Just pull the little red handle!

On 8/31/2010 10:54 AM, Ramy wrote:
On Aug 30, 12:35 pm, John
wrote:

Little red handle anyone?
JJ

If I could put one in my standard category asw 27, I would.

In the meantime, why don't we get together and buy flarms, so we don't
run in to each other in the first place. They're even on sale for the
first 50 orders. I put my order in, so if you get one you won't run in
to me next year!

John Cochrane BB

Same here. If there was an option to add a BRS to my 27, I would, even
if it will be a substantial cost.
I flew hang gliders with a BRS system for many years, and know of a
number of hang glider pilots saved by this system.
While I doubt it will help with stall/spin accidents, which still
seems to be the cause of many accidents, a proper system should be
able to save most mid airs, control problems and structural failures.

I'd like to see a list of incidents where a BRS could have avoided a
fatality. Most of the fatal mid-airs I'm aware of, the pilot was almost
surely incapacitated by the collision. The control problems and
structural failures seem to have happy endings because the pilot is able
to bail out. My impression is the BRS would have a very small effect on
the USA fatality rate.

The DG web site (referenced earlier) comes to the same conclusion: a lot
of expense for very few incidents where it is useful. DG's point is the
money should be spent elsewhere in new gliders, and retrofitting did not
seem an option for the big majority of glider owners. In fact, if the
factories were to simply make Flarm/PowerFlarm standard equipment, that
might reduce risk more than offering a BRS as an option.

I think getting a lot of USA competition pilots to use a PowerFlarm
would reduce fatalities more than the same pilots equipping with BRS,
and it can be done in time for next season at far less cost, even if you
could buy a retrofit for the same price as a factory installed system.
Here's an idea to encourage it: you buy a PowerFlarm at regular price,
then you send them a trace from the PowerFlarm logger showing you flew
at least one contest day with it, and they send you a rebate of, say,
$200. The SSA could do the same thing, offering a rebate on the entry
fee for the first contest you fly in with your PowerFlarm. PowerFlarm
benefits as the increasing installed base makes it more desirable to use
a PowerFlarm, and contest pilots would make good champions for spreading
the word.

Get PowerFlarm and SSA to do it, and it'd be a tempting offer - heck, it
might even increase contest participation to get the rebate, AND because
some pilots decide the collision risk is decreased enough to draw them
into a contest they would otherwise avoid.
--

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

Eric Greenwell wrote:
I think getting a lot of USA competition pilots to use a PowerFlarm
would reduce fatalities more than the same pilots equipping with BRS,
and it can be done in time for next season at far less cost, even if you
could buy a retrofit for the same price as a factory installed system.

Given the finite resources glider pilots have (only so much time and money)
it is reasonable to compute the benefit/cost ratio of BRS versus Flarm and
prioritize investment accordingly.

But whereas a BRS is useful for a large number of accident classes, (e.g.
one's wings fold up (there was just such a case discussed here)) something
like Flarm helps only with a single class of accidents. On the other hand,
Flarm is less expensive and easier to employ.

Beyond having both in one's safety repertoire, absent statistical
estimates, it isn't immediately clear to me that one should spend one's
finite money on Flarm first rather than a BRS first. The latter is not an
available option for a lot of gliders, though.

On Aug 31, 4:33*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
But whereas a BRS is useful for a large number of accident classes, (e.g.
one's wings fold up (there was just such a case discussed here)) something
like Flarm helps only with a single class of accidents. On the other hand,
Flarm is less expensive and easier to employ.

Beyond having both in one's safety repertoire, absent statistical
estimates, it isn't immediately clear to me that one should spend one's
finite money on Flarm first rather than a BRS first. The latter is not an
available option for a lot of gliders, though.

Funny, I come to the exact opposite conclusion - Collision avoidance
technology/procedures are more cost effective than after-the-fact
safety devices.

In my 3000+ hours of glider and light plane flying (and 2000+ of
military), ive had numerous close calls (near midairs) and many of
those resolved via early detection of the threat. I've never had an
actual collision. So to me, it's better to make my ability to see and
avoid more efficient, than to beef up my ability to survive the
collision.

BTW, if all else fails and you are unable to physically get out of you
cockpit after a collision, just jettison the canopy, undo the straps,
lean forward and pull your D-ring. You WILL leave the cockpit. It
WILL hurt. You MAY survive. Beats the alternative, though!

Kirk
66

Interesting! I had wondered about this possibility, but never saw
anything on it. Sounds like you know more than you're saying - where
could I go for more details? Send it to me off line, if you like.

-John

On Sep 1, 2:18 pm, "kirk.stant" wrote:
BTW, if all else fails and you are unable to physically get out of you
cockpit after a collision, just jettison the canopy, undo the straps,
lean forward and pull your D-ring. You WILL leave the cockpit. It
WILL hurt. You MAY survive. Beats the alternative, though!

BTW, if all else fails and you are unable to physically get out of you
cockpit after a collision, just jettison the canopy, undo the straps,
lean forward and pull your D-ring. *You WILL leave the cockpit. *It
WILL hurt. *You MAY survive. *Beats the alternative, though!

I know a glider pilot that did this (pull the ripcord while seated in
the sailplane), the pilot chute deployed and she was extracted from
the cockpit OK.

I knew another pilot that tried this, the chute deployed right into
the tail feathers! A tumbling mass of glider, nylon and pilot
descended back to earth.

