Bump tolerence

[Tomo]

I heard once of a C206 in Alaska on charter got hit by turbulence and ended up, up-side-down... the girl flying just rolled it back over and continued on... ops normal!

 

 

[eightyknots]

I heard once of a C206 in Alaska on charter got hit by turbulence and ended up, up-side-down... the girl flying just rolled it back over and continued on... ops normal!

She must have been really strong to turn it back over!

 

Here is another amazing survival without a parachute. This time the person wasn't encapsulated in the tail section of the plane like Vesna Vulovic in the post above:

 

On March 24th, 1944, twenty one year-old Sergeant Nicholas Alkemade – a crew member of a RAF squadron bomber – was shot down over Germany after a raid on Berlin. His bomber was attacked by Luftwaffe fighters, caught fire, and began to spiral out of control. Alkemade’s parachute was destroyed by the fire, and preferring to die from impact rather than fiery crash – Alkemade opted to jump from the aircraft without one.

 

His fall of 18,000 feet was broken by pine trees and snow cover on the ground below. He was able to move his arms and only suffered a sprained leg. The bomber crashed in flames and killed four others from the crew. Later caught by Nazis on the ground, Alkemade was somewhat of a cult hero amongst the Germans for having the mettle to jump without a parachute. The Germans were so impressed, as a matter of fact, that Alkemade (pictured below) was awarded a medal for his feat while a POW.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[eightyknots]

Here is another notable non-parachute survivor:

 

Alan Magee was a US Airman during WWII who, on January 3rd 1943, survived a 22,000-foot fall when his B-17 Flying Fortress had its right wing shot off by German Luftwaffe fighters. Magee was wounded in the attack but managed to escape from the turret. Missing a wing, the bomber entered a deadly spin toward the earth below. Like Alkemade, Magee’s parachute was also destroyed in the ensuing fire. Choosing to fall to his death rather than perish in the bomber, Magee lept from the plane sans parachute, losing consciousness as he plummeted over four miles to the earth below.

 

Magee (pictured below) eventually crashed through the glass roof of the St. Nazaire railroad station. Somehow, the glass roof cushioned his fall, and rescuers found Magee alive on the floor of the station. He had 28 shrapnel wounds, several broken bones, severe damage to his nose and eye, lung and kidney damage, and his right arm was nearly severed – but he survived.

 

 

 

[Tomo]

She must have been really strong to turn it back over!

You're a funny one... it was flying of course!

 

 

[eightyknots]

These cases show how rare it is to fall from a great height and still survive. Here is the fourth and last such case (no pictures available):

 

The oldest record of a notable survived free fall is that of Ivan Chisov. Chisov was a Soviet Air Force Lieutenant who fell 22,000 feet when his Ilyushin II-4 bomber was attacked by German fighters. With the battle still raging all around his crashing bomber, he opted to not open his parachute immediately, instead waiting until he could free fall below sight of the German fighters. Unfortunately he lost consciousness almost immediate after jumping and was unable to pull the rip cord.

 

Chisov miraculously survived. Falling between 120-150 mph, he hit the edge of a snowy ravine and rolled down toward the bottom. He suffered a broken pelvis, leg, and some spinal injuries but was later able to make a full recovery. Three months later he was flying again.

 

OK, the rest of will have to rely on landing our plane somehow, or using a BRS if fitted.

 

 

[flyerme]

another rough morning.Took the supercat for a fly to coomandook ,then to KiKi,,then Peake and home,yep I've got some rough air here, constant turbulance(mainly sink) here over sherlock but sitting at 1500 was pretty smooth all the way, a lil too rough at my Peake strip to fly her between trees but over sherlock on final she was rough,,made for an interesting landing as asi fluctuating and plane sinking, on the ground wind socks are all dead still ,not a wisp of wind ,forcast is 2.9 knotts overcast 6 deg..It seems to be some of the roughest air Ive had to fly through the last month or so,was accually smoother here on the summer mornings?

 

P.S had a Jabi here couple days ago but don,t think they seen me standing on the strip.. still waiting for someone to put her down? Mark Rindel and his 4 seat jabi ,will hopfully put her down here,He had a look when he stayed here last week and is pretty conferdent..I'll be waiting with the kettle boiling...

 

and loving these stories,

 

 

[dazza 38]

All you blokes need to do, is wear a wing suit. You dont need a parachute or a BRS. (You will need a Sh^t load of empty boxes to land on though.)

