Glider Cockpit Safety

On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 7:25:49 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Everything Mark said, however the F1 crashing into the wall most often
hits it with a glancing blow allowing parts to shed whereas the glider
quite often hits the ground head on.Â* I wonder how survivable an F1
crash directly into the wall at 200 mph would be...

On 9/9/2018 10:04 AM, wrote:
I've watched a lot of Formula 1 lately, where 200mph+ crashes are a regular occurrence. More often than not, the drivers walk away without a scratch.
What is to prevent glider cockpits from implementing similar safety designs?
The primary factor that imparts superior crashworthiness to F1 and Indy cars is the suspension and wings that are sheared away during impact. As components are peeled off, energy is expended and deceleration happens over a longer period of time. By the time the "tub" surrounding the driver's cockpit is next in line for a pounding, the deceleration that has already taken place reduces the energy imparted to the remaining structure. Additionally, the design of the cockpit has multiple layers of extremely strong carbon fiber and Kevlar formed in such a way that forces are redistributed around the structure and withstand penetration and crushing. The many and regular crashes occurring over the years have provided a wealth of data for the design of each succeeding generation of racing cars. Very little data is collected for the teeny-tiny sailplane market, with only three or four manufactures worldwide.

Modern sailplanes comply with CS-22 crashworthiness standards that spell out minimum requirements for structural rigidity and cockpit penetration. Unfortunately, bringing crashworthiness up to F1 standards would require a cockpit that would be lots heavier and might not help much at all, as the deceleration of the little pink body inside is difficult to control. You can scramble an egg inside the shell.

Perhaps the next generation of composites (graphene, etc.) will allow for more robust structural integrity, but be prepared for a large price increase.

--
Dan, 5J

Not good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDjKCoHD278

Tom

Well, basically head first in an open cockpit is not a good judge of cockpit safety. Sorta like landing glider canopy first (upside down), the cockpit never really comes into play.

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 5:15:41 PM UTC-7, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
Well, basically head first in an open cockpit is not a good judge of cockpit safety. Sorta like landing glider canopy first (upside down), the cockpit never really comes into play.

My favorite place during landing in the Ilyushin IL-76 was lieing head first on the navigator's window. In a crash it'd be over quickly.
Perhaps shows how enjoyable that job was.
Jim

At the OSTIV meeting in Delft in 2007, a presentation was made before the delegates of Training and Safety Panel and Sailplane Development Panel by professor Antonio Dal Monte, the then Director of the Italian Institute for Sport Sciences. Prof Dal Monte had been involved in the official analysis of Senna's crash, and had also been instrumental in creating the detachable safety cockpit for racing speedboats after the fatal crash of Stefano Casiraghi, husband of Princess Caroline of Monaco while he was defending his world offshore title.

Having analized a series of fatal glider crashes, he concluded that the mass of the wing with the strong spar positioned right behind the head of the pilot was a major factor in the lethality of these crashes. As a matter of fact, a friend of mine was killed when his wooden Siebert 3 (similar to the Ka-6) spun in, and when picking up the pieces, we found the T-handle of one of the main bolts had been bent on impact. His head had been one foot in front of that bolt...

What Dal Monte proposed was a detachable safety cockpit for gliders, mounted on rails that would be angled approximately 30 degrees (more or less parallel to the backrest) and fixed by a suitable weak link. In case of a crash, the whole wing and rear fuselage would be guided under the cockpit instead of crushing it. He even suggested making a standard cockpit to be used by all manufacturers, as the real differences in profile at cockpit level are rather small and this would reduce the costs.

Unfortunately, the engineers from the main manufacturers, present at this reunion, simply laughed the proposition away without even seeming to consider the option. I always thought that, had the professor been a German instead of an Italian, they would at least have considered the pros and contras. But Italy = opera + mafia in the head of many people. It is also Ferrari, Maserati, Lamborghini...

On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 8:24:26 AM UTC+1, wrote:
At the OSTIV meeting in Delft in 2007, a presentation was made before the delegates of Training and Safety Panel and Sailplane Development Panel by professor Antonio Dal Monte, the then Director of the Italian Institute for Sport Sciences. Prof Dal Monte had been involved in the official analysis of Senna's crash, and had also been instrumental in creating the detachable safety cockpit for racing speedboats after the fatal crash of Stefano Casiraghi, husband of Princess Caroline of Monaco while he was defending his world offshore title.

Having analized a series of fatal glider crashes, he concluded that the mass of the wing with the strong spar positioned right behind the head of the pilot was a major factor in the lethality of these crashes. As a matter of fact, a friend of mine was killed when his wooden Siebert 3 (similar to the Ka-6) spun in, and when picking up the pieces, we found the T-handle of one of the main bolts had been bent on impact. His head had been one foot in front of that bolt...

What Dal Monte proposed was a detachable safety cockpit for gliders, mounted on rails that would be angled approximately 30 degrees (more or less parallel to the backrest) and fixed by a suitable weak link. In case of a crash, the whole wing and rear fuselage would be guided under the cockpit instead of crushing it. He even suggested making a standard cockpit to be used by all manufacturers, as the real differences in profile at cockpit level are rather small and this would reduce the costs.

Unfortunately, the engineers from the main manufacturers, present at this reunion, simply laughed the proposition away without even seeming to consider the option. I always thought that, had the professor been a German instead of an Italian, they would at least have considered the pros and contras.. But Italy = opera + mafia in the head of many people. It is also Ferrari, Maserati, Lamborghini...

Same presentation by Professor Antonio Dal Monte was made to the IGC Plenum meeting.

I always thought that, had the professor been a German
instead of an Italian, they would at least have considered the
pros and contras"

I seem to remember a few years ago a German Akafleig at
Friedrichshafen had a mock up of a two seater cockpit where a
BRS (Ballistic Recovery System) type system extracted the
pilots from the cockpit? A sort of jump seat for glider pilots.
Never heard whether they ever got it built or tested.
My guess is money & certification costs killed the project.

Then of course there's the fundamental problem, highlighted
on DG's website, that most glider purchasers will not buy
safety; safety does't sell gliders. One of DG's own contributions
to safety was the NOAH pilot ejection system, a very simple
system: pull one toggle, the seat belts undo and a gas bag
under the seat fills with nitrogen lifting the pilot up - all the
pilot has to do is roll out of the cockpit (if he has a parachute
with a static line, as in Germany, he doesn't even need to pull
the rip-cord).
Much to DG's annoyance very few purchasers stumped up the
few thousand Euros it cost.

A fit athletic 20 year old might have no problem exiting a
gyrating cockpit; how about an unfit overweight 60 year old?
Nothing personal!