This Parachute?

[skippydiesel]

In the light sport category/RAA; You might want to consider putting greater emphasise on your next aircrafts stall speed.

 

There are now quite a few very nice aircraft with sub a 35 knot stall (some as low as 27 knots) thanks to well designed flaps, that will still cruise at 120 -135 knots.

 

Low stall has a massive influence on  your chance of walking away from a crash with nil to minimal injury.

[facthunter]

Yes it does but the slow speed makes gusts more likely to bother you and the go around a more critical process. If you are genuinely below 40 Kts you are in a good place kinetic energy wise..  Runway length required is much less also. Nev

[skippydiesel]

4 hours ago, facthunter said:

Yes it does but the slow speed makes gusts more likely to bother you and the go around a more critical process. If you are genuinely below 40 Kts you are in a good place kinetic energy wise..  Runway length required is much less also. Nev

Well we are talking forced landing/parachute's - if its that gusty only your deity known where you will end up with a parachute, aircraft and personal. Give me control of the aircraft any day.

Edited September 21, 2021 by skippydiesel

[Blueadventures]

Hi Jack. The gliding club is active again from 9:30 on the 31st.  Could not find your earlier thread mention about them. Just for your info. Cheers Mike

[Carbon Canary]

On 20/9/2021 at 6:21 PM, Old Koreelah said:

That’s disappointing, Jackc. Our association/company should pull out all stops to help members trying to improve safety.

Looks like you have 19 on the side of your plane; that should make it easier to modify. I totally agree with the posts supporting a BRS. I wouldn’t like to bale out of our little planes at low altitude -where most of our emergencies happen.

 

There is more than one manufacturer of whole-plane parachutes. My BRS came with strict instructions on how to mount it. They insist the aeroplane arrives at the ground at a pronounced nose-down attitude, so the undercarriage absorbs most of the impact.

Just reviving an old thread here for a sec……

I too had a casual conversation recently with our association/company and was also told to think very hard and long before installing a BRS. The argument was based on too expensive, too heavy, too much maintenance……and essentially, don’t go there.

Yes, they are expensive and heavy etc, but if the aircraft owner perceives a safety benefit and is prepared to install one anyway, should our association actively support the decision,  not undermine it ?

 

I know from previous discussion on here, that BRS seems to be quite a polarising topic, and that’s fine - everyone is entitled to their opinion. I was simply surprised that a senior member of our association was so outwardly negative toward a safety feature that is mandatory in a number of countries.

 

Everyone should be aware of the pro and cons of BRS and there are many of both. My question is, our association is supposedly pushing safety, should they be supporting the installation of this safety feature rather than discouraging……or simply remain silent on it ?

[facthunter]

No one's stopping anyone installing a BRS but there are downsides which people MUST be entitled to mention. or where are we?   Nev

[skippydiesel]

16 hours ago, Carbon Canary said:

 

 

Everyone should be aware of the pro and cons of BRS and there are many of both. My question is, our association is supposedly pushing safety, should they be supporting the installation of this safety feature rather than discouraging……or simply remain silent on it ?

I vote for remain silent.

 

In my mind, the pros/cons are evenly distributed, so leave it up to the individual.

 

PS Just because a country legislates for something, does not automatically mean individuals or other countries should agree/support/adopt - we are far to prone to ovine behaviour/ following the latest fashion/trend without empirical evidence .

 

PPS I am one of those ratbags, who believes that once a person reached the age to vote, Governments/Authorities should no longer impose rules designed to protect the individual from themselves eg seatbelts, helmets, vaccinations, etc Nature will generally take care of those stupid enough not to take reasonable precautions for their continued health.

[facthunter]

ALL tribes will have rules or they don't survive. You are proposing anarchy. Do you like free medical services? Do you stop at red lights?  AS for vaccinations you obviously did not live when Polio was around and Tuberculosis, smallpox etc.

[skippydiesel]

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

ALL tribes will have rules or they don't survive. You are proposing anarchy. Do you like free medical services? Do you stop at red lights?  AS for vaccinations you obviously did not live when Polio was around and Tuberculosis, smallpox etc.

Wrong on every point but the first Nev.

 

Rules that protect the majority, from the minority and the minority, from the majority, are absolutely essential but not rules that protect the individual (adult) from themselves.

 

It would seem you may prefer "The Nanny State" where others are responsible for your actions & any resultant  consequences.

 

I am all for vaccination.   I probably have had more vaccinations than you will ever experience (those you nominated and several others).  If the selfish, arrogant, dim witted ,conspiracy theorists,  over 18 years of age, don't want a vaccination -  I support their right not to have it. I also support any restrictions/sanctions that may, at times, be imposed on the ant vaccinator,  should the epidemiologists (science) have grounds to so advise the Gov. This is called a consequence, where the majority require protection from the illogical minority.

 

I am all for protecting children - vaccination/seat belts/ helmets/ capsules, education/ nutation/ etc for those under the age of 18, as there is no guarantee that a  parent will do the right thing for their child.  It is therefore right that the State (having an interest in the wellbeing of future citizens) should legislate for a of minimum level of care in these areas.

