Emergency Exit

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.

At 14:33 30 June 2018, 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

Of course you could be struck by lightening as you descend
under your BRS canopy but has anyone ever died being
"dragged along the ground" after a successful BRS escape?
Plenty have died following a conventional parachute mal-
function.
The bottom line is that BRS will work at a lower height but is
hardly available in any common sailplane on sale today.
Retro fitting a BRS to an EASA sailplane would be a
expensive, possibly impossible, task. With ultra-light
sailplanes it's different.
The other major problem, as clearly explained on DG's
website, is that "safety does not sell sailplanes". The
majority of DG sailplanes sold were NOT equipped with the
NOAH system: the new buyers simply did not order the
NOAH system. Even if BRS was available today how many
buyers would buy it?
Dave W

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 1:45:05 PM UTC-5, Dave Walsh wrote:
At 14:33 30 June 2018, 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

Of course you could be struck by lightening as you descend
under your BRS canopy but has anyone ever died being
"dragged along the ground" after a successful BRS escape?
Plenty have died following a conventional parachute mal-
function.
The bottom line is that BRS will work at a lower height but is
hardly available in any common sailplane on sale today.
Retro fitting a BRS to an EASA sailplane would be a
expensive, possibly impossible, task. With ultra-light
sailplanes it's different.
The other major problem, as clearly explained on DG's
website, is that "safety does not sell sailplanes". The
majority of DG sailplanes sold were NOT equipped with the
NOAH system: the new buyers simply did not order the
NOAH system. Even if BRS was available today how many
buyers would buy it?
Dave W

If a BRS system were available factory installed at a reasonable price, I suspect that a very large percentage of buyers would sign up. It's a huge selling point if you are trying to get the OK from your spouse to upgrade to a new glider.

Offering a BRS system standard on all of their airplanes is probably the #1 reason that Cirrus is now the largest piston engine aircraft manufacturer in the world.

At 19:04 30 June 2018, Mike Schumann wrote:
On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 1:45:05 PM UTC-5, Dave
Walsh wrote:
At 14:33 30 June 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:
To me the major advantages of a BRS over a
personal=20
parachute are the=20
speed and certainty of deployment.=C2=A0 Of course
either=20
system may fail or=20
malfunction, but with the BRS, you lose the difficulty
of=20
getting out=20
into space and deploying at in unfavorable position.
Simply=20
pull the=20
handle and enjoy the ride.

But, upon landing in a windy situation, you run the
very=20
real risk of=20
being killed in a tumbling, disintegrating wreck
being=20
dragged along the=20
ground.=C2=A0 Is there a jettison capability that could
be armed=20
by the=20
sudden deceleration of landing?=C2=A0 Perhaps an
automatic=20
jettison?=C2=A0 Might=20
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=20
parachute is safer?
BRS sounds good, but in practice I would prefer
a=20
personal chute every
time.

--=20
Dan, 5J

Of course you could be struck by lightening as you
descend=20
under your BRS canopy but has anyone ever died
being=20
"dragged along the ground" after a successful BRS
escape?
Plenty have died following a conventional parachute mal-
function.
The bottom line is that BRS will work at a lower height
but is=20
hardly available in any common sailplane on sale today.
Retro fitting a BRS to an EASA sailplane would be a=20
expensive, possibly impossible, task. With ultra-light=20
sailplanes it's different.
The other major problem, as clearly explained on
DG's=20
website, is that "safety does not sell sailplanes". The=20
majority of DG sailplanes sold were NOT equipped with
the=20
NOAH system: the new buyers simply did not order
the=20
NOAH system. Even if BRS was available today how
many=20
buyers would buy it?
Dave W

If a BRS system were available factory installed at a
reasonable price, I
s=
uspect that a very large percentage of buyers would sign
up. It's a huge
s=
elling point if you are trying to get the OK from your
spouse to upgrade
to=
a new glider. =20

Offering a BRS system standard on all of their airplanes is
probably the
#1=
reason that Cirrus is now the largest piston engine aircraft
manufacturer
=
in the world.

