Stay in, or get out?

My gut feeling is that one of the more likely scenarios is a mid-air at or
near pattern altitude. When you are this low, I doubt you have time to bail
out, whether you have NOAH or not. This is where only a Balistic Recovery
Chute can save your butt.

Mike Schumann

"Paul Hanson" wrote in message
...
At 21:01 11 September 2007, Mike Schumann wrote:
I don't understand the NOAH system. Why not just put
a ballistic recovery
chute in the glider? That way you don't need to worry
about getting out,
you are somewhat protected when you hit the ground,
and your chute will
deploy even if you pull the cord at 300 ft.

Mike Schumann

1. Not all gliders can have a BRS installed (probably
goes for the NOAH as well)
2. With a BRS, you can not guarantee you will still
be attached to the part of the glider with the BRS
installed, nor that it will function properly in the
case of catastrophic damage

Even if you have the BRS, I highly recommend still
flying with your emergency bailout chute, and please
continue to 'worry' about how you may get out if you
need to. If the BRS works- hey, great! If not you still
have an option (not below 300 AGL though) There is
already a known case of this very scenario, and it
was a flutter breakup and not even a midair that caused
it. Skillfully (not luckily cause' it's not called
luck when you prepare for the unexpected) the pilot
had his personal chute (and presence of mind) and was
able to live to tell about it. Plus with a personal
chute you can steer away form power lines or cliff
faces and other hazards just as deadly as no protection
at all.
For the really safety minded (and thick walleted) a
BRS, NOAH, a personal chute, a helmet (might have saved
more lives than you may think) and all the other gizmos
mentioned already, including the condom, although admittedly
the helmet may significantly reduce the need for that
one

Paul Hanson
"Do the usual, unusually well"--Len Niemi





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Thanks for all your replies. I think this is something to think about
*before* it happens to you (and it can - a good friend was hit earlier
this year, he landed safely minus some 40% of his DG's tailplane. He
didn't know it had gone until he landed). I also agree that the use of
FLARM is a no-brainer - oddly, there's still resistance to it in some
quarters.

On Sep 12, 5:08 am, "Mike Schumann" mike-nos...@traditions-
nospam.com wrote:
My gut feeling is that one of the more likely scenarios is a mid-air at or
near pattern altitude. When you are this low, I doubt you have time to bail
out, whether you have NOAH or not. This is where only a Balistic Recovery
Chute can save your butt.

Last year in Britain there was a mid-air at "1,500' above the
airfield". One pilot left through a hole in his canopy resulting from
the collision. If I remember correctly, eye-witnesses said the fairly
old parachute he was using opened remarkably quickly, and the pilot
survived. The other pilot, flying a ASW19, appears to have been unable
to jettison his canpoy as the PDA and logger cables had been cable
tied to the frame.

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resou...0and%20GDP.pdf


Dan

On Sep 11, 4:33 pm, Paul Hanson
wrote:


For the really safety minded (and thick walleted) a
BRS, NOAH, a personal chute, a helmet (might have saved
more lives than you may think) and all the other gizmos
mentioned already, including the condom, although admittedly
the helmet may significantly reduce the need for that
one

Paul,

I have been thinking it would be nice to have a study of crashes to
determine if a helmet wold have saved many lives. We fly at speeds up
to 200 mph, yet do not require a helmet of pilots. I have been
looking at helmet types that would allow good vision and movement in
gliders without excessive weight for the G's we pull. Has anyone done
this type of study and/or tried flight helmets etc in gliders?

Tim

On 9/12/07 10:46 AM, in article
, "Tim Taylor"
wrote:

On Sep 11, 4:33 pm, Paul Hanson
wrote:


For the really safety minded (and thick walleted) a
BRS, NOAH, a personal chute, a helmet (might have saved
more lives than you may think) and all the other gizmos
mentioned already, including the condom, although admittedly
the helmet may significantly reduce the need for that
one

Paul,

I have been thinking it would be nice to have a study of crashes to
determine if a helmet wold have saved many lives. We fly at speeds up
to 200 mph, yet do not require a helmet of pilots. I have been
looking at helmet types that would allow good vision and movement in
gliders without excessive weight for the G's we pull. Has anyone done
this type of study and/or tried flight helmets etc in gliders?

Tim

The US Army has done a huge amount of research in this area, primarily at
the Aeromedical Research lab at Fort Rucker, AL. Low speed (less than 200
konts) is the realm of Army helicopters, and head injuries have been a
problem since before Vietnam.

The SPH-4 series of helmets emerged from all this research. SPH means "sound
protective helmet", and that feature is of no concern to us glider types.
The shell of those helmets are designed to limit penetration, which is also
less of an issue, unless weapons become approved in glider contests (in
which case "I got shot down" could have a different meaning).

The inner shell is the part that would be of benefit to us, in that it
limits impact forces to the head.

The problem with using these in gliders is that they make your head larger:
the impact absorbing bits require space to do their thing, and that space
makes your head taller, wider, and longer. Not a problem for some, a big
problem for others.

Having spent many, many hours in hueys and other helicopters, I can say that
I always felt right to have a helmet on.

Perhaps a bicycle helmet, without all the aerodynamic shell/fairings would
be useful?

bullwinkle

Helmets!?



Just say 'No!'

