Flying with Parachutes

At 10:51 14 August 2018, krasw wrote:
tiistai 14. elokuuta 2018 7.10.18 UTC+3 Jonathan St. Cloud kirjoitti:

I do fly commercial rides at our gliderport were parachutes would not
be
practical on the scenic flights.

That's an excuse like no other. We do scenic flights all the time, and no
passenger has ever said that wearing parachute is inconvenient. But
obviously we live in different culture.

Someone on a 'scenic flight' rarely understands the risk involved in
flying, or to themselves. For this reason. at our club, the aim is that
introductory flights (which you categorise as scenic flights) should be the
safest training flight ever carried out. This includes wearing a
parachute, a brief from the instructor on exiting the glider in an
emergency and a brief on parachute deployment. The K21 breakup following a
lightning strike at Dunstable some years ago was an introductory flight (a
one day introductory course in this case) and the parachute saved the
passengers (and instructors) life. The accident report is linked below.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...pdf_500699.pdf


In my view, the only excuse for not providing passengers with a parachute
is if the glider is not designed in a way that makes it practical. Where
this is the case, you should really be considering whether it is an
appropriate glider to do such an introductory flight in. More experienced
people, who understand the risk, can of course make up their own mind.

Al

Do not buy a parachute. ...
Risk.....you have a much greater chance of dying driving using your phone. Driving fast. Eating while driving. Lightning. Gunshot, Crime.

R

Not true by a good measure, according to cited stats. Imagine giving that as "informed consent" to a uninformed rider! Trolling for lawyers, anyone? See Mr. Greenwell's post. That said, equally untrue is, as another famous CFIG once said, there's a 50/50 chance of dying each time you fly (i.e., either you live or you die).

That's faulty logic and that CFIG was making a joke.

On 8/14/2018 8:50 AM, Duster wrote:
That said, equally untrue is, as another famous CFIG once said, there's a 50/50 chance of dying each time you fly (i.e., either you live or you die).

--
Dan, 5J

Dan Marotta wrote on 8/14/2018 7:58 AM:
That's faulty logic and that CFIG was making a joke.

On 8/14/2018 8:50 AM, Duster wrote:
That said, equally untrue is, as another famous CFIG once said, there's a 50/50
chance of dying each time you fly (i.e., either you live or you die).

It seemed uninformed about probability at the time, it distracted from the point
he (Knauff, right?) was trying to make, and I never saw the explanation that it
was a joke until now. Lots of people missed the joke explanation, apparently,
given the number that still comment on it's inaccuracy.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/...anes-2014A.pdf

On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 10:58:42 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
That's faulty logic and that CFIG was making a joke.

On 8/14/2018 8:50 AM, Duster wrote:
That said, equally untrue is, as another famous CFIG once said, there's a 50/50 chance of dying each time you fly (i.e., either you live or you die).

--
Dan, 5J

Not only that, but it was a 50/50 chance of a rope break on each flight, not death. He was making a sarcastic point about being ready for such an event.

I am not against parachutes, but the thread initiator is a newbie starting lessons and I felt some exposure to the sport up to the point of a glider license would be in order before purchasing such an expensive piece of insurance. Annnnndddd if he is that scared about leaving sweetie and little Susie behind, perhaps he should purchase a Pipistral with a ballistic parachute to improve the odds even more.
Point is, I don’t want to start a trend of advising or scaring new comers to a dying sport that soaring is more dangerous than driving while eating a Big Mac or mowing the grass with a thunderstorm about, and the only way to survive is to pump out the cost of a parachute.
But, I see I am out voted base on what I’ve read, so Johnny, have at. Welcome to a great little known miracle that many created (not me) for our exclusive use.
As for myself, When I fly off my strip, cross country and all, no chute. Comfy cushions.
I’ll probably hit a cow tomorrow.
Cheers,
R

Mercy sakes, we've beat this topic to death!

As for Krasn "grounding" any pilot who doesn't wear a chute, I guess that is a perfect example of why America is America, namely over here we believe in personal liberty and personal responsibility. If a guy and to wear or not wear a chute, thats his/her business. I am more concerned with his flying practices because thats what can kill me (midair etc) not whether he wears a chute. Thats his bisiness.

And don't give me the dribble about having more soaring fatalities being bad for the overall "image" of soaring. We are and have always been a minute subset of the aviation community. Nobody give a hoot about us or our safety record or lack there of. Fatalities occur and will continue to occur primarily due to **** poor aeronautical decisions aka pilot error.

Wear a chute or don't wear a chute, thats your choice. Personally I wear one while flying my bird solo but for training flights I am more concerned with teaching and practicing situational awareness. That is something thats is way more important imop that having a chute.

Liberty eh? Like free speech zones? Like Guantanamo bay? Like children in cages?
I have to say I’m all for Americans taking risks though, raises the worlds average IQ.

Al McNamara wrote on 8/14/2018 5:22 AM:
At 10:51 14 August 2018, krasw wrote:
tiistai 14. elokuuta 2018 7.10.18 UTC+3 Jonathan St. Cloud kirjoitti:

I do fly commercial rides at our gliderport were parachutes would not
be
practical on the scenic flights.

That's an excuse like no other. We do scenic flights all the time, and no
passenger has ever said that wearing parachute is inconvenient. But
obviously we live in different culture.

Someone on a 'scenic flight' rarely understands the risk involved in
flying, or to themselves. For this reason. at our club, the aim is that
introductory flights (which you categorise as scenic flights) should be the
safest training flight ever carried out. This includes wearing a
parachute, a brief from the instructor on exiting the glider in an
emergency and a brief on parachute deployment. The K21 breakup following a
lightning strike at Dunstable some years ago was an introductory flight (a
one day introductory course in this case) and the parachute saved the
passengers (and instructors) life.

I think there is a significant distinction between scenic flights and training
flights, regardless what you call them. True scenic flights will be conducted in
good weather and not in potentially threatening weather, unlike the ASK 21
training flight, where thunderstorms were likely. I suggest an alternate
description of that flight could be "bad judgement for deciding to fly in those
conditions; good luck parachutes were routinely required".

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/...anes-2014A.pdf