Robert Mudd

From: Robertmudd1u@aol.com
Date sent: Mon, 28 May 2001 21:00:29 EDT
Subject: Re: huh?
To: marske@continuo.com

Matt, where are you going with the BRS idea for the club gliders? I do not
see how that will work.

Robert

I started by feeling that the board was incorrect in demanding that I not wear my chute with any passenger even if I I lent a parachute to them. The board has now softened its position and thats all I wanted.

I also decided that there was very little information on the parachute and that no where in our club does one get exposed to a parachute. There are also very few experienced people who have regularly used a parachute, except yourself. Our first exposure to parachutes is probably when one borrows a chute to fly the fall roundup.

I found that it was a bit odd, especially coming from the hang gliding world where we all wear parachutes..... even ballistic chutes. I know some will immediately say its because it is more dangerous in hang gliding..... but thats something I do not feel is so any longer.

There was also much hearsay about chutes... they do not work under 1000 ft etc. But when I phoned the manufactered he said they regularly jump at 500 ft and use dummies at 300..... and survive.... that was encouraging.

Then someone reminded me that most of our Monarch flying which is done at about 1000 ft..... so to get out and deploy a chute would test ones agility so I thought about the Monarch Flying and decided that a ballistic chute would be good.

The other major point is that a parachute is not an expense! After you buy it it still has value....so the real expense is the depreciation over the many years. In otherwords it is still an asset and can be sold after many years of service and as an added bonus it could save life.

When I looked at the ballistics for the Monarch and Pioneer, the repack on the chute is 6 years and the rocket is good for 12 years. So the actualy expense of maintaining them is very small.

Plus the fact that if you land under canopy with a fuselage around you then your survivability is very good especially if you are unfamiliar with landing a chute.

So if you have the money in the bank..... it might as well be in ballistic parachutes.

Now then I also noted that the lighter the wing loading the less expense the ballistic parachute so that made me think even more about the economic sense of light wing loading- grow weight.

Then I started thinking about the safety of the 2-33. Statiscally the hearsay is that you can't get killed in a 2-33. Even Jim Behrends said I was just scared and I should trust the plane and not wear a chute. When I started thinking about the airfoil and the negative pitching... that means anything that disconnects you from the elevator means instant death whereas with a positive pitching airfoil it will always trim out somewhat level with a disconnected elevator. The 2-33's are aging and we are lulled into feeling very secure about them.

There are midairs, poor visability from the back seat, jets coming in that do not make a proper pattern, and most of our pilots just stay around the airport. So with the above I do not feel very safe teaching in a 2-33 and I would like to fly with my parachute. Knowing I am not allowed to do so, I have chosen not to teach nor do commercial rides.

This also brings up a point that I do not feel the best teaching glider is the 2-33. But what glider is? This is something you are probably more able to answer.

So I'm doing a study of the parachute and the various branches that it leads from it.

No-one hasto read my material and I have no recommendations except to equip the Marske gliders with ballistic chutes.

-mat