BRS chutes. Why doesn't everyone use them?

On Jan 25, 7:05*pm, Tony V wrote:
Correction!

I was just taken to task by a hang glider (and sailplane) pilot
friend......

Hang gliders use "hand thrown" chutes, not "ballistic".

Cookie

Happily, everybody is right. :-) both hand-thrown and ballistic chutes
are available to the hang glider community. Seehttp://www.highenergysports.com/articles/ballistic_controversy.htmfor a
start

Tony LS6-b, USHPA 7826

Yes, according to my expert, both ballistic and hand thrown parachutes
have been and are used on hang gliders. But mostly hand thrown by a
large margin.

But my original point was that hang gliders widely use parachute
recovery systems, you could say "everybody uses them" and you could
say they are "mandated". I believe that the hang glider people have
decided to self regulate (as opposed to government regulation) and
require chutes at any "sanctioned" gliding site.

This is not the case in sailplanes however, for the reasons given in
this thread. Sailplanes are very different in some respects, than
hang gliders. I think that the "personal" parachute is the preferred
solution for sailplanes. Soaring also self regulates to some degree
as chutes are required in contests.

Cookie

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

I tried to get info from BRS last fall and received no reply to two e-
mails and a phone call. Have the fallen on hard times (economy
issues)? I was ready to buy one, but before plunking down $4500 bucks
I need to know they will support the product.
JJ

On Jan 19, 9:35*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

You say you are no expert yet you think they should be mandatory in
every new glider built. I find that to be a paradox.

Would it not make more sense to familiarize yourself with the subject
before deciding what should be mandatory?

Previously cited factors have included increased weight, increased
cost, lack of adequate test data, insufficient space and probably a
few more.

I was interested in BRS when it was offered as an option for the
ASW-28. It seems the brochure writer was ahead of the designer and
the option was never made available.

Andy

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

...I think they should be mandatory in every new glider built...
Thoughts?

I think that the idea is well-intentioned but ill-conceived. Others
have already pointed out that BRS totals the aircraft in most
deployments, usually results in injuries to the occupants, and is
otherwise very far from being a panacea.

If there were an affordable and reliable system that was guaranteed to
work in all sailplanes across a wide variety of conditions, I'd
probably not object so strenuously. However, that is not the case. The
systems that are available are bulky and expensive, and can be
difficult or impossible to fit into something small aircraft where
interior volume is so scarce.

Sailplanes present special challenges for ballistic recovery systems.
Their requirement for low drag can make it difficult to install the
suspension bridles without performance-robbing bulges and blisters,
and their wide range of operating weights makes it hard to tailor the
parachute size to the aircraft mass.

My strongest issue with the idea is the underlying assertion that
there is or should be some bureau or agency responsible for making BRS
"mandatory in every new glider built." Required for gliders that
receive type certificates after some certain date, I can sort of see
that. That's the sort of thing that the NTSB might recommend to the
FAA in a decade or two, and which the FAA might take under advisement
for a similar span. But required for gliders being manufactured under
current type certificates? No, sorry, I think that retroactive
requirements like that set a very, very bad precedent. And required
for Experimental, Amateur-built, and Experimental, Racing gliders? No
way. That would very much stifle the kind of innovation and
competition that those (non-)certification categories are designed to
foster.

That said, in the glider I am developing now, I have indeed reserved a
modest volume for a ballistic parachute system should some customers
express an interest in it. However, that volume is not available in
sustainer or self-launch versions, so you would have to choose between
the motor and the parachute.

In the overall scheme of things, the place to look for the deployment
of new systems like this are customers and insurance companies. Both
of them vote with dollars, and in the free market that's pretty much
the only vote that matters.

Thanks, Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

I think that the idea is well-intentioned but ill-conceived. Others
have already pointed out that BRS totals the aircraft in most
deployments, usually results in injuries to the occupants, and is
otherwise very far from being a panacea.



To me the key issue and logic for BRS is: a low altitude mid-air
collision where getting out and deploying your chute is going to be
dicey at best. Like in the traffic pattern or near the pattern which
is where most collisions occur.

Best example of a BRS being worth it at low altitude:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrVxp_gyTcI

Considering how light our gliders are--I think it's worth having--but
not mandatory.

Bob
GE2

On Jan 20, 2:16*pm, Bob D wrote:
I think that the idea is well-intentioned but ill-conceived. Others
have already pointed out that BRS totals the aircraft in most
deployments, usually results in injuries to the occupants, and is
otherwise very far from being a panacea.

To me the key issue and logic for BRS is: a low altitude mid-air
collision where getting out and deploying your chute is going to be
dicey at best. Like in the traffic pattern or near the pattern which
is where most collisions occur.

Best example of a BRS being worth it at low altitude:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrVxp_gyTcI

Considering how light our gliders are--I think it's worth having--but
not mandatory.

