On Jan 19, 8:35*pm, Sparkorama
wrote:
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

--
Sparkorama

Do I not remember a Sparrow Hawk glider that was built with a BRS and
sold for a military application. The test pilot exceeded VNE due to
some ASI calibration errors. The glider came apart, in the process the
BRS self deployed because the cable pulled tight with the failing
airframe. On BRS deployment the resulting opening shock caused the
seat belt attach points to fail and the pilot was ejected through the
canopy. Lucky he was also wearing a backpack parachute and he
survived.

BRS is not a cure all if the structure fails.

T