BRS for emergencies

The previous posts under "Stay in, or get out?" raises questions about the
current state of ballistic recovery systems. As paraplegic, I have a
personal interest in BRS because thoughts of my successfully exiting an out
of control sailplane with a parachute, and then landing without the use of
my legs, conjure unpleasant thoughts. Although doable for a paraplegic, the
odds of a successful egress and injury free landing are certainly lower than
for an able-bodied pilot. For those reasons, BRS is for me a viable and
probably safer alternative.

I understand that no emergency egress solution is perfect for all scenarios;
they offer various means of risk management. However, I would appreciate
any information or thoughts concerning the effectiveness of BRS deployment
and if the current ground-impact energy absorption systems are proving
effective for pilot protection.

Thanks,
Bryan

On Sep 12, 10:12 am, "Bryan" wrote:
The previous posts under "Stay in, or get out?" raises questions about the
current state of ballistic recovery systems. As paraplegic, I have a
personal interest in BRS because thoughts of my successfully exiting an out
of control sailplane with a parachute, and then landing without the use of
my legs, conjure unpleasant thoughts. Although doable for a paraplegic, the
odds of a successful egress and injury free landing are certainly lower than
for an able-bodied pilot. For those reasons, BRS is for me a viable and
probably safer alternative.

I understand that no emergency egress solution is perfect for all scenarios;
they offer various means of risk management. However, I would appreciate
any information or thoughts concerning the effectiveness of BRS deployment
and if the current ground-impact energy absorption systems are proving
effective for pilot protection.

Thanks,
Bryan

I dont know much about BRS deployments in sailplanes. one major issue
would, as you mention, would be the energy absorption. the Cirrus
airplanes use the landing gear to absorb impact. of course they will
decend at a much higher rate under chute than a glider. I think the
Cirri have something like a 2000 fpm descent. they have had injuries
to people who have come down in water where there was no energy
absorbtion. i know that BRS systems have been pretty common in
ultralights for a while. and used successfully. I would think that
sailplanes would have similar descent rates but still not as much
energy absorption as them.

wrote:
i know that BRS systems have been pretty common in
ultralights for a while. and used successfully. I would think that
sailplanes would have similar descent rates but still not as much
energy absorption as them.

That is one of the challenges for the glider rescue designer. The
descent rate must be limited to what the fuselage can provide in pilot
protection. Older gliders (say, before the ASW 24) had "weak" fuselages
and would require a relatively large parachute, compared to modern
gliders. A large parachute is heavier, takes up more space, and makes it
harder to deploy slowly enough to avoid huge forces on the glider
structure and pilot. Another problem is ensuring the fuselage and
remaining bits descend without a lot of oscillating, so the cockpit hits
the ground at the right attitude to absorb enough energy to protect the
pilot.

All things considered, it is much easier and cheaper to retrofit a NOAH
system, even though it doesn't provide exactly the same function. The
problem is much easier to solve in an ultralight, because of their
slower speeds and lighter weights.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

You should contact the Red Wing Soaring Club in Osceola WI. One of their
members installed a Ballistic Recovery Chute in his personal glider a couple
of years ago. I vaguely recall that it cost him around $3,000.

Mike Schumann

"Bryan" wrote in message
...
The previous posts under "Stay in, or get out?" raises questions about the
current state of ballistic recovery systems. As paraplegic, I have a
personal interest in BRS because thoughts of my successfully exiting an
out of control sailplane with a parachute, and then landing without the
use of my legs, conjure unpleasant thoughts. Although doable for a
paraplegic, the odds of a successful egress and injury free landing are
certainly lower than for an able-bodied pilot. For those reasons, BRS is
for me a viable and probably safer alternative.

I understand that no emergency egress solution is perfect for all
scenarios; they offer various means of risk management. However, I would
appreciate any information or thoughts concerning the effectiveness of BRS
deployment and if the current ground-impact energy absorption systems are
proving effective for pilot protection.

Thanks,
Bryan





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

The NOAH system looks like a kludge to me that does not address
survivability for accidents that happen at low altitudes.

Here is a link showing the specs and prices for typical BRS chutes:

http://www.brsparachutes.com/ViewDoc...?DocumentID=84

I suspect that the concerns about impact survivability in a glider are
overblown. You might want to contact BRS directly to discuss this issue.
One way you could reduce the impact forces is to have the glider descend
under the chute so that the tail impacts the ground first and dissipates
part of the energy before the cockpit contacts the ground.

Mike Schumann

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
news:cM2Gi.4278$Z33.306@trndny08...
wrote:
i know that BRS systems have been pretty common in
ultralights for a while. and used successfully. I would think that
sailplanes would have similar descent rates but still not as much
energy absorption as them.

That is one of the challenges for the glider rescue designer. The descent
rate must be limited to what the fuselage can provide in pilot protection.
Older gliders (say, before the ASW 24) had "weak" fuselages and would
require a relatively large parachute, compared to modern gliders. A large
parachute is heavier, takes up more space, and makes it harder to deploy
slowly enough to avoid huge forces on the glider structure and pilot.
Another problem is ensuring the fuselage and remaining bits descend
without a lot of oscillating, so the cockpit hits the ground at the right
attitude to absorb enough energy to protect the pilot.

All things considered, it is much easier and cheaper to retrofit a NOAH
system, even though it doesn't provide exactly the same function. The
problem is much easier to solve in an ultralight, because of their slower
speeds and lighter weights.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org



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

Streifender developed a BRS system for gliders, his website (sorry, in
german) is http://www.streifly.de/Preise9-00.htm
That´s the system you can buy with some of the newer Schempp - Hirth and
Schleicher gliders.

Michael

On Sep 12, 11:54 pm, "Michael Huber" wrote:
Streifender developed a BRS system for gliders, his website (sorry, in
german) ishttp://www.streifly.de/Preise9-00.htm
That´s the system you can buy with some of the newer Schempp - Hirth and
Schleicher gliders.

Michael


I am suprised no one has mentioned the Sparrowhawk Glider. Everyone
of the 20
or so sparrowhawks except one has a BRS parachute. The decision was
to go
with a large parachute to REDUCE opening shock. The one is use in
rated for a
900 lb. aircraft. The Sparrowhawk fully loaded with the heaviest
possible pilot would
not even be 500 lbs. I suspect it will come down quite slowly.

Greg Cole fired off the ballistic parachute while it was attached to
the Sparrowhawk.
It was a ground test. He has it on video and it deployed perfectly
with no problems.
The cost is somewhere around $3000.00.

George Young, Sparrowhawk owner # 6

Nearly all of Pipistrel aircraft have chutes fitted

bikensoar wrote:
On Sep 12, 11:54 pm, "Michael Huber" wrote:
Streifender developed a BRS system for gliders, his website (sorry, in
german) ishttp://www.streifly.de/Preise9-00.htm
That´s the system you can buy with some of the newer Schempp - Hirth and
Schleicher gliders.

Michael


I am suprised no one has mentioned the Sparrowhawk Glider. Everyone
of the 20
or so sparrowhawks except one has a BRS parachute. The decision was
to go
with a large parachute to REDUCE opening shock. The one is use in
rated for a
900 lb. aircraft. The Sparrowhawk fully loaded with the heaviest
possible pilot would
not even be 500 lbs. I suspect it will come down quite slowly.

Greg Cole fired off the ballistic parachute while it was attached to
the Sparrowhawk.
It was a ground test. He has it on video and it deployed perfectly
with no problems.
The cost is somewhere around $3000.00.

George Young, Sparrowhawk owner # 6

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
.. .
You should contact the Red Wing Soaring Club in Osceola WI. One of their
members installed a Ballistic Recovery Chute in his personal glider a
couple of years ago. I vaguely recall that it cost him around $3,000.

Mike Schumann


HP-16 N8DC (http://tinyurl.com/2frz7p) has a Ballistic Recovery System
(http://tinyurl.com/yvfunq).

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/

Mike Schumann wrote:
The NOAH system looks like a kludge to me that does not address
survivability for accidents that happen at low altitudes.

It's a good design, intended to address exiting the glider quickly. This
is a very important at low altitudes. We all agree a glider rescue
system that *actually works* would be better in that situation.


Here is a link showing the specs and prices for typical BRS chutes:

http://www.brsparachutes.com/ViewDoc...?DocumentID=84

I suspect that the concerns about impact survivability in a glider are
overblown.

Technical Soaring, and probably other publications, has had articles on
the design and operation issues for glider rescue systems. You might
find your suspiscions are modified after you have read these articles.
If it were easy, all the manufacturers would offer one in all their gliders.

You might want to contact BRS directly to discuss this issue.

I have talked to a designer working on glider rescue systems. BRS is not
not as eager as you might think to have their products incorporated
into our gliders.

One way you could reduce the impact forces is to have the glider descend
under the chute so that the tail impacts the ground first and dissipates
part of the energy before the cockpit contacts the ground.

This requires the parachute to descend without oscillating while holding
the fuselage in the tail down position, basically flying backward;
further, the tail must be designed to absorb energy during impact, which
is not a normal design parameter. How can we know the installation will
do this without flight testing? Without careful design of the tail
structure, it seems likely to me that when the tail hits first, the
fuselage will slam down at the cockpit end, increasing the forces on it
and the pilot. And what protects the pilot if the tail is missing after
the collision?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org