Bob
GE2

But I don't believe that near the pattern is where most glider
collisions occur-- I believe the major risk happens in thermals and
when entering/exiting thermals. And I don't say that lightly, as we
lost two pilots in Northern California in a collision between a glider
and towplane in the pattern not too long ago.

The issue is BRS is pretty invasive to install its a large package to
fit into a small space. My motorglider has *no* room for a BRS and I
see not practical way of adding room.

Its not an endless list of thigns we could/should have all of saftey
related technologies involve tradeoffs, effectiveness, cost,
complexity, reliability, weight, space, ... There are other saftey
technologies (like effective use of VHF radio and beyond that also
adding PowerFLARM, transponders (in appropriate areas), etc) that I
would much rather see people invest their money in than a BRS. If you
do all that then maybe look at a BRS. And I would be horrified to see
attempts at mandating or even pushing BRS and its potential to take
away money that would potentially be used to purchase VHF radios,
PowerFLARM, transponders etc. I assume everybody out there is wearing
a personal parachute, and if your are not its your life, but at least
using a radio effectively and a PowerFLARM can help save other lives
not just your own.

And possibly the best saftey investment pilots can make in the next
few months is... (you all thought I was going to say a PowerFLARM
right...) is a spring checkout with an instructor. Should we mandate
those? :-)

Darryl

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

On Jan 20, 2:16*pm, Bob D wrote:
I think that the idea is well-intentioned but ill-conceived. Others
have already pointed out that BRS totals the aircraft in most
deployments, usually results in injuries to the occupants, and is
otherwise very far from being a panacea.

To me the key issue and logic for BRS is: a low altitude mid-air
collision where getting out and deploying your chute is going to be
dicey at best. Like in the traffic pattern or near the pattern which
is where most collisions occur.

Best example of a BRS being worth it at low altitude:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrVxp_gyTcI

Considering how light our gliders are--I think it's worth having--but
not mandatory.

Bob
GE2

But I don't believe that near the pattern is where most glider
collisions occur-- I believe the major risk happens in thermals and
when entering/exiting thermals. And I don't say that lightly, as we
lost two pilots in Northern California in a collision between a glider
and towplane in the pattern not too long ago.

The issue is BRS is pretty invasive to install its a large package to
fit into a small space. My motorglider has *no* room for a BRS and I
see not practical way of adding room.

Its not an endless list of thigns we could/should have all of saftey
related technologies involve tradeoffs, effectiveness, cost,
complexity, reliability, weight, space, ... There are other saftey
technologies (like effective use of VHF radio and beyond that also
adding PowerFLARM, transponders (in appropriate areas), etc) that I
would much rather see people invest their money in than a BRS. If you
do all that then maybe look at a BRS. And I would be horrified to see
attempts at mandating or even pushing BRS and its potential to take
away money that would potentially be used to purchase VHF radios,
PowerFLARM, transponders etc. I assume everybody out there is wearing
a personal parachute, and if your are not its your life, but at least
using a radio effectively and a PowerFLARM can help save other lives
not just your own.

And possibly the best saftey investment pilots can make in the next
few months is... (you all thought I was going to say a PowerFLARM
right...) is a spring checkout with an instructor. Should we mandate
those? :-)

Darryl

It seems I caused a bit of a stir with the "mandatory" comment. I can see that it may not be so simple. However, I think the BRS system needs some good competition and maybe a glider-specific model. I wonder if in a few years they could bring down cost and size to make it more accessible to the soaring community. I imagine a well thought out glider model would be something a lot of people might consider. Does anyone know the stats or have personal info about getting out of a glider with a personal chute after a mid-air?

On Jan 21, 3:57*am, Sparkorama
wrote:
Darryl Ramm;760474 Wrote:



On Jan 20, 2:16*pm, Bob D wrote:--
I think that the idea is well-intentioned but ill-conceived. Others
have already pointed out that BRS totals the aircraft in most
deployments, usually results in injuries to the occupants, and is
otherwise very far from being a panacea.-

To me the key issue and logic for BRS is: a low altitude mid-air
collision where getting out and deploying your chute is going to be
dicey at best. Like in the traffic pattern or near the pattern which
is where most collisions occur.

Best example of a BRS being worth it at low
altitude:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrVxp_gyTcI

Considering how light our gliders are--I think it's worth having--but
not mandatory.

Bob
GE2-

But I don't believe that near the pattern is where most glider
collisions occur-- I believe the major risk happens in thermals and
when entering/exiting thermals. And I don't say that lightly, as we
lost two pilots in Northern California in a collision between a glider
and towplane in the pattern not too long ago.

The issue is BRS is pretty invasive to install its a large package to
fit into a small space. My motorglider has *no* room for a BRS and I
see not practical way of adding room.

