another crash

Well I do, going by the YouTube vid that shows the pilot surviving exactly that sort of crash.

Which YouTube video? An example of one person surviving doesn’t mean everyone does. There are also the obvious considerations such as impact surface, angle, etc.

The DG website states that :

“Since there is no crush zone in a glider as there is in an auto, a crash at higher velocities – mostly over 60 knots – is not survivable. In actual crash tests at “only� 30 knots and only directly on the nose, high loadings were measured with dire results for the pilot.�

I’m certain DG has added that headrest as part of the design of their sailplane - which is a certified aircraft. Removing it without proper authority may not be legal (or smart).

Nick

G Dale had a mid air in his DG100 in 2012 and bailed out. He said that the
canopy smashed him in the back of the head when he ejected it and
momentarily knocked him out.

The DG/LS folks are really pushing the Roeger hook to prevent a DG canopy from smacking you in the back of the head by forcing the canopy to rotate at the rear and then up and out of the way.

Rear more he
https://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/en/lib...he-roeger-hook

Not having read the report, I wonder:Â* As the canopy rotates upward and
aft about the Roeger hook, given the position of the headrest, does it
rotate forward and upward hitting the pilot in the back of the head?Â* It
would be interesting to simulate this on the ground with a few people
and a bunch of hands to insure no damage.

On 9/4/2019 4:37 AM, John DeRosa OHM Ω http://aviation.derosaweb.net wrote:
The DG/LS folks are really pushing the Roeger hook to prevent a DG canopy from smacking you in the back of the head by forcing the canopy to rotate at the rear and then up and out of the way.

Rear more he
https://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/en/lib...he-roeger-hook

--
Dan, 5J

On the photos I could find on google, all the later DG singles have a seat back mounted headrest, at least the 300/600/800 I found.
100/200/400 are the only ones I can find with canopy mount. It appears DG themselves changed it.
It’s only common sense to see no good is going to come from the headrest in a canopy ejection scenario.
I do want to have a headrest I’m going to contact DG about fitting a later model seat back, might as well get something for the blackmail contract.
When I talked to my CFI just a couple of months ago he was quite insistent that having no headrest was better from a lookout point of view.

I'm not sure about the rest but all 300 and 303's has the headrest mounted on the back of the canopy rail...that also includes my 300.

BTW
At least in my glider but I'm sure in just about any; in regards to the headrest blocking vision there is is no frigging way I could even twist my head to see it let alone it blocking my sight.
This unless one has a neck of a giraffe:-)

Charlie Quebec wrote on 9/6/2019 12:58 AM:
When I talked to my CFI just a couple of months ago he was quite insistent that having no headrest was better from a lookout point of view.

That's not true for the ASW20C I used to fly, nor the ASH26E I currently fly. Did
he mention any specifics? For example, was he thinking of pilots that adjust the
headrest so it is touching their heads during normal flight? That might interfere
with looking upwards.

--
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

In an incident/crash/accident there are typically three impacts;

The initial where the glider gets hit by something or hits something.
Secondly the body of the person hitting the inside of the glider whether
at force or not.
Thirdly the bodies internal organs hitting the skeleton or being
torn/ripped out from their normal position, that's the one that potentially
kills /damages the pilot.