We need something more reliable with predictable results.

JJ

On Sep 1, 4:27*pm, JJ Sinclair wrote:
BTW, if all else fails and you are unable to physically get out of you
cockpit after a collision, just jettison the canopy, undo the straps,
lean forward and pull your D-ring. *You WILL leave the cockpit. *It
WILL hurt. *You MAY survive. *Beats the alternative, though!

I know a glider pilot that did this (pull the ripcord while seated in
the sailplane), the pilot chute deployed and she was extracted from
the cockpit OK.

I knew another pilot that tried this, the chute deployed right into
the tail feathers! A tumbling mass of glider, nylon and pilot
descended back to earth.

We need something more reliable with predictable results.

JJ





For decades at least once or twice each contest I use to practice
getting out of the cockpit with my chute on after a flight. In the
1990s (my late 60s and 70s) I got too old to easily and quickly do it.
I was (and am still) convinced that I would be unable to exit under
any positive G situation (even +1). I had lost more than a couple of
friends who I thought maybe could have survived if able to jump. I
thought (and still think) this ability is a major safety
consideration. So during the last four or five years I competed
(1998-2003) I used a NOAH like system I designed. Cost was 100 bucks.
At a paint ball store I got most of the parts…a small on board CO2
tank (about 3to4” dia. And 15-18”long) and a gallon or two size refill
tank for the crew car or front of the trailer. I found a small 90
degree valve with handle (not knob) at the hardware, two high pressure
lines, one from the tank (wedged behind the seat) along the side just
below the gunwale to the valve mounted there next to my water dump
lever (in a Discus, later my LS-8 and finally my ASW-28). Another line
ran from the valve down under my cushion to the bladder. I sketched up
a neat expandable bladder but never found the right source to make it
so I continued to use an ATV inner tube folded over I found for
initial testing.
With about 1200psi in the tank a flick of the valve would raise my
fanny, with chute, up to the gunwale in about 2 seconds. I did many
tests in my shop and it was effortless to roll out and fall on the
mattress beside the cockpit.
Later when DG developed the NOAH system they had to incorporate
complicated canopy and seat belt release systems which made it
expensive. For liability reasons no company (or person) could make
such a system for resale without the automatic systems. A BIG factor
in my system was my reliance on my personal drill while in the cockpit
with it armed. I developed a rigid 1,2,3 drill I practiced when I got
in and just before take off. 1) release canopy, 2) twist belt release,
3) twist valve. My checklist include touching each in order just
before rolling. Once in my shop while testing I inadvertently hit the
valve with the belts tight. It really pushed me hard against the belts
but not painfully so and I did not feel incapacitated (just silly!)
After that, just as another backup I keep a knife in the side pouch to
deal with the bladder if necessary.
For liability reasons I never made another system for friends who
requested. Several wanted one just to get out on the ground after a
flight. I used mine this way many times. Cracking the valve slowly
raised you up so you could easily step out. It took less than five
minutes to recharge the tank.
The system was rather gut simple but potentially dangerous. I was a
licensed professional engineer and an FAA A&P at the time. My gliders
were “experimental”. I never did any “paperwork”.
This post is a discussion of my experiences and is in no way a
recommendation of any kind.
Ed Byars

JJ Sinclair schrieb:
We need something more reliable with predictable results.

Akaflieg Darmstadt is developing Soteira to extract pilots from the
aircraft by means of a small rocket. Their new training glider D-43 will
be the first plane to have the system built in.

http://www.akaflieg.tu-darmstadt.de/soteira/index.php

Regards, Erik.

Originally Posted by Erik Braun

JJ Sinclair schrieb:
We need something more reliable with predictable results.

Akaflieg Darmstadt is developing Soteira to extract pilots from the
aircraft by means of a small rocket. Their new training glider D-43 will
be the first plane to have the system built in.

http://www.akaflieg.tu-darmstadt.de/soteira/index.php

Regards, Erik.

Mein Deutch ist frickinlousy. Not sure this is a viable idea, soon our max pilot weight will be so limited that only jockeys will be allowed to fly. We could add PLD's and butt kits to our chutes in the event we do egress successfully and come down in the woods miles from civilization. Perhaps a small, portable strobe light would be a good idea. Remember your snake bite kit for Florida and out west where rattlers are common. How about a set of water wings or a raft if we come down in a lake or river?

Talking with a friend of mine from Vietnam, an extra set of glasses in the event of a bailout would be a good idea, along with trying to secure those you are wearing to your head. The opening shock of a chute might dislodge most common eyeglasses, if they made it that far after the egress. Not sure I could see well enough then to avoid power lines and the like. Heads up folks.

Walt

"Walt Connelly" wrote in message ...

.... Snip ....

Talking with a friend of mine from Vietnam, an extra set of glasses in
the event of a bailout would be a good idea, along with trying to secure
those you are wearing to your head. The opening shock of a chute might
dislodge most common eyeglasses, if they made it that far after the
egress. Not sure I could see well enough then to avoid power lines
and the like. Heads up folks.

Good point Walt. I once lost the canopy of a HP-16 on takeoff. My hat was the first thing to leave the cockpit followed immediately by my glasses. (Both were found in the grass between the runway and taxiway. ) The chances of keeping your glasses during a bailout without the aid of an athletic strap are between slim and none.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-16/nocan.htm

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/