Yes you're probably quite right about the Cirrus BUT in a
Cirrus you might well have wife and kids along for the ride.
The fact remains that the majority of DG customers do not
specify the NOAH system; it's actually relatively cheap
compared to the new cost of a DG808C or DG1000x. Why is
that?
Dave W

On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 4:00:18 PM UTC-5, Dave Walsh wrote:
At 19:04 30 June 2018, Mike Schumann wrote:
On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 1:45:05 PM UTC-5, Dave
Walsh wrote:
At 14:33 30 June 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:
To me the major advantages of a BRS over a
personal=20
parachute are the=20
speed and certainty of deployment.=C2=A0 Of course
either=20
system may fail or=20
malfunction, but with the BRS, you lose the difficulty
of=20
getting out=20
into space and deploying at in unfavorable position.
Simply=20
pull the=20
handle and enjoy the ride.

But, upon landing in a windy situation, you run the
very=20
real risk of=20
being killed in a tumbling, disintegrating wreck
being=20
dragged along the=20
ground.=C2=A0 Is there a jettison capability that could
be armed=20
by the=20
sudden deceleration of landing?=C2=A0 Perhaps an
automatic=20
jettison?=C2=A0 Might=20
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=20
parachute is safer?
BRS sounds good, but in practice I would prefer
a=20
personal chute every
time.

--=20
Dan, 5J

Of course you could be struck by lightening as you
descend=20
under your BRS canopy but has anyone ever died
being=20
"dragged along the ground" after a successful BRS
escape?
Plenty have died following a conventional parachute mal-
function.
The bottom line is that BRS will work at a lower height
but is=20
hardly available in any common sailplane on sale today.
Retro fitting a BRS to an EASA sailplane would be a=20
expensive, possibly impossible, task. With ultra-light=20
sailplanes it's different.
The other major problem, as clearly explained on
DG's=20
website, is that "safety does not sell sailplanes". The=20
majority of DG sailplanes sold were NOT equipped with
the=20
NOAH system: the new buyers simply did not order
the=20
NOAH system. Even if BRS was available today how
many=20
buyers would buy it?
Dave W

If a BRS system were available factory installed at a
reasonable price, I
s=
uspect that a very large percentage of buyers would sign
up. It's a huge
s=
elling point if you are trying to get the OK from your
spouse to upgrade
to=
a new glider. =20

Offering a BRS system standard on all of their airplanes is
probably the
#1=
reason that Cirrus is now the largest piston engine aircraft
manufacturer
=
in the world.

Yes you're probably quite right about the Cirrus BUT in a
Cirrus you might well have wife and kids along for the ride.
The fact remains that the majority of DG customers do not
specify the NOAH system; it's actually relatively cheap
compared to the new cost of a DG808C or DG1000x. Why is
that?
Dave W


Maybe people think that the NOAH system is a half baked solution. Cirrus and Phoenix think that BRS systems are important enough that they make them standard and a significant part of their marketing.

The biggest negative for the BRS is cost. Ongoing with inspections/repacking and timed replacements
Also I have seen a video testing it with a Discus and there are certainly issues with speed and attitudes.
Tom
....

At 21:22 01 July 2018, Mike Schumann wrote:

Maybe people think that the NOAH system is a half baked solution.

Do people really think that not having a solution at all is better than a
partial one?

It's tricky, perhaps impossible, to retro fit a BRS to a
DG1001M or DG808C type sailplane with a pylon mounted
engine. So I'd say the NOAH system was a sensible alternative
given the pilot(s) would be wearing conventional parachutes.
In the absence of BRS equipped sailplanes for sale NOAH
seems to me a very desirable option.
Clearly if the major glider manufacturers offered BRS this
would be better still.
Whether DG purchasers see NOAH as "half baked" is an
interesting question. My guess is that the majority of
purchasers never believe they will have a mid-air collision or
structural failure and so just choose to save themselves
8,000€.

The idea that "cost" is a significant factor in fitting BRS
systems in gliders is simply woefully ill-informed.
A new single seat sailplane is perhaps 100K€ - 200K€?
A new two seat self launch is perhaps 180K€ - 300K€?
A new BRS is perhaps 7K€? This is less than the cost of an
upmarket variometer system!
And the true cost of one life lost is...well look it up on the
internet, it's a surprisingly high figure.
Dave W