![]() |
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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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!) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 .... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Air exit vent with engine box? | [email protected] | Soaring | 5 | December 8th 15 04:14 AM |
An elegant exit | Frank Whiteley | Soaring | 2 | May 15th 09 02:28 PM |
Accident report - PDA's can restrict emergency exit | Ramy | Soaring | 21 | December 31st 06 05:45 PM |
How do you exit a F-22 cockpit? | John Dallman | Naval Aviation | 1 | May 28th 06 02:51 PM |
How do you exit a F-22 cockpit? | Mike | Naval Aviation | 11 | May 25th 06 08:01 PM |