fcajump 153 #26 August 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteAs to a pilot getting out of a Cessna, we have a pilot from my (old) home DZ that is still alive due to his PEP. He figured a 26' lopo was a better option that his C-206 that had no tail after an on-step deployment. However, even KNOWING what to do, it still took from 10,500' to ~4,000' for him to simply "get out and pull" due to the gyrations of the airplane. (one experienced jumper was not able to exit at all And the average non-jumper pilot will not make the decision to leave until it is to late to do so. It only takes about 1/2 of 1 G and you cannot stand up from a seated position. Understood, but I believe in giving them the best chance if they do their part. Frankly, for myself and my skydiving wife, I consider that a Ballistic might be the better option for aircraft emergencies when one considers the various reasons to bail from a non-jump plane. As to brand, I like most of them. For Ram-Air, I would seriously consider the Aviator. For round, I think Mr. Butler has the most durable system. JWAlways remember that some clouds are harder than others... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,064 #27 August 31, 2006 Hi Sparky, Also, things happen very fast. I was sitting in the seat you are looking at. Jerry PS) Hope the photo comes through. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #28 August 31, 2006 QuoteHi Sparky, Also, things happen very fast. I was sitting in the seat you are looking at. Jerry PS) Hope the photo comes through. Here is your picture.These old guys, you gotta do everything for them.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyL 0 #29 September 1, 2006 I'm with you on the squares landing softly. My concern is more about the deployment during low unstable deployments possibly amongst wreckage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zing 2 #30 September 1, 2006 One thing to consider is that you'd want an emergency parachute that will sustain a high speed opening. The average pilot is going to stay with the airplane until they are convinced it can't be saved ... can't be flown ... may be on fire. Odds are that by the time a pilot decides to jump, the airspeed is going to up there, or past the redline ... faster than a low speed parachute may survive. The one time I was starting to think that baling out was an option, the airspeed was already above 300 knots. Sport DeathZing Lurks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #31 September 1, 2006 I agree completely. Sounds like its time for a C-9.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #32 September 1, 2006 I will cheerfully step into your debate, but will approach it from the angle of comparing pilots in distress with first jump students. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #33 September 2, 2006 QuoteI consider that a Ballistic might be the better option for aircraft emergencies when one considers the various reasons to bail from a non-jump plane. And just how many planes do think there are that carry an STC for a ballistic recovery system? I was discussing things in the real world.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fcajump 153 #34 September 3, 2006 QuoteQuoteI consider that a Ballistic might be the better option for aircraft emergencies when one considers the various reasons to bail from a non-jump plane. And just how many planes do think there are that carry an STC for a ballistic recovery system? I was discussing things in the real world. Well... over 18,000 installations, 1 entire line of factory production 4 seaters (Cirus), the Symphony 2 seater and currently in development for the Diamond Jet aircraft. O-yea and they are STC'ed for the Cessna 172 and Cessna 182 model lines... (there's a few of those still around...) The primary company lists 190 lives saved to date. Experimental and ultralite communities have been adopting them for years. While I suspect it will be a while before your average Queen, King or Otter are so equipped, it sounds like it is already available in the real world... JWAlways remember that some clouds are harder than others... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #35 September 3, 2006 Quote1 entire line of factory production 4 seaters (Cirus), That’s because they could not get the plane certified without it. I was talking with the owner of the company that makes the canopies for the Cirrus and they had 3 saves in one weekend. You mentioned that they are STC'd for Cessna 172 and 182. How many have you seen with a ballistic system installed? Actually an STC has been issued to the Cessna 150, 172 and 182. The Symphony 160 has only produced 15 planes so far and Diamond Jet won't have one to deliver until sometime in 2008. That puts us right back to the “real world”.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fcajump 153 #36 September 3, 2006 QuoteQuote1 entire line of factory production 4 seaters (Cirus), That’s because they could not get the plane certified without it. I was talking with the owner of the company that makes the canopies for the Cirrus and they had 3 saves in one weekend. You mentioned that they are STC'd for Cessna 172 and 182. How many have you seen with a ballistic system installed? Actually an STC has been issued to the Cessna 150, 172 and 182. The Symphony 160 has only produced 15 planes so far and Diamond Jet won't have one to deliver until sometime in 2008. That puts us right back to the “real world”. Ah... but if you look at my email where I brought it up, I (and any other person) only need it on one plane... "ours". However, you are VERY correct on one point... As "our" plane is only a dream for now and we are renting... the typical plane available