

My informedly cose between a chute which is fool proof albeit I might
break a leg on landing and one which is much better but which I might
not be able to handle. The choice seems obvious for a pilot who has no
parachute training at all and most probably will never have. (And who
doesn't know in which state his mind will be if -shudder- he really
needs that thing one day.)

Stefan

Michael wrote:

It's not right or wrong. It's your choice to accept an emergency
parachute that has a high probability of putting you in the hospital
if you use it. I simply feel it should be an informed choice.

I've informedly chosen between a chute which is fool proof albeit I
might break a leg on landing and one which is much better but which I
might not be able to handle. The choice seems obvious for a pilot who
has no parachute training at all and most probably will never have. (And
who doesn't know in which state his mind will be if -shudder- he really
needs that thing one day.)

Stefan

Michael, I get your point however like many others
I hope that I will never have to use my parachute and
if I do I will take my chances. The only thing that
I want from it is that it works so how do I judge that?
I look at one of the most sucessful canopies there
is and think to myself, OK that works I want that one.
In my case it is the same canopy that is pressed into
the headbox of every MB ejector seat, an Irvin conical,
an identical canopy to the one in my pack. I am sure
that other canopies are just as good but to my way
of thinking, as I never intend to test it I will go
with something that will save my life even though I
am stupid enough not to get any training in it's use.
How do I know the canopy works, take a look at this.

http://www.joe-ks.com/Multi_Media/HarrierEjection.htm

The pilot was a tad unlucky, he broke his ankle when
he landed on his aircraft. I know that the actions
of the seat contribute but just look at the rate of
descent when the seat clears the cockpit. The seat
was actually outside it's required sucess envelope
but still the canopy deployed and saved the pilots
life.

At 19:30 07 April 2005, Michael wrote:
Thanks for that.

You're welcome.

It would seem therefore that the standard
conical chute is the only choice for the majority
of
glider pilots on the grounds that it is likely that
we will only ever use it if we have to.

If by that you mean that you won't train to use your
emergency
equipment, then you are correct. Stick with the round.
Just don't be
surprised if it lands you in the hospital. Remember
- those maximum
loadings are based on a fit man in his 20's wearing
boots with ankle
support. For a middle aged man wearing tennis shoes,
they really ought
to be reduced by 30% or so. Not so the weights on
squares - they are,
if anything, conservative if you know how to land one.

I am firmly of the opinion that people who jump out
of perfectly serviceable aeroplanes are .........how
can I put it.......... lacking in some way. :-)

As opposed to the spectacular good sense exhibited
by those who fly
airplanes that don't even have engines
Glass houses, stones, etc.

Michael

Don Johnstone wrote:
http://www.joe-ks.com/Multi_Media/HarrierEjection.htm

So, did he get reprimanded for hovering that close to a beach crowded
with people?

In my book, the MB ejection seat and Irvin chute are a winning combination.

http://www.soaridaho.com/Family_Pict...e/Cat_Club.jpg

Wayne
(Harold Wayne Paul)
HP-14 N990 "6F"




"Don Johnstone" wrote in
message ...
I look at one of the most sucessful canopies there
is and think to myself, OK that works I want that one.
In my case it is the same canopy that is pressed into
the headbox of every MB ejector seat, an Irvin conical,
an identical canopy to the one in my pack. I am sure
that other canopies are just as good but to my way
of thinking, as I never intend to test it I will go
with something that will save my life even though I
am stupid enough not to get any training in it's use.
How do I know the canopy works, take a look at this.

http://www.joe-ks.com/Multi_Media/HarrierEjection.htm

The pilot was a tad unlucky, he broke his ankle when
he landed on his aircraft. I know that the actions
of the seat contribute but just look at the rate of
descent when the seat clears the cockpit. The seat
was actually outside it's required sucess envelope
but still the canopy deployed and saved the pilots
life.

No it was an air display at Lowestoft, I was there
when it happened. The crowd were impressed.

At 22:30 07 April 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
Don Johnstone wrote:
http://www.joe-ks.com/Multi_Media/HarrierEjection.htm

So, did he get reprimanded for hovering that close
to a beach crowded
with people?

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