Just pull the little red handle!

My hope is that within a year of
it's release, pilots who fly without them will feel unwelcome to a
point they will rather get one...

Ramy

will you be establishing a scholarship fund for those of us who feel
unwelcome and unwealthy?

On Aug 31, 11:05*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 8/31/2010 12:46 PM, Tuno wrote:





Little red handle anyone?

There is a little red handle I would LOVE to have.

Many years ago the skydiving industry came up with a way to jettison a
malfunctioned main canopy and deploy the reserve as a single action by
simply adding a static line from the main parachute's riser to the
reserve parachute's pin. Thus pulling the "cutaway" handle would also
result in a deployed reserve. This system was especially appreciated
at low altitudes!

Since August 4th I've been wondering how difficult it would be to add
a single "red handle" to the glider cockpit, that would be secured to
one of the shoulder straps (i.e. at the pilot's torso, easy to find in
the worst of conditions). Pulling this handle would simultaneously
release the canopy and unbuckle the harness. No fumbling for one set
of handles and then another.

This handle, as I envision it, would look very much like the cutaway
handles in skydiving -- a small pillow attached to teflon cable(s),
brightly colored, hard to pull by accident but easy to find and pull
on purpose.

ted/2NO

I suspect that one of the principle risk areas for mid-airs (outside of
contests) is in the pattern, near an airport. *There is absolutely no
way a conventional chut can save you when you are this low, no matter
how fast you can get out of the glider. *A BRS can.

--
Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I concur. The most difficult and time consuming part is the egress
from the glider, not the release of the straps. It is unlikely to be
able to bailout from a glider below 1000 feet. A BRS could be deployed
instantly even from 100 feet.

Ramy

I suspect that one of the principle risk areas for mid-airs (outside of
contests) is in the pattern, near an airport. *

Statistics? What data support this suspection?

There is absolutely no
way a conventional chut can save you when you are this low, no matter
how fast you can get out of the glider. *A BRS can.

Not true! Emergency parachutes open in less than 300 feet. Not as good
as a BRS of course, but having a "little red handle" can easily be the
difference in suriviving a collision at low altitude.

On Aug 31, 10:54*am, Ramy wrote:
On Aug 30, 12:35*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:

Little red handle anyone?
JJ

If I could put one in my standard category asw 27, I would.

In the meantime, why don't we get together and buy flarms, so we don't
run in to each other in the first place. They're even on sale for the
first 50 orders. I put my order in, so if you get one you won't run in
to me next year!

John Cochrane BB


But in the meantime, to address midairs, the PowerFlarm is the obvious
solution, and I just ordered mine. My hope is that within a year of
it's release, pilots who fly without them will feel unwelcome to a
point they will rather get one...

Ramy

That will be sad. I hate being unwelcome, but I just used the last of
my space (and no small amount of money) to install a (ADS-B capable)
Transponder, since my immediate concern is airliner traffic. I see
vastly more airliners than gliders when I'm flying.

On Aug 31, 11:18*am, Tony wrote:
My hope is that within a year of
it's release, pilots who fly without them will feel unwelcome to a
point they will rather get one...

Ramy

will you be establishing a scholarship fund for those of us who feel
unwelcome and unwealthy?

I realize I may made myself unpopular with this comment ;-) I believe
the biggest glider to glider risk is during XC or contests flights, in
which the majority of pilots owns glass ships and likely can afford
it. Those who obviously can't should get some slack and perhaps use
the radio more often for position reports. But those who fly 100K
ships should have hard time explaining why they don't use Flarm.
My gut feeling is that 90% of pilots who are at risk can efford it,
which sould be sufficient to significantly reduce the risk.

Ramy

On Aug 31, 11:08*am, Andy wrote:
On Aug 30, 4:13*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:

Folks are working on putting up a web site with USA specific content,
but in the meantime what else exactly is not clear?

So you are saying that the only manufacturer's web site that provides
any information on PowerFLARM is not related to the US product, but
you still ask me what is not clear?

I have downloaded and read extensive documentation on FLARM, including
a user manual, installation guide, data port specification and also
checked on a FLARM forum. *There is lots of information on the
existing FLARM products.

No what I was asking is what is not clear to you given I believe all
questions raised by anybody about this product on r.a.s. have pretty
much been answered. I'm trying to understand what else remains that is
causing confusion. If I can I'll either answer it here or make sure it
gets answered and ideally put up on the USA webs site.

The difference between the USA product and the European web site that
caused most confusion is the IGC recorder (a standard feature with up
to three diamond certification level in the USA model). I think that
has all been pointed out here before and is clear in Richard's web
site.

Also pointed out here before is ADS-B TIS-B is not shipping in the
initial product, as I've tried to point out before that's likely not
mentioned in the European web site since it is not relevant to use
there.

Documentation would be great, I'd love that too, but this is not yet a
shipping product.

So what else is not clear?

Darryl

On Aug 31, 1:54*pm, Ramy wrote:
On Aug 31, 11:18*am, Tony wrote:

My hope is that within a year of
it's release, pilots who fly without them will feel unwelcome to a
point they will rather get one...

Ramy

will you be establishing a scholarship fund for those of us who feel
unwelcome and unwealthy?

I realize I may made myself unpopular with this comment ;-) I believe
the biggest glider to glider risk is during XC or contests flights, in
which the majority of pilots owns glass ships and likely can afford
it. Those who obviously can't should get some slack and perhaps use
the radio more often for position reports. But those who fly 100K
ships should have hard time explaining why they don't use Flarm.
My gut feeling is that 90% of pilots who are at risk can efford it,
which sould be sufficient to significantly reduce the risk.

