BRS for emergencies

You should contact the Red Wing Soaring Club in Osceola WI. One of their
members installed a Ballistic Recovery Chute in his personal glider a couple
of years ago. I vaguely recall that it cost him around $3,000.

Mike Schumann

"Bryan" wrote in message
...
The previous posts under "Stay in, or get out?" raises questions about the
current state of ballistic recovery systems. As paraplegic, I have a
personal interest in BRS because thoughts of my successfully exiting an
out of control sailplane with a parachute, and then landing without the
use of my legs, conjure unpleasant thoughts. Although doable for a
paraplegic, the odds of a successful egress and injury free landing are
certainly lower than for an able-bodied pilot. For those reasons, BRS is
for me a viable and probably safer alternative.

I understand that no emergency egress solution is perfect for all
scenarios; they offer various means of risk management. However, I would
appreciate any information or thoughts concerning the effectiveness of BRS
deployment and if the current ground-impact energy absorption systems are
proving effective for pilot protection.

Thanks,
Bryan





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

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
.. .
You should contact the Red Wing Soaring Club in Osceola WI. One of their
members installed a Ballistic Recovery Chute in his personal glider a
couple of years ago. I vaguely recall that it cost him around $3,000.

Mike Schumann


HP-16 N8DC (http://tinyurl.com/2frz7p) has a Ballistic Recovery System
(http://tinyurl.com/yvfunq).

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/

The Sparrowhawk which was repeatedly flown far over redline, ripping
the wings off, provided an interesting BRS experiment.
Opening shock was sufficient to launch the pilot out of the fuselage.
Fortunately he was wearing a pilot emergency parachute.
There is evidently more to develop in BRS technology. Aircraft which
deploy ballistic chutes don't always look or behave like the Cirrus or
Discus used in the certification experiments.
Jim

On Sep 13, 9:05 am, JS wrote:
The Sparrowhawk which was repeatedly flown far over redline, ripping
the wings off, provided an interesting BRS experiment.
Opening shock was sufficient to launch the pilot out of the fuselage.
Fortunately he was wearing a pilot emergency parachute.
There is evidently more to develop in BRS technology. Aircraft which
deploy ballistic chutes don't always look or behave like the Cirrus or
Discus used in the certification experiments.
Jim


Jim......You are misinformed about the Owl project. The BRS was
never deployed by the pilot. The glider went well past redline. It
reached flutter speed. the glider literally disintegrated with the
pilot
being ejected through the canopy still strapped into the seat pan.

The BRS deployed somehow on its own and the wreckage descended
safely to the ground.

It would be difficult for any recovery system to work well once the
aircraft was 40-50 knots over redline.

The fact that the BRS worked at those speeds is very encouraging
to me.

The truly amazing thing about a system like BRS is the lives that
have been saved at very low deployment altitudes. There have
been saves as low as 200 ft. agl.

And once again, spreading half facts and misinformation on this
site does a disservice to BRS and Windward Performance.

George Y

bikensoar wrote:
The truly amazing thing about a system like BRS is the lives that
have been saved at very low deployment altitudes. There have
been saves as low as 200 ft. agl.

Details, please, otherwise I will view this as half facts and
disinformation 8^)

Marc

On Sep 13, 1:10 pm, Marc Ramsey wrote:
bikensoar wrote:
The truly amazing thing about a system like BRS is the lives that
have been saved at very low deployment altitudes. There have
been saves as low as 200 ft. agl.

Details, please, otherwise I will view this as half facts and
disinformation 8^)

Marc

uh, isnt this Rec.Misinformation.Aviation.Soaring ??? or am I lost?

On Sep 13, 11:22 am, wrote:
On Sep 13, 1:10 pm, Marc Ramsey wrote:

bikensoar wrote:
The truly amazing thing about a system like BRS is the lives that
have been saved at very low deployment altitudes. There have
been saves as low as 200 ft. agl.

Details, please, otherwise I will view this as half facts and
disinformation 8^)

Marc

uh, isnt this Rec.Misinformation.Aviation.Soaring ??? or am I lost?


Marc
There have been no glider BRS deployments that I know of at
such low altitudes but there have been many saves by ballistic
and hand deployed (still attached to the aircraft) parchutes on
motorized ultralights, hang gliders and paragliders.

I have personally seen a hand deployed chute on a paraglider
open and function below 100ft. agl.

I have also deployed a ballistic chute on a paraglider over a
lake and had full deployment in less than100ft. (on purpose)

Check with BRS. I am sure they have statistics on many low
saves.

I would also fire off my BRS if I was going to crash land in
trees or steep rocky terrain. Not because of a glider failure,
but a pilot error.

George

Earlier, George Young wrote:

Jim......You are misinformed about the Owl project. The BRS was
never deployed by the pilot.

He never said it was deployed by the pilot.

The glider literally disintegrated with the pilot
being ejected through the canopy still strapped
into the seat pan.

Somehow I don't think that's a good thing.

the wreckage descended safely to the ground.

All safety is relative. Every sense of security is at least partly
false.

Thanks, Bob K.

"Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message
ups.com...
Earlier, George Young wrote:

Jim......You are misinformed about the Owl project. The BRS was
never deployed by the pilot.

He never said it was deployed by the pilot.

The glider literally disintegrated with the pilot
being ejected through the canopy still strapped
into the seat pan.

Somehow I don't think that's a good thing.

the wreckage descended safely to the ground.

All safety is relative. Every sense of security is at least partly
false.

Thanks, Bob K.


I think what this is down to is that BRS that would work in the majority of
imaginable situations would be too heavy, too complicated, and too expensive
for wide acceptance.

Which brings us back to the alternative, pilot egress aids. The DG NOAH
system is but one possible approach. I think that just an inflatable seat
cushion that would raise the pilot's butt to the level of the cockpit sides
while pulling his legs from under the panel would work.

Bill Daniels

Earlier, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:

I think what this is down to is that BRS that would work in the majority of
imaginable situations would be too heavy, too complicated, and too
expensive for wide acceptance.

I think that might be a bit on the pessimistic side. There's excellent
coverage for light sailplanes from light, simple, and affordable BRS
systems currently available. The problem comes when you try to scale
it up and cover large gliders, racers, 2-seaters, and massive stuff
like that. For example, my old HP-11 would be a pervect candidate:
Fairly light yet robust, with a nice big chunk of empty volume right
behind the wing spar.

One good thing that came out of the Owl incident was that it points
the way towards an interesting alternative: Instead of protecting the
whole aircraft and pilot, how about protecting just the seat pan and
pilot? The seat pan could be mounted on a rail, with the pilot belted
to the seat pan. The BRS deployment could mechanically unlatch the
canopy and seat pan, and extract the pilot and seat pan from the
forward fuselage. Heck, you could even take your expensive instruments
with you!

I recall that one of the Akafliegs was working on a system like that
called (I think) SOTIERA or something like that. But that was a long
time ago, before BRS systems were as common as they are now. It was
comprised of a lot of expensive custom components. These days such a
system might be built or customized from commercially-available BRS
elements.

Thanks, Bob K.