On Sep 12, 12:46 pm, Tim Taylor wrote:
On Sep 11, 4:33 pm, Paul Hanson

wrote:
For the really safety minded (and thick walleted) a
BRS, NOAH, a personal chute, a helmet (might have saved
more lives than you may think) and all the other gizmos
mentioned already, including the condom, although admittedly
the helmet may significantly reduce the need for that
one

Paul,

I have been thinking it would be nice to have a study of crashes to
determine if a helmet wold have saved many lives. We fly at speeds up
to 200 mph, yet do not require a helmet of pilots. I have been
looking at helmet types that would allow good vision and movement in
gliders without excessive weight for the G's we pull. Has anyone done
this type of study and/or tried flight helmets etc in gliders?

Tim

How many pilots could have been saved by a helmet ?

I can't recall reading too many accident reports that claim the pilot
died of head injuries, when there wasn't enough other injuries to be
fatal.

Data any one ?

Todd Smith
3S

toad wrote:
On Sep 12, 12:46 pm, Tim Taylor wrote:
On Sep 11, 4:33 pm, Paul Hanson

wrote:
For the really safety minded (and thick walleted) a
BRS, NOAH, a personal chute, a helmet (might have saved
more lives than you may think) and all the other gizmos
mentioned already, including the condom, although admittedly
the helmet may significantly reduce the need for that
one
Paul,

I have been thinking it would be nice to have a study of crashes to
determine if a helmet wold have saved many lives. We fly at speeds up
to 200 mph, yet do not require a helmet of pilots. I have been
looking at helmet types that would allow good vision and movement in
gliders without excessive weight for the G's we pull. Has anyone done
this type of study and/or tried flight helmets etc in gliders?

Tim

How many pilots could have been saved by a helmet ?

I can't recall reading too many accident reports that claim the pilot
died of head injuries, when there wasn't enough other injuries to be
fatal.

Data any one ?

This accident is also a good argument for the Roeger hook:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...08X07737&key=1



Shawn

On Sep 11, 7:01 am, Dan G wrote:
You've had a whack, but everything feels fine. Do you stay in the
glider, or leave? Just how reliable are the parachutes we use? I
understand that they're fairly simple quick-opening designs, but
there's no reserve, right? Has a glider-pilot parachute ever failed?

Dan

Dan,
I had the unfortunate experience of having to leave my glider in
January after a mid air. The other glider had impacted my left wing
and severed it about half a metre from the root,and also broke the
tail boom midway between the wing and the tail. He was able to land
but I had to make a quick exit, which was my first parachuting
experience. I had no doubts that I would have to jump, and previous
training and preparation took over.
The glider had started a spin to the left and it took some time to
get rid of the canopy (PUSH on it after you activate the releases!),
but I was actually surprised how easy it was to get out of the
cockpit. Having undone the harness it seemed like no trouble at all to
just roll over the canopy rail and out into the wild blue yonder. I
have a below knee artificial right leg so I had considered this
scenario for some time, expecting to have a lot of trouble just
getting my leg past the instrument panel, but no, it was really a
piece of cake. I put it down to the fact the gravitational force was
less as the glider was diving and all I had to do was push away from
it. A NOAH sytem would have been redundant I feel. Luckily, the spin
hadn't developed to the stage where the centrifugal forces were high,
even though it had seemed to take forever to get out; in fact it was
probably only seconds.
The chute worked as advertised (it had been repacked 2 months
previously), opening in 3 seconds (or so it seemed) and there was no
way I was going to do any stabilising. I used that ripcord as soon as
I could. Adrenalin does amazing things. I was upside down when the
chute opened, but the shock of it soon had me the right way up. I did
get some pretty severe bruising around the groin and shoulders, but I
was alive and thats what counted. Then there was the landing. I
couldn't see the ground properly because the shock of the opening
chute ripped my glasses off, and I hit before I was ready, and I hit
very heavily, once again with absolutely no proper tecnique, but I was
alive.
As far as I am concerned everything worked and the end result was
good. I just hope no one else has to try out their parachute.

Phil

peld wrote:
I was actually surprised how easy it was to get out of the
cockpit. Having undone the harness it seemed like no trouble at all to
just roll over the canopy rail and out into the wild blue yonder. I
have a below knee artificial right leg so I had considered this
scenario for some time, expecting to have a lot of trouble just
getting my leg past the instrument panel, but no, it was really a
piece of cake.

I have the same right leg modification as you, so I'm very happy to hear
that getting out wasn't a problem. I'd wondered if it might be a problem.

Did the leg cause any problems when you landed?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Sep 14, 1:28 am, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
peld wrote:
I was actually surprised how easy it was to get out of the
cockpit. Having undone the harness it seemed like no trouble at all to
just roll over the canopy rail and out into the wild blue yonder. I
have a below knee artificial right leg so I had considered this
scenario for some time, expecting to have a lot of trouble just
getting my leg past the instrument panel, but no, it was really a
piece of cake.


I have the same right leg modification as you, so I'm very happy to hear
that getting out wasn't a problem. I'd wondered if it might be a problem.

Did the leg cause any problems when you landed?

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Martin,

Like you I thought I would have problems. I used to think that the leg
would catch on the panel and come off, but that wasn't a problem at
all. As for landing, I came down on my backside, don't ask me how, and
the leg was no problem at all then. However, I badly bruised my coccyx
and jarred my back pretty bad. What the hell, I was down OK. Thats
what they say about emergency chutes: its only gonna save your life,
it won't be a soft landing. You come down pretty fast.

Phil