Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparkorama
I'm just getting back into the sport after a long hiatus. I've seen that a lot of glider pilots fly with parachutes (ones they wear) and I have seen Ballistic Recovery System parachutes in planes as well. From my layman's view, it appears that getting out of a plane using a traditional chute after a mid-air collision seems exceedingly difficult and time-consuming. On the other hand, BRS chutes seem to deploy very fast and can be deployed very close to the ground. They can lower the entire plane safely to the ground in almost any terrain, and a few bruises to your bird or your body seems a lot better than certain death if you can't get out of a plane after a mid-air. So if this is true, and I am happy to say I am no expert, then why isn't everyone using these things? I think they should be mandatory in every new glider built. Thoughts?
Spark
|
IMHO,
Sailplanes are the ultimate expression of aerodynamics, and as such, demand an almost fanatical devotion to efficiency. Nothing about a sailplanes' design or construction is superfluous. Indeed, a cockpit that is merely adequate in size is deemed a luxury. New gliders run from about $70,000 to over $300,000. I don't believe adding an explosive or pyrotechnic device with a very short life limit (read a few years) with an increase of an estimated $10,000 to $20,000 in cost is what the new glider buying public wants.
Also, while I don't have hard data, I think backpack worn parachutes have thousands of lives saved across all aviation, I think you would have a hard time finding even a hundred lives saved with BRS, I'll even give you any Fb-111 capsule deployments into the count.
IMHO, BRS belongs in LSA, new GA (read Cessna) and selected ultralite aviation as an owner/buyer option, even in gliders as optional equipment.
Never mandatory.
Scott.