Ramy

fair enough. plus us low cost gliders usually have colorful paint jobs
and low closing speeds on our side

On 8/31/2010 10:54 AM, Ramy wrote:
On Aug 30, 12:35 pm, John
wrote:

Little red handle anyone?
JJ

If I could put one in my standard category asw 27, I would.

In the meantime, why don't we get together and buy flarms, so we don't
run in to each other in the first place. They're even on sale for the
first 50 orders. I put my order in, so if you get one you won't run in
to me next year!

John Cochrane BB

Same here. If there was an option to add a BRS to my 27, I would, even
if it will be a substantial cost.
I flew hang gliders with a BRS system for many years, and know of a
number of hang glider pilots saved by this system.
While I doubt it will help with stall/spin accidents, which still
seems to be the cause of many accidents, a proper system should be
able to save most mid airs, control problems and structural failures.

I'd like to see a list of incidents where a BRS could have avoided a
fatality. Most of the fatal mid-airs I'm aware of, the pilot was almost
surely incapacitated by the collision. The control problems and
structural failures seem to have happy endings because the pilot is able
to bail out. My impression is the BRS would have a very small effect on
the USA fatality rate.

The DG web site (referenced earlier) comes to the same conclusion: a lot
of expense for very few incidents where it is useful. DG's point is the
money should be spent elsewhere in new gliders, and retrofitting did not
seem an option for the big majority of glider owners. In fact, if the
factories were to simply make Flarm/PowerFlarm standard equipment, that
might reduce risk more than offering a BRS as an option.

I think getting a lot of USA competition pilots to use a PowerFlarm
would reduce fatalities more than the same pilots equipping with BRS,
and it can be done in time for next season at far less cost, even if you
could buy a retrofit for the same price as a factory installed system.
Here's an idea to encourage it: you buy a PowerFlarm at regular price,
then you send them a trace from the PowerFlarm logger showing you flew
at least one contest day with it, and they send you a rebate of, say,
$200. The SSA could do the same thing, offering a rebate on the entry
fee for the first contest you fly in with your PowerFlarm. PowerFlarm
benefits as the increasing installed base makes it more desirable to use
a PowerFlarm, and contest pilots would make good champions for spreading
the word.

Get PowerFlarm and SSA to do it, and it'd be a tempting offer - heck, it
might even increase contest participation to get the rebate, AND because
some pilots decide the collision risk is decreased enough to draw them
into a contest they would otherwise avoid.
--

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

Tuno wrote:
I suspect that one of the principle risk areas for mid-airs (outside of
contests) is in the pattern, near an airport. *

Statistics? What data support this suspection?

"A recent AOPA Air Safety Foundation study of midair collisions revealed
that 49 percent occurred in the traffic pattern or on approach to or
departure from an airport. Of the other 51 percent, about half occurred
during en route climb, cruise, or descent, and the rest resulted from
formation flights or other hazardous activities. Eighty percent of the
midair collisions that occurred during "normal" flight activities happened
within ten miles of an airport, and 78 percent of the midair collisions
that occurred around the traffic pattern happened at nontowered airports."

From:
http://www.aopa.org/asf/epilot_acc/e_chi97fa218a.html

There is absolutely no
way a conventional chut can save you when you are this low, no matter
how fast you can get out of the glider. *A BRS can.

Not true! Emergency parachutes open in less than 300 feet. Not as good
as a BRS of course, but having a "little red handle" can easily be the
difference in suriviving a collision at low altitude.

I believe he was considering not just the time for the chute to deploy, but
the time to open or eject the canopy, release the seatbelt and shoulder
harness, and jump out. If the glider is damaged and tumbling down (e.g.
loss of a wing) then egress is probably that much more difficult. And then
after all that, pull the chute cord. This assumes the pilot has the
presence of mind (and courage) to do something they may not have enough
training to do in a prompt and decisive manner.

A rocket-propelled whole-aircraft parachute is likely to deploy much faster
and requires just one action by the pilot. I believe that the recent RANS
S-9 that lost a wing while flying acerobatics in Argentina actually wrapped
itself around the parachute lines (which is presumably why it landed under
the chute nose-first) but still managed to deliver the pilot to safety even
in an unintended attitude.

There are exceptions of course where a BRS has not helped, and critics use
such anecdotes to "prove" that such devices don't provide perfect safety.
It is of course a strawman argument. Like all safety devices a BRS can only
improve the odds of surviving an otherwise fatal mishap.

Eric Greenwell wrote:
I think getting a lot of USA competition pilots to use a PowerFlarm
would reduce fatalities more than the same pilots equipping with BRS,
and it can be done in time for next season at far less cost, even if you
could buy a retrofit for the same price as a factory installed system.

Given the finite resources glider pilots have (only so much time and money)
it is reasonable to compute the benefit/cost ratio of BRS versus Flarm and
prioritize investment accordingly.

But whereas a BRS is useful for a large number of accident classes, (e.g.
one's wings fold up (there was just such a case discussed here)) something
like Flarm helps only with a single class of accidents. On the other hand,
Flarm is less expensive and easier to employ.

Beyond having both in one's safety repertoire, absent statistical
estimates, it isn't immediately clear to me that one should spend one's
finite money on Flarm first rather than a BRS first. The latter is not an
available option for a lot of gliders, though.