emergency chute

Michael wrote:

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.

I personally know two pilots who had to jump. One broke a leg on
landing, the other sprayed an ankle. But believe it or not: Neither of
them complained.

Stefan

I personally know two pilots who had to jump. One broke a leg on
landing, the other sprayed an ankle.

My informal survey suggests that about a quarter of those who make
emergency bailouts on round parachutes go to the hospital afterwards,
so I'm not surprised. I've never heard of anyone bailing out on a
square parachute and getting hurt, but that doesn't mean much because
(a) they are still new, expensive, and relatively rare and (b) are
generally used by trained parachutists (everyone I know who uses one at
least went through some ground school and made a training jump) so how
much of this is gear and how much is training is hard to determine.

But believe it or not: Neither of them complained.

It's a matter of perspective. If a power pilot has to land off airport
and he walks away, even needing stitches, he feels great about the
experience because it's something he will do only in a dire emergency,
and probably never. If a glider pilot walks away from an off airport
landing with a trashed aircraft and stitches, he feels it was a pretty
bad outcome, and wonders what he should have done differently. This is
more of the same.

Sport parachute jumpers pretty much accept that they will eventually
use that emergency parachute they wear as a backup. Therefore, they
expect a certain level of performance. That's why when they wear a
bailout rig, they want a square. Glider pilots don't see it that way.

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.

Michael

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.


Jack

Jack wrote:
One in four is no kind of "probability" at all, let alone a high one.

Actuqally, it's 3 of 11. But that's not exactly a statistical
powerhouse either. That's why I said "informal survey suggests" rather
than "study shows."

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

The attempts were not unsuccessful. These people all bailed out and
saved their lives. The injuries were sustained on landing. They were
not life-threatening. In every case, the parachute loading was more
than I would recommend for a middle aged person wearing shoes with no
ankle protection, and the training was less than what I would recommend
for anyone (none, actually). But that was the case for the other 8 as
well. They got by with bumps and bruises.

I think the informal analysis reads like this:

Round parachute loadings are based on the old military tables. These
presuppose several factors, none of which are true for the average
glider pilot bailing out:
Healthy, strong, conditioned soldiers, usually in their 20's.
Jump boots providing ankle protection.
Very intense, very regular training in parachute landing falls.

Maximum allowable TSO loadings are even higher - they're based on the
ability to sustain opening shock at maximum altitude/airspeed, and
descent rate doesn't figure into it at all.

For the average middle aged (or older) glider pilot wearing typical
soaring footwear, using a round parachute at anything close to the
manufacturer's recommended maximum loading is asking for a landing
injury. That weight should be derated by at least 30%. Note that the
weight includes the weight of the rig.

For those who are light in weight, a 26 or 28 ft diameter canopy is
adequate. Round emergency parachutes are not made in sizes larger than
28 ft. In fact, I wouldn't know where to get a 28' rig anymore. For
those who are over 200 lbs (including the rig), there are no
appropriately sized round rigs. Their options include using a reserve
that is likely to put them in the hospital, or getting a square rig and
the training required to use it.

Michael

Michael wrote:
Jack wrote:

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


Actuqally, it's 3 of 11. But that's not exactly a statistical
powerhouse either. That's why I said "informal survey suggests" rather
than "study shows."


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


The attempts were not unsuccessful. These people all bailed out and
saved their lives. The injuries were sustained on landing. They were
not life-threatening. In every case, the parachute loading was more
than I would recommend for a middle aged person wearing shoes with no
ankle protection, and the training was less than what I would recommend
for anyone (none, actually). But that was the case for the other 8 as
well. They got by with bumps and bruises.

I think the informal analysis reads like this:

Round parachute loadings are based on the old military tables. These
presuppose several factors, none of which are true for the average
glider pilot bailing out:
Healthy, strong, conditioned soldiers, usually in their 20's.
Jump boots providing ankle protection.
Very intense, very regular training in parachute landing falls.

Maximum allowable TSO loadings are even higher - they're based on the
ability to sustain opening shock at maximum altitude/airspeed, and
descent rate doesn't figure into it at all.

For the average middle aged (or older) glider pilot wearing typical
soaring footwear, using a round parachute at anything close to the
manufacturer's recommended maximum loading is asking for a landing
injury. That weight should be derated by at least 30%. Note that the
weight includes the weight of the rig.