 

When it comes to seat belts/helmets - my philosophy is just the same -  I personally  have been using these devises well before they became mandatory. That doesn't mean I think big brother should be deciding for me or any other adult.

 

I am for a free society( illusion?).  Freedom of choice may, at times, result in unfortunate  consequences - that my friend is the cost of freedom and something the adult individual should be made aware of (not prevented from doing).

 

Note: I have nominated 18 years of age as it is a common , in the west, for people reaching this arbitrary point, to be considered adult (others suggest 25 or over, for males)

[Marty_d]

No man is an island. Seat belts and helmets save lives but also lots of public health dollars and medical care. 

[facthunter]

It's NOT simply protecting themselves. It's the threat they cause to others that has to be considered.  IF someone is subjecting themselves to unnecessary risk and injury it's reasonable to try to educate them and  save community costs and general welfare and aid quality of life.

   Following your "It would seem?? there is nothing more than assumption. You don't know ME at all. What thinking person wants a "nanny" state?. The description itself is derisory.  If more flyers do themselves in WE ALL SUFFER and could easily disappear. Our Obvious  lack of duty of care  would expose those in charge  to all sorts of penalties and rightly so if you can JUST do  whatever YOU want . It's a Simplistic Illusory DREAM. I want max Freedom  for the majority of responsible people and Knowledge and responsibility rather than punishment to operate for safety Goals. A few random beat ups  by half a dozen individuals could seal the fate of us all. IF you're in a remote area and you can kill your self without creating a backlash on the rest of us,  go for it if that's your wish, but a preventable waste of any life is not good in any circumstance..  Nev 

[BrendAn]

a lot of xairs had brs fitted as an option. i spoke to someone who flew his for 14 years but did not have the brs.

he told me that the sink rate of the xair is almost the same as a brs descent so why bother.  and try finding somewhere to service the rocket part of the system when its due.  just importing a new one is a mission with dangerous goods restrictions these days.

[Old Koreelah]

32 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

No man is an island. Seat belts and helmets save lives but also lots of public health dollars and medical care. 

It would be possible to tally up the economic cost to society of the freedoms being proposed. Let’s face it, lots of people would not wear helmets or seat belts if not compelled by fear of a fine. The number of dead and maimed would rise, along with the cost of their care. 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Well While I think Nev is right as usual, I have a great sympathy for skippy's views.

Getting onto chutes, I flew with one in gliders for 40 years. They were mandatory for comps but it was looked down upon to wear one in a 2 seater unless you were doing aerobatics and you were both wearing chutes.

There is a video of a BRS opening too soon and killing the pilot after a very short  "figure 9 " flight. I reckon that RF guy is correct in that they are not necessary for the likely situations I will encounter. There was a case recently where the pilot used his BRS when I reckon he should have tried to land the ( Cirrus I think ) plane.

I have never heard of a Jabiru falling apart in the air and that is what it would take for me to either bale out or to use a BRS.

Here's an irrelevant bit of info...  There were a few bale-outs from gliders, all after mid-airs. NOT ONE of the chutes used were in legal repack time, and they all worked regardless.

I don't intend to use one in the Jabiru.

[spacesailor]

Your rights ! .

When it became compulsory to wear a ' crash. ' helmet , I decided to give up motorcycling  .

Over fifty years later , I had a wonderful ride With a ' Full face helmet' that was claustrophobic. 

But it was , my last ride of my life .

Until I can Feel the wind on my face .

spacesailor

 

 

[skippydiesel]

5 hours ago, Marty_d said:

No man is an island. Seat belts and helmets save lives but also lots of public health dollars and medical care. 

True to the first and a maybe to the second assertion.  I never been convinced by the dollar argument, it smells like  propaganda rather than empirical evidence.

Consider the motorcycle helmet, that saved the life of the rider, only to leave him (usually a him) a quadriplegic, bed ridden, dependent on others for every second of the rest of his life - what now is the  cost to the health system? and his quality of life?

Now consider no helmet - what cost might there be if he had died on the spot - I  don't have the answer but would speculate, pocket change, compared with the former scenario.

Now consider a dynamic& hard hitting education program, informing potential motorcyclists of the risks  inherent in motorcycle riding. A requirement to have real training before being awarded a license. Included would be the ability to reduced, a little, by the wearing of a suitable helmet & protective suit , those risks. The Gov may also encourage insurance providers to make wearing a helmet/suit a prerequisite to making a successful claim - in other words educate and create an environment within which people tend to make the a best decisions for themselves

[skippydiesel]

3 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

It would be possible to tally up the economic cost to society of the freedoms being proposed. Let’s face it, lots of people would not wear helmets or seat belts if not compelled by fear of a fine. The number of dead and maimed would rise, along with the cost of their care. 

Really??? I doubt history (pre mandatory set belts/helmets/etc) would support your prediction of carnage on our roads.