 

 

[facthunter]

Realistically getting out of a damaged plane that may be spinning wildly with resultant"G" forces holding you somewhere is not a guaranteed deal. You could be injured badly too. IF you are on fire you might get down quicker without the Chute and you might land it better. At low altitudes it is not useful. It weighs a considerable amount that is there always. It has to be re-certified periodically, and is a hazardous object to carry and post and to anyone trying to get you out of the plane. It has to be primed? to work. Most planes that use them are a write-off..

 

Getting back to the 3 safety issues I mentioned earlier ... Mid air yes but you might already be dead. Inflight fire Perhaps not. Time is the essence. Structural failure. Yes but this is the most unlikely possibility of the three if the aircraft is strong where it needs to be, and operated properly.

 

Most accidents occurr on the TO or Landing phase when it is not effective.

 

You are out of pocket quite an amount and with a re-occurring cost. The weight might as well be going into the aircraft's structure. It has a danger factor to others. Of course IF it works for you one day you will be happier for sure. I wouldn't think turbulence would be the reason for installing one. Nev

 

 

[Louis Moore]

BRS Con =

 

 

Although having posted that video I feel I should also add I am neither for nor against BRS fitted to aircraft. Like every safety device available there are situation when I would LOVE to have one and it would save my life and others where it could possibly cause more damage then it could prevent. Proper use is key and that takes avoiding using the deploy handle as a panic button!

 

 

[fly_tornado]

you are far more likely to forget to remove your pitot tube cover than accidentally deploy your chute...

 

 

[Louis Moore]

you are far more likely to forget to remove your pitot tube cover than accidentally deploy your chute...

I am more meaning the panic scenario where you FREAK OUT and deploy the chute before really analysing if it was necessary to deploy it. For instance, you T/O with your pitot cover on, realize you have no airspeed indicate, PANIC and deploy the chute!!!!!

 

 

[fly_tornado]

that's one option, its unlikely though, everyone with a ballistic chute fitted to their plane knows its going to destroy the plane if its used.

 

 

[kaz3g]

you are far more likely to forget to remove your pitot tube cover than accidentally deploy your chute...

I feel a new thread coming on...

 

kaz

 

 

[dazza 38]

you are far more likely to forget to remove your pitot tube cover than accidentally deploy your chute...

True, and forgetting the pitot probe cover should turn into nothing more than a embarrassing lapse in judgment, and a inconvenience as we pull up on the runway after a aborted take off. We ALL check our airspeed indicators as we start accelerating down the runway/strip dont we.

 

 

[eightyknots]

BRS Con =

 

OUCH!

 

 

[eightyknots]

everyone with a ballistic chute fitted to their plane knows its going to destroy the plane if its used.

Yet another thread starting on this notion.....

 

 

[shafs64]

It makes me feel better that i am not the only one who doesn't like the bumps. now are their people who head to the airfield and once they takeoff and find its to bumpy they head for home.

 

 

[pudestcon]

Ahhh, bumps and turbulence, the bain of our lives it seems!!

 

When I was training in the Thruster, the wind sock and local conditions were studied very, very closely. The first hint of the wind sock 'tail flick' and it was "Orrr I dunno, might watch this for a while". Or, in summer, we flew very early before the thermals started - Northam is a real bitch:score 002: on late final, both strips, when there is a little heat around. We wanted consistant predictable conditions so that consecutive circuits could be flown in the same conditions:plane:, to build up an appreciation of what was required to land a Thruster.

 

Now that I have the landings in some semblance of order, and can reasonably re-produce a respectable landing each time, my acceptable level of turbulent conditions for flying has gone up considerably - as it should. The windiest conditions I have flown in was just last week when I did a few circuits:super hero: before calling it a day. It was a case of working hard:crazy: on each landing, which I reckon was good experience, but I was right in calling it a day when I did, as on the rollout the wind gusted enough (with the airspeed indicator showing 20kts) to lift the starboard wing enough causing me to take some very quick control movements to negate.

 

As for thermals; I find them fun for the most part, but I can't see the sense in getting beat up when I'm only flying for the pleasure of it. If I have to hold on to the frame tube to steady myself in the seat for very long, then it's time to land and boil the billy:coffee:

 

Pud

 

 

[facthunter]

Good post Pud. It shows the way you adapt as time goes on but still keep your objectivity. Might have to call you Prudentcon. Nev