Its not an endless list of thigns we could/should have all of saftey
related technologies involve tradeoffs, effectiveness, cost,
complexity, reliability, weight, space, ... There are other saftey
technologies (like effective use of VHF radio and beyond that also
adding PowerFLARM, transponders (in appropriate areas), etc) that I
would much rather see people invest their money in than a BRS. If you
do all that then maybe look at a BRS. And I would be horrified to see
attempts at mandating or even pushing BRS and its potential to take
away money that would potentially be used to purchase VHF radios,
PowerFLARM, transponders etc. I assume everybody out there is wearing
a personal parachute, and if your are not its your life, but at least
using a radio effectively and a PowerFLARM can help save other lives
not just your own.

And possibly the best saftey investment pilots can make in the next
few months is... (you all thought I was going to say a PowerFLARM
right...) is a spring checkout with an instructor. Should we mandate
those? :-)

Darryl

It seems I caused a bit of a stir with the "mandatory" comment. I can
see that it may not be so simple. However, I think the BRS system needs
some good competition and maybe a glider-specific model. I wonder if in
a few years they could bring down cost and size to make it more
accessible to the soaring community. I imagine a well thought out glider
model would be something a lot of people might consider. Does anyone
know the stats or have personal info about getting out of a glider with
a personal chute after a mid-air?

--
Sparkorama

You can't just stick one of these on an aircraft without doing some
extensive design and testing and the testing would involve trashing
the test bed. There is no one size fits all like a radio or
transponder. You have to look at the numbers of prospective customers
and retrofitting a chute to the relatively small glider market is not
financially plausible. If you've got very deep pockets anything's
possible--this just doesn't look profitable.

On Jan 21, 1:57*am, Sparkorama
wrote:
Darryl Ramm;760474 Wrote:



On Jan 20, 2:16*pm, Bob D wrote:--
I think that the idea is well-intentioned but ill-conceived. Others
have already pointed out that BRS totals the aircraft in most
deployments, usually results in injuries to the occupants, and is
otherwise very far from being a panacea.-

To me the key issue and logic for BRS is: a low altitude mid-air
collision where getting out and deploying your chute is going to be
dicey at best. Like in the traffic pattern or near the pattern which
is where most collisions occur.

Best example of a BRS being worth it at low
altitude:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrVxp_gyTcI

Considering how light our gliders are--I think it's worth having--but
not mandatory.

Bob
GE2-

But I don't believe that near the pattern is where most glider
collisions occur-- I believe the major risk happens in thermals and
when entering/exiting thermals. And I don't say that lightly, as we
lost two pilots in Northern California in a collision between a glider
and towplane in the pattern not too long ago.

The issue is BRS is pretty invasive to install its a large package to
fit into a small space. My motorglider has *no* room for a BRS and I
see not practical way of adding room.

Its not an endless list of thigns we could/should have all of saftey
related technologies involve tradeoffs, effectiveness, cost,
complexity, reliability, weight, space, ... There are other saftey
technologies (like effective use of VHF radio and beyond that also
adding PowerFLARM, transponders (in appropriate areas), etc) that I
would much rather see people invest their money in than a BRS. If you
do all that then maybe look at a BRS. And I would be horrified to see
attempts at mandating or even pushing BRS and its potential to take
away money that would potentially be used to purchase VHF radios,
PowerFLARM, transponders etc. I assume everybody out there is wearing
a personal parachute, and if your are not its your life, but at least
using a radio effectively and a PowerFLARM can help save other lives
not just your own.

And possibly the best saftey investment pilots can make in the next
few months is... (you all thought I was going to say a PowerFLARM
right...) is a spring checkout with an instructor. Should we mandate
those? :-)

Darryl

It seems I caused a bit of a stir with the "mandatory" comment. I can
see that it may not be so simple. However, I think the BRS system needs
some good competition and maybe a glider-specific model. I wonder if in
a few years they could bring down cost and size to make it more
accessible to the soaring community. I imagine a well thought out glider
model would be something a lot of people might consider. Does anyone
know the stats or have personal info about getting out of a glider with
a personal chute after a mid-air?

--
Sparkorama

I think you have it backwards, the market does not need more vendors/
different technology/competition. Potential vendors need a practically
addressable market. Your trying to sell a marginal improvement
(benefits of BRS vs personal parachute) at significant increase in
cost and complexity and installation hassles/limitations.

I don't see any dramatic changes in technology that will shrink the
package or make a fully installed (and approved/STCed etc. if needed)
and allow a price point of interest to most glider owners. BRS systems
are available now in some motorgliders (when the motor is not
installed and the new glider cost is enough that the purchaser is more
likely to be willing to accept the BRS system cost) and its great to
see them being designed into those aircraft, and Bob's HP-24, for
owners who want that option (and don't want an engine).

Darryl

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