 

I hesitate to mention the USA (not the sanest population)  but as the only western nation (I know of) where many States do not require the use of vehicle safety equipment  I would doubt that they have significantly greater health costs,  due to people making their own decision on the matter.

[skippydiesel]

5 hours ago, facthunter said:

It's NOT simply protecting themselves. It's the threat they cause to others that has to be considered.  IF someone is subjecting themselves to unnecessary risk and injury it's reasonable to try to educate them and  save community costs and general welfare and aid quality of life.

   Following your "It would seem?? there is nothing more than assumption. You don't know ME at all. What thinking person wants a "nanny" state?. The description itself is derisory.  If more flyers do themselves in WE ALL SUFFER and could easily disappear. Our Obvious  lack of duty of care  would expose those in charge  to all sorts of penalties and rightly so if you can JUST do  whatever YOU want . It's a Simplistic Illusory DREAM. I want max Freedom  for the majority of responsible people and Knowledge and responsibility rather than punishment to operate for safety Goals. A few random beat ups  by half a dozen individuals could seal the fate of us all. IF you're in a remote area and you can kill your self without creating a backlash on the rest of us,  go for it if that's your wish, but a preventable waste of any life is not good in any circumstance..  Nev 

No offence Nev - just responding to your obviously strongly held beliefs - I just happen to think much (notice the qualification) of that belief is without empirical evidence.

 

There are far better ways to motivate the population, towards safer conduct (remember the AIDS advertising) than making laws to protect them from themselves.

 

I would also ask that you try not to miss quote me  - it does not serve you well.

[onetrack]

Quote

Consider the motorcycle helmet, that saved the life of the rider, only to leave him (usually a him) a quadriplegic, bed ridden, dependent on others for every second of the rest of his life - what now is the  cost to the health system? and his quality of life?

Now consider no helmet - what cost might there be if he had died on the spot - I  don't have the answer but would speculate, pocket change, compared with the former scenario

I've never heard so much rubbish in all my life. How many people wearing helmets in a crash have ended up in this state, compared to people who didn't wear helmets, ending up in this state?

 

This is pure American extreme right-wing "sovereign citizen" BS, full of faulty logic, and "backs to the wall" and "preppers", anti-Govt, "Big Brother" paranoia.

 

If wearing helmets increased risk, then no astronaut, no fighter pilot, nor any race car driver would wear one. The stats showed long ago that wearing helmets saved thousands of lives and billions in trauma, medical and legal costs.

 

No-one has ever brought or won a lawsuit whereby they claimed or won a judgement, that wearing a helmet caused them increased injury in a crash. 

[BrendAn]

truck drivers have changed the attitude to seatbelts in the last few years. when i started driving no one wore seatbelts , in fact the normal advice was they were dangerous because they trapped you in the cab. absolute load of rubbish, now i don't know anyone that gets in a truck without belting up.

[BrendAn]

Just now, BrendAn said:

truck drivers have changed the attitude to seatbelts in the last few years. when i started driving no one wore seatbelts , in fact the normal advice was they were dangerous because they trapped you in the cab. absolute load of rubbish, now i don't know anyone that gets in a truck without belting up.

and the last roadtrain job i had was carting iron ore off a minesite to port, all the prime movers were getting fitted with fluro seatbelts so safety officers could check at a glance that they were being used.

[jackc]

Todays Truck Cabs have more structural integrity with included safety design……thankfully 🙂 

[BrendAn]

Just now, jackc said:

Todays Truck Cabs have more structural integrity with included safety design……thankfully 🙂 

american cabs have not changed much until recently. the old idea of being thrown clear in accident doesn't sound that appealing to me.

[onetrack]

The idea of jumping or being thrown clear of the danger of injury or death in a rollover literally went out the window with forklift rollovers. Almost without fail, anyone who tried to jump clear, or was thrown from a forklift during a rollover, was crushed by the forklift landing on them. Thus, seatbelts are the greatest safety feature ever added to forklifts.

 

There's an amazing true story where a forklift driver in America sued Caterpillar for designing and producing unsafe forklifts, when his Cat forklift rolled on him, he was thrown from the Cat forklift (as no seatbelts were fitted to it), and he lost both legs when the forklift landed on him.

 

When the lawsuit was issued, the manager of the Caterpillar forklift design dept, was so intent on securing a win for Caterpillar, that he went out and got on the exact same model of forklift and carried out the exact same maneouvre as the legless victim - intent on proving that the forklift driver was simply negligent, and Cat owed him nothing.

 

Unbelievably, the Cat forklift the Cat manager was driving, rolled in exactly the same manner as previously - and the manager was thrown off, and the forklift landed on him, resulting in the Cat manager also losing both his legs!

 

Needless to say, Cat settled out of court with the victim for an undisclosed sum, and set about making their forklifts safer.

You will never hear this story publically, it took a lot of digging on my part to find this story, and Cat have tried to cover this story up, at every opportunity.

[Bosi72]

21 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

... all the prime movers were getting fitted with fluro seatbelts so safety officers could check at a glance that they were being used...

Until they buy one of these..

 

ps: this was referred to me by "professional" driver long time ago..