Emergency Exit

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

On Monday, July 2, 2018 at 7:45:06 AM UTC-5, Dave Walsh wrote:
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






I think that the lack of enthusiasm for NOAH isn't the cost, but the lack of a perceived advantage. If you have a midair or a control problem at a high enough altitude where bailing out is an option, many pilots don't think they'll have a problem getting out of the cockpit.

If you have a midair in the pattern, you're so low that NOAH isn't going to help. A BRS system on the other hand can save you. If you look at accident statistics, a lot of midairs occur at these altitudes. Pilots understand this, and manufacturers like Cirrus and Phoenix have demonstrated that they are willing to pay to improve their odds in these types of accidents.

On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 2:22:38 PM UTC-7, Mike Schumann wrote:
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 NOAH system is far from "half baked". DG actually developed a system that works, and they are the only ones that have for a glider. Approximately two thirds of the non-motor gliders sold, have sustainers engines where the BRS would go, hence the NOAH. This is an emergency assist. The chance of needing such a device is as rare as needing to jump, yet DG stepped up to the plate and designed and tested a solution, that is affordable (about 4,000 euro before installation). Comparing Phoenix and Cirrus aircraft, with their marketing, design, customers base, and funding sources, to gliding is with all due respect "half baked".

I have flown with a a 1050-BRS for about 10 years in two Genesis-2 sailplanes (sold one, missed it, so I bought another one and the BRS availability was a big part of deciding to buy another one), I can provide some basic info. The deployment max airspeed is 138 mph and 1050# G/W with no stated max or minimum altitude, but saves have been obtained as low as 350 feet! Repack every 6 years for $1000 bucks and replace rocket fuel every 12 years (cost unknown, but estimate the 12 year repack and new fuel should come in under $1500. Initial cost is $5000+ 1000 installation (in a Genesis-2). The Genesis is the most comfortable ship I have ever flown because the personal chute was replaced by a 4" pad with only lap belt and shoulder harness. No way to jettison the chute, but that's also true with most back-packs used in sailplanes. I believe it would take a good 40 knot wind to drag the whole sailplane on the ground, after landing..........and if that were to happen, I believe I would just wait for the ship to hang up on something.
The system is well engineered with safety pin used on the ground and even if the red handle were accidentally kicked with pin out, it takes a 35# pull about 6" to fire the rocket! I take great comfort in my ability to just pull the little red handle should it ever become necessary.
Hope this helps,
JJ

On Monday, July 2, 2018 at 8:00:44 PM UTC-4, wrote:
I have flown with a a 1050-BRS for about 10 years in two Genesis-2 sailplanes (sold one, missed it, so I bought another one and the BRS availability was a big part of deciding to buy another one), I can provide some basic info. The deployment max airspeed is 138 mph and 1050# G/W with no stated max or minimum altitude, but saves have been obtained as low as 350 feet! Repack every 6 years for $1000 bucks and replace rocket fuel every 12 years (cost unknown, but estimate the 12 year repack and new fuel should come in under $1500. Initial cost is $5000+ 1000 installation (in a Genesis-2). The Genesis is the most comfortable ship I have ever flown because the personal chute was replaced by a 4" pad with only lap belt and shoulder harness. No way to jettison the chute, but that's also true with most back-packs used in sailplanes. I believe it would take a good 40 knot wind to drag the whole sailplane on the ground, after landing..........and if that were to happen, I believe I would just wait for the ship to hang up on something.
The system is well engineered with safety pin used on the ground and even if the red handle were accidentally kicked with pin out, it takes a 35# pull about 6" to fire the rocket! I take great comfort in my ability to just pull the little red handle should it ever become necessary.
Hope this helps,
JJ

What is the structural path from parachute risers to pilots seat/seatbelts? That seems to me to be the weakest link with BRS implementation.

The "bridle" consists of 4 straps that attach to the 4 lift fittings, which are 2" wide webbing. On deployment, they exit through the 15X24 BRS hatch, then up to a giant carabiner that attaches them to one big riser coming from the 36' parachute. Rocket is about 4" below this hatch and aimed at the forward end. Hatch Is secured with 1/2" tape and will separate with a good wack...........I taped it up, then gave it a good wack with a rubber mallet..
JJ