for rent (or used sale) does not have one CURRENTLY installed. My quickest option to having parachutes for both of us would be to get a second bailout rig. I am simply looking to the future that I see being on-the-way. BTW - I was talking with the Cirrus rep at FFA (week of Dec 16th, 03) and asked if I had heard correctly that the only approved spin recovery was to pull the 'chute... He said "yes, but there really is no reason that a pilot should get into a spin except as an emergency" When asked about intentional spins, he asked why I would want to... The response of "because they're fun" got him somewhat annoyed. I guess they are not over eager to discuss things with pilots who also work at airshows ;-) Fear not, I predict that we will have plenty of work for quite a while, if only 2/3rds as often once the 180 day rulling goes through. Blue ones, JimAlways remember that some clouds are harder than others... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #37 September 3, 2006 QuoteHe said "yes, but there really is no reason that a pilot should get into a spin except as an emergency" Did you tell him that there is really no reason a pilot should crash an airplane except in an emergency but it does happen.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #38 September 4, 2006 Hee! Hee! This opens a large - and old debate - among flying instructors about whether or not student pilots should have to spin airplanes. Old school flying instructors believe in teaching spins to student pilots to reduce fear and to teach them how to recover from spins. Transport Canada supports the old school flying instructors. The other side of the debate is led by the FAA. After too many crashes involving student pilots - practicing spins - the FAA decided that incipient spins and stall recovery were sufficient. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DBCOOPER 1 #39 September 5, 2006 I think I need to squalk 7500 on this thread....Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #40 September 8, 2006 QuoteI think I need to squalk 7500 on this thread.... "Easy Victor" and hit the door! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #41 September 9, 2006 QuoteQuote1 entire line of factory production 4 seaters (Cirrus), That’s because they could not get the plane certified without it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That sort of certification dodge is more common than consumers know. For exactly a certain turboprop single's minimum approach speed (and stall speed) was a bit too fast for the FAAs certification standards. The FAA's goal was to reduce the amount of energy delivered to the scene of an accident. The manufacturer got around the FAA's standards by installing energy-absorbing seats that reduced the G-load to passengers and crew during a - faster than normal - crash. Similarly, many light jets have such miserable stall and spin characteristics that the average pilot cannot recover. Fortunately, the FAA will still approve those light jets if the manufacturer installs a stick-pusher or stick-shaker that automatically activates a few seconds before a stall. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerrob 558 #42 September 11, 2006 And the average non-jumper pilot will not make the decision to leave until it is to late to do so. It only takes about 1/2 of 1 G and you cannot stand up from a seated position. Understood, but I believe in giving them the best chance if they do their part. Frankly, for myself and my skydiving wife, I consider that a Ballistic might be the better option for aircraft emergencies when one considers the various reasons to bail from a non-jump plane. JW >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed! Your average non-skydiving, private pilot is far better off with a ballistic recovery system for several reasons. First, he does not have to leave the familiar, comfortable confines of his cockpit. Secondly, he does not have to struggle with G-forces to bail-out. Thirdly, he can delay his decision (and most do) for several more seconds before deploying his BRS. Fourth, if he deploys his BRS over rough, mountainous terrain (like a Cirrus pilot did last year) he still has all of his electronic gadgets, luggage, ELT, survival equipment, etc. In the long run, a BRS is about the same weight and cost as a pair of high-end bail-out rigs but is more likely to be activated during an emergency. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #42 September 11, 2006 And the average non-jumper pilot will not make the decision to leave until it is to late to do so. It only takes about 1/2 of 1 G and you cannot stand up from a seated position. Understood, but I believe in giving them the best chance if they do their part. Frankly, for myself and my skydiving wife, I consider that a Ballistic might be the better option for aircraft emergencies when one considers the various reasons to bail from a non-jump plane. JW >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed! Your average non-skydiving, private pilot is far better off with a ballistic recovery system for several reasons. First, he does not have to leave the familiar, comfortable confines of his cockpit. Secondly, he does not have to struggle with G-forces to bail-out. Thirdly, he can delay his decision (and most do) for several more seconds before deploying his BRS. Fourth, if he deploys his BRS over rough, mountainous terrain (like a Cirrus pilot did last year) he still has all of his electronic gadgets, luggage, ELT, survival equipment, etc. In the long run, a BRS is about the same weight and cost as a pair of high-end bail-out rigs but is more likely to be activated during an emergency. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