For those who are light in weight, a 26 or 28 ft diameter canopy is
adequate. Round emergency parachutes are not made in sizes larger than
28 ft. In fact, I wouldn't know where to get a 28' rig anymore. For
those who are over 200 lbs (including the rig), there are no
appropriately sized round rigs. Their options include using a reserve
that is likely to put them in the hospital, or getting a square rig and
the training required to use it.

Michael

Funny, I have a Pioneer tri-conical (round) chute of 29' diameter. It is 19
years old and never been open except in the riggers for checking. Pretty much
the way I like it.

At 235lbs with an already weak leg It's going to hurt if I ever use it...

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:27:13 +0200, Bruce wrote:

Michael wrote:
Jack wrote:

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


Actuqally, it's 3 of 11. But that's not exactly a statistical
powerhouse either. That's why I said "informal survey suggests" rather
than "study shows."


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


The attempts were not unsuccessful. These people all bailed out and
saved their lives. The injuries were sustained on landing. They were
not life-threatening. In every case, the parachute loading was more
than I would recommend for a middle aged person wearing shoes with no
ankle protection, and the training was less than what I would recommend
for anyone (none, actually). But that was the case for the other 8 as
well. They got by with bumps and bruises.

I think the informal analysis reads like this:

Round parachute loadings are based on the old military tables. These
presuppose several factors, none of which are true for the average
glider pilot bailing out:
Healthy, strong, conditioned soldiers, usually in their 20's.
Jump boots providing ankle protection.
Very intense, very regular training in parachute landing falls.

Maximum allowable TSO loadings are even higher - they're based on the
ability to sustain opening shock at maximum altitude/airspeed, and
descent rate doesn't figure into it at all.

For the average middle aged (or older) glider pilot wearing typical
soaring footwear, using a round parachute at anything close to the
manufacturer's recommended maximum loading is asking for a landing
injury. That weight should be derated by at least 30%. Note that the
weight includes the weight of the rig.

For those who are light in weight, a 26 or 28 ft diameter canopy is
adequate. Round emergency parachutes are not made in sizes larger than
28 ft. In fact, I wouldn't know where to get a 28' rig anymore. For
those who are over 200 lbs (including the rig), there are no
appropriately sized round rigs. Their options include using a reserve
that is likely to put them in the hospital, or getting a square rig and
the training required to use it.

Michael

Funny, I have a Pioneer tri-conical (round) chute of 29' diameter. It is 19
years old and never been open except in the riggers for checking. Pretty much
the way I like it.

At 235lbs with an already weak leg It's going to hurt if I ever use it...

I have landed under the same canopy at 230#. It hurts unless you do a
good PLF.

Bruce wrote:
Michael wrote:
Round emergency parachutes are not made in sizes larger than
28 ft.

Funny, I have a Pioneer tri-conical (round) chute of 29' diameter. It
is 19
years old

I am well aware of the Pioneer. It's a fine canopy. My understanding
is that none have been manufactured this century. I could be wrong.

At 235lbs with an already weak leg It's going to hurt if I ever use
it...

Yes it is.

Michael

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

Eric Greenwell wrote:

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.

But this device (whether useful or not, we will see) will never be sold
in the USA. An excerpt from the manual, translated from German:

FLARM must not be used in the USA or in Canada or by US or Canadian
pilots or in aircraft which are immatriculated or insured in the USA or
in Canada. The use of FLARM is forbidden when there are persons on board
who live in the USA or in Canada or who are citizens of the USA or
Canada. The use of FLARM is forbidden when the place of departure,
destination or of any intermediate landing is in the USA or in Canada.

Guess why!

Stefan

Stefan wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote:

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.


But this device (whether useful or not, we will see) will never be sold
in the USA. An excerpt from the manual, translated from German:

FLARM must not be used in the USA or in Canada or by US or Canadian
pilots or in aircraft which are immatriculated or insured in the USA or
in Canada.

My contact with the FLARM people suggests the liability question can be
resolved. After all, we already use similar devices in North America,
but they are effective only if the other aircraft has a transponder.

A bigger problem, I think, is getting enough people in the US excited
about the value of the Flarm device. In fact, it may not have much value
here, except in the one or two places where glider traffic is very
dense. This would include the White Mountains near Minden, and perhaps
the Allegheny ridges near the East coast.

If the Flarm device was also an IGC approved flight recorder, as they
have considered doing, this would make it more likely to find use in the
USA.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA