Parachute anyone?

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 06:41:00 GMT, "Dude" wrote:

I would challenge Mr. Peltier's assertion that there is a great interest.
How many Van's owners do you know that are really interested? If he starts
with a lie, how do you trust his company or product claims at all?

I would think that a better solution for a Van's would be a personal chute
if you felt you needed one. But unless you are doing aerobatics, why?

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X19358&key=1

Ron Wanttaja

Ron,

If I had a fire, would I want a personal chute or a chute for the plane?
I think I would want out of the plane.

Even if I didn't have a personal chute I think I would try to land as
soon as possible, immediately comes to mind. I don't think a descent
rate of 2-5000' (or more) per minute would be unreasonable. The last
thing I would want to do is sit around in a burning plane that is slowly
(500 fpm) settling down to the ground.

I think the main reason for a ballistic chute is a major structural
failure. So I guess it comes down to what the odds of a major
structural failure are. I think you are our resident odds maker so
what do you think?

In cases of inflight fire sometimes there are advantages to a pusher.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Lee, SQ2000 canard project: http://www.abri.com/sq2000

Ron Wanttaja wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 06:41:00 GMT, "Dude" wrote:

I would challenge Mr. Peltier's assertion that there is a great interest.
How many Van's owners do you know that are really interested? If he starts
with a lie, how do you trust his company or product claims at all?

I would think that a better solution for a Van's would be a personal chute
if you felt you needed one. But unless you are doing aerobatics, why?

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X19358&key=1

Ron Wanttaja

How about no power over inhospitale terrain? Trees, large rocks, lot of
water, mountains, valleys. Would you rather fly in to these or settle down
on top of them? I try to avoid these areas, but there are a lot of people
that couldn't fly at all without relocating or taking a chance.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:38:29 -0700, Legrande Harris
wrote:

I think the main reason for a ballistic chute is a major structural
failure. So I guess it comes down to what the odds of a major
structural failure are. I think you are our resident odds maker so
what do you think?

In my analysis of the homebuilt accidents from 1998 through 2000, I count
about 30 cases of either structural damage or control failure on fixed-wing
homebuilts. That's out of about 606 total fixed-wing homebuilt
accidents...about 4.5% of the accidents. There was one additional accident
where the witnesses indicated the wing had failed, but the NTSB could not
verify it from the wreckage (happened at low altitude over a lake).

Of the 30 cases, 11 resulted in fatalities. One had a ballistic chute
(fouled on the structure during deployment). Three involved aerobatics.
One resulted from VFR flight into IFR conditions.

So, if the criteria is limited to fixed-wing structural or control failures
in non-aerobatic VFR flight, there were six accidents in the 1998-2000 time
period where fatalities might have been prevented with either a personal or
ballistic parachute. That's about 1% of total fixed-wing homebuilt
accidents.

This doesn't include the cases of in-flight fires (at least three, during
1998-2000), other common reasons for ballistic-chute use (engine failures
over hostile terrain, etc.), or those accidents which were not included in
the NTSB databases (ultralights, non-reported accidents, etc.).

Ron Wanttaja

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:58:15 GMT, I wrote:

In my analysis of the homebuilt accidents from 1998 through 2000, I count
about 30 cases of either structural damage or control failure on fixed-wing
homebuilts. That's out of about 606 total fixed-wing homebuilt
accidents...about 4.5% of the accidents. There was one additional accident
where the witnesses indicated the wing had failed, but the NTSB could not
verify it from the wreckage (happened at low altitude over a lake).

Of the 30 cases, 11 resulted in fatalities. One had a ballistic chute
(fouled on the structure during deployment). Three involved aerobatics.
One resulted from VFR flight into IFR conditions.

After re-reading this, I realized I should have provided more information
on use of "floatation devices." Of the 30 cases, three pilots bailed out,
and one successfully used a ballistic chute. Two of the bailout pilots
suffered minor injuries, and the third was uninjured. One of the three
(Fly Baby) was a failure of the primary structure, the other two were
control failures.

Thus, half the structural and control failure accidents were either fatal
or dire enough that the pilot opted for a recovery device.

Ron Wanttaja

Mid-airs are another case. A chute may still work with the structure
partially disintegrated or the control system jammed.

- Holger

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
...
This doesn't include the cases of in-flight fires (at least three, during
1998-2000), other common reasons for ballistic-chute use (engine failures
over hostile terrain, etc.), or those accidents which were not included in
the NTSB databases (ultralights, non-reported accidents, etc.).

Ron Wanttaja

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:37:22 -0800, Holger Stephan
wrote:
Ron Wanttaja wrote:
...
This doesn't include the cases of in-flight fires (at least three, during
1998-2000), other common reasons for ballistic-chute use (engine failures
over hostile terrain, etc.), or those accidents which were not included in
the NTSB databases (ultralights, non-reported accidents, etc.).

Mid-airs are another case. A chute may still work with the structure
partially disintegrated or the control system jammed.

True, but mid-airs are even rarer than structural failure. Nine homebuilts
involved in midairs in my 1998-2000 database period, five were fatal. In
some of the fatalities, the pilot was probably dead or unconscious after
the collision, so neither a personal nor ballistic parachute would have
been much good.

But...as I've pointed out in the past...in those rare cases where you
*need* one, nothing else will do.

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
...
True, but mid-airs are even rarer than structural failure. Nine
homebuilts
involved in midairs in my 1998-2000 database period, five were fatal. In
some of the fatalities, the pilot was probably dead or unconscious after
the collision, so neither a personal nor ballistic parachute would have
been much good.
...

I agree, Ron. However, even though mid-airs are rare they are one of the
causes for catastrophic accidents we have limited control over. By
selecting a (relatively) safe design to build one can get the liklihood of
it falling apart in flight under the chances of getting run over by one of
the blind nuts. For the design I build (BD-4) this is already true: There
was at least one case of a mid-air with jammed control system but no
catastrophic structural failure (great statistical data, ain't it?). BTW,
in the mid-air case the pilot got the elevator control unstuck just in time
to land a plane that had a third or so being ripped off earlier. He walked
away, so I guess that even counts as a good (however not perfect) landing.

Ever since these two military jets came in no time out of nowhere and buzzed
in close proximity under my hang glider over the Largo di Garda in Italy I
do the swivel with some sense of urgency.

- Holger