Emergency Exit

Why not just install a ballistic recovery chute in the glider? That's a lot cleaner solution and saves your butt at a lot lower altitude than bailing out.

Because "just installing" a ballistic recovery chute for a particular airframe takes a very large amount of structural analysis, determination of proper attach points, modification of the fuselage for installation of the rocket extraction system, blow-off panels to allow for chute extraction, actuation cable routing, FAA approvals for certified aircraft or approvals from an IA to determine the feasibility and installation of a system that very few certified aircraft mechanics (IA or A&P) have any familiarity with. This also applies to sailplanes certified as Experimental.

It's not just strapping a pack to your glider. It is WAY more complex and has to be done right.

I started flying hang gliders with a Ballistic Recovery System (BRS) in 1993. I have had two systems from BRS Inc. and one gas propelled unit from (now defunct) Second Chantz. Never had to actually use either one, but I see the advantages for sailplanes. Unfortunately, the mechanics and complex design issues pretty much eliminate practical retrofits to existing airframes.

It is sad that sailplane manufacturers do not seem to be interested in providing the guidance and engineering to incorporate ballistic recovery systems in current designs.

The only glider I know of that has a factory installed BRS system is the TsT-14 Bonus, which operates in the US with a Desert Aerospace installed retractable jet engine capable of self launch and in-flight engine extension and startup. (www.desertaerospace.com)

There may be other sailplanes incorporating ballistic recovery systems, but I have no knowledge of them. If there are others, perhaps RAS participants can offer their input.

On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 9:27:10 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Why not just install a ballistic recovery chute in the glider? That's a lot cleaner solution and saves your butt at a lot lower altitude than bailing out.

Because "just installing" a ballistic recovery chute for a particular airframe takes a very large amount of structural analysis, determination of proper attach points, modification of the fuselage for installation of the rocket extraction system, blow-off panels to allow for chute extraction, actuation cable routing, FAA approvals for certified aircraft or approvals from an IA to determine the feasibility and installation of a system that very few certified aircraft mechanics (IA or A&P) have any familiarity with. This also applies to sailplanes certified as Experimental.

It's not just strapping a pack to your glider. It is WAY more complex and has to be done right.

I started flying hang gliders with a Ballistic Recovery System (BRS) in 1993. I have had two systems from BRS Inc. and one gas propelled unit from (now defunct) Second Chantz. Never had to actually use either one, but I see the advantages for sailplanes. Unfortunately, the mechanics and complex design issues pretty much eliminate practical retrofits to existing airframes..

It is sad that sailplane manufacturers do not seem to be interested in providing the guidance and engineering to incorporate ballistic recovery systems in current designs.

The only glider I know of that has a factory installed BRS system is the TsT-14 Bonus, which operates in the US with a Desert Aerospace installed retractable jet engine capable of self launch and in-flight engine extension and startup. (www.desertaerospace.com)

There may be other sailplanes incorporating ballistic recovery systems, but I have no knowledge of them. If there are others, perhaps RAS participants can offer their input.

I totally agree that retrofitting a BRS system in a glider is a major undertaking. I am baffled why someone like DG would be screwing around with cockpit extraction systems rather than making a BRS system available for their gliders.

One example of a manufacturer who has their act together is the Phoenix Motorglider. It comes standard with a BRS system.

Beacause floating around out of control under a parachute is safer?
BRS sounds good, but in practice I would prefer a personal chute every time.

On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 11:49:33 PM UTC-5, Charlie Quebec wrote:
Beacause floating around out of control under a parachute is safer?
BRS sounds good, but in practice I would prefer a personal chute every time.

If you are in a midair 500 ft above the ground, a BRS will save you. You'd never make it trying to bail out with a personal chute.

At 05:32 30 June 2018, Mike Schumann wrote:
On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 11:49:33 PM UTC-5, Charlie Quebec wrote:
Beacause floating around out of control under a parachute is safer?
BRS sounds good, but in practice I would prefer a personal chute every
time.

If you are in a midair 500 ft above the ground, a BRS will save you.
You'd
never make it trying to bail out with a personal chute.

A Personal Chute assumes you are still a going concern. A friend of mine
was hit by a piece of wreckage as he left the aircraft. Had he had a BRS he
would still be with us.

The Genesis-2 was designed for a BRS system, but production was stopped before testing was done. I have installed 36' BRS (1050) systems in a couple of G-2's. Several years back, I came close to a mid-air in the pattern..............I believe a BRS would have offered my only chance of surviving that day, had we hit. Having the little red handle available, gives me a great sense of confidence! At 84, I can hardly climb out of the cockpit, no way wearing a parachute! Add G forces that would be present in a hard-over rudder situation...........? BRS claims their system will work as low as 350'.
Wishing everyone, happy landings,
JJ

Part of why some (me included) feel a static line is good. If you hit the tail after getting out, you may be unconscious (similar to your ship hitting the bottom of another, etc.).

Yes, you may get tangled in the line and it slows/prevents chute deployment.

I believe ours is usually 20' or so, enough to clear the tail. It is in a small coil (enough slack from cabin mount to rip cord of maybe 4') with a single wrap of electrical tape to maintain the coil until needed.

To me the major advantages of a BRS over a personal parachute are the
speed and certainty of deployment.Â* Of course either system may fail or
malfunction, but with the BRS, you lose the difficulty of getting out
into space and deploying at in unfavorable position. Simply pull the
handle and enjoy the ride.

But, upon landing in a windy situation, you run the very real risk of
being killed in a tumbling, disintegrating wreck being dragged along the
ground.Â* Is there a jettison capability that could be armed by the
sudden deceleration of landing?Â* Perhaps an automatic jettison?Â* Might
that malfunction at 500' and give you a last thrilling ride?

On 6/29/2018 10:49 PM, Charlie Quebec wrote:
Beacause floating around out of control under a parachute is safer?
BRS sounds good, but in practice I would prefer a personal chute every time.

--
Dan, 5J

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 3:33:11 PM UTC+1, Dan Marotta wrote:
To me the major advantages of a BRS over a personal parachute are the
speed and certainty of deployment.Â* Of course either system may fail or
malfunction, but with the BRS, you lose the difficulty of getting out
into space and deploying at in unfavorable position. Simply pull the
handle and enjoy the ride.

But, upon landing in a windy situation, you run the very real risk of
being killed in a tumbling, disintegrating wreck being dragged along the
ground.Â* Is there a jettison capability that could be armed by the
sudden deceleration of landing?Â* Perhaps an automatic jettison?Â* Might
that malfunction at 500' and give you a last thrilling ride?

On 6/29/2018 10:49 PM, Charlie Quebec wrote:
Beacause floating around out of control under a parachute is safer?
BRS sounds good, but in practice I would prefer a personal chute every time.

--
Dan, 5J

For several glider types its a choice between an engine or a BRS chute (or neither!)

I'm curious about BRS system deployed when the aircraft/glider is spinning. Structural failures or loss of flight controls/wings in a midair could lead to an unrecoverable spin. Would it be better to eject or to hope the BRS won't get tangled by virtue of the rocket pulling the canopy clear of the spinning airframe. I must assume the manufacturers have already considered this.

https://youtu.be/OOl7Zg4Dyi4 Low deployment in a light sport aircraft on a test flight. (Why no emergency parachute for the test pilot?)

Paul A.