A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FLARM Statistics



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #15  
Old October 11th 06, 05:47 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Mike Schumann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 539
Default FLARM Statistics

Ballistic Recovery Chutes would primarily be an advantage in a low level
collision (i.e. in a traffic pattern). Are there any statistics on glider
mid-airs that can shed some light on where most of the danger is?

Mike Schumann

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
news:am_Wg.4860$YD.241@trndny09...
Mike Schumann wrote:
I don't know what the right answer is. Here in the US, there is a lot
more power traffic than in Europe. Unless you are flying in contests or
in high glider traffic areas, I suspect that the biggest risk is not
other gliders, but power traffic.

It's very frustrating that the FAA doesn't accelerate the deployment of
ADSB here in the US. Then everyone could focus on developing cost
effective technology that will cover all traffic.

In the mean time, the best investment might be a ballistic recovery
chute.


In the Minden collision, the regular parachute worked just fine, and if
he'd had an operating transponder, he'd likely not needed the parachute at
all.

A transponder and a TPAS unit will give you most of what you'd get from
having an ADSB unit in your cockpit, more cheaply than an ADSB unit (or a
ballistic parachute), and you can have it now. Powered traffic is already
flying with transponders, so you don't have to wait for the rest of the
fleet to buy into the idea. ADSB still doesn't protect you from aircraft
that don't have them, and I don't think they will be any cheaper than a
transponder. So, if powered traffic is your concern, I think there is
decent solution.

A ballistic recovery chute has some advantages, of course, but perhaps not
in the typical collision which is usually high enough that a conscious
pilot has time to get out. The problem is they are expensive to retrofit
to most gliders, and then you have an untested system.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Glider Crash - Minden? Mitch Soaring 141 September 13th 06 07:31 PM
FLARM Robert Hart Soaring 50 March 16th 06 11:20 PM
Flarm Mal Soaring 4 October 19th 05 08:44 AM
Pilot statistics: SSA vs non-SSA DrJack Soaring 6 March 10th 04 05:55 PM
Safety statistics F.L. Whiteley Soaring 20 September 4th 03 05:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.