As I said, I read what is written and mostly stay stub. That is until I read something that I know myself is 100% factually incorrect and that might effect the decision of someone trying to make a very personal choice. Then I just think it not proper or correct that miss information is bantered around. I feel a need to put things right. Therefore, if full details are not known about the topic with 100% confidence, then you shouldn't really say anything especially when safety matters and personal losses are involved.
Gentlemen, let us all agree that you don?t have to look far before you read of many KR2 in flight failures. NTSB Identification: WPR11FA155 quote : The rapid descent was probably initiated by the separation of about half of the vertical stabilizer as a result of severe turbulence while the airplane was near the location of the final radar return. The departure of a portion of the vertical stabilizer and pieces of the rudder would have resulted in the pilot?s inability to control the airplane, followed by a rapid descent and subsequent in-flight breakup. KR2 G-BOLZ in the UK, broke up in the air, admittedly after a mid air collision that killed three of my friends. But these are extreme cases. Anyway it doesn?t need to be an inflight break up that causes you to want to get out and pull a string. We all know that the last reported radio transmissions from Ken Rand were, At 3:45 Ken reported he was icing -- at 8,000 feet. At 3:53 the last transmission was received: "I'm at three thousand and I'm going to hit!" Another Kr pilot carried out this unwise manoeuvres detailed below, the pilot initiated an intentional spin, throttling the engine to idle, pulling on the carburetor heat, and increasing the nose up attitude of the airplane until it stalled and entered a spin to the left. During the first few rotations the engine quit, and the propeller stopped turning. After several rotations the spin stabilized about 20 degrees nose down, and remained in the steady state until impact. During the descent the pilot was observed attempting various control inputs without effect. A canopy latch coming undone, is enough to open a sideways hinging canopy and have it detach in flight. With the disturbed airflow over the tailplane, it makes the aircraft very difficult to control. So it does not need to be structural failure of our beloved planes that makes one need to think a little more. Had these four pilots been wearing a parachute, what would have been the outcome and their actions? The structural integrity of the KR2 is not in doubt, but sometimes, certain factors negate this. But lets all agree not to say there have never been any known in flight failures of any kind, as its just not true. I come from a gliding back ground. I have worn a parachute through all of my flying of gliders, therefore I am biased. it is compulsory in some clubs to wear chutes, due to the close proximity to other gliders in thermaling flight. I?d never be without one personally after seeing three mid airs when racing gliders. But lets try and keep this to facts and nothing personal. There are on average 30 mid air collisions a year throughout Europe. Not everyone needs to get out, next to no glider pilots are professional sky divers yet the success rate for getting out is very very high. Different countries quote different figures. An ?air experience? member of the public who had never flown a glider before was taking a flight in a K21 glider in England in 2009. The glider was hit by lightning and the rapid increase in temperature of the air within the wings blew them apart and the melting of the control tubes meant that staying in the glider was no longer a viable option. The paying passenger hadn?t even been shown how to use the parachute, just how to open the cockpit and undo his straps. He worked it all out and landed uninjured. The pilot in the back sprained his ankle. Our BBC made a documentary about it. Glider pilots in Europe are taught that if you can not get out of the aircraft because of high wind forces keeping you in or the glider is spinning or out of control or your legs are trapped in the straps, or under the instrument panel, just lean forward or try to stand up and simply pull the cord. On many designs, this fires out on a spring the primary chute that pulls out the main chute and the chute will inflate and pull you out rapidly whether you are ready or not. The lowest known recorded height a glider emergency chute was open was 400ft. He survived. Parargliders have emergency chutes on board that will deploy in 60ft. That is 60 feet for a paraglider chute and 400 ft for a normal emergency chute operated by a complete novice, not the staggering 4,000 ft that was quoted. The chutes we use hear at the gliding club are 12 lb and they indeed have a rated minimum deployment altitude of 400ft. The guy getting out of the struck P51 mustang in England last year after a mid air collision removed his elevators was doing 200 knots and also at 400 feet. It was all over in about 15 seconds. Its on youtube. He bruised his arm. These are all facts, not opinions or guesses.. Facts. I agree, if you are still in control of your aircraft stay in it and take your chance, if you are not and you have a parachute? get out and use it. It is mentioned that John Schaffer did a flat spin from 8000', and survived. Has anyone asked him what he would have done if he had been wearing a parachute? Jumping out of a spinning or otherwise disabled plane is not without its risks as well... perhaps higher than sticking with the plane. Not according to the statistics offered by our CAA and British Gliding association. What if your plane crashes into a house and kills a family eating lunch? That'd be bad. Surely, if your plane is so disabled and out of control that you need to get out, the plane is still going to hit the dinner table whether you are in it or not. So this statement seems rather distasteful. I've got 150 hours hauling sky divers, was required to wear a chute, and I'm with Langford onthis one. I swore from my first flight that I would stick with the plane unless it was totallyout of control or fire licking at my toes. Ok, so you would jump if the plane is on fire and totally out of control. We have all seen the video of the two jump plane Cessna?s hitting each other with fire and wings falling off. If not, youtube, its scary and I?m glad they all had chutes. If a chute is of any value you need altitude. I would suggest that anything happening to warrant an exit would have to happen at or above 3000 feet if you were to have any chance of a clean exit, stabilize and pull the rip cord, and get a good canopy. I base that on an in-experienced jumper trying to exit an out of control aircraft having used up valuable altitude even deciding to jump and falling 1000 feet every 8 seconds after exit. Given that and the extremely low odds that you would ever need it make it a very low priority in my view. Go with your own comfort level...... So this means we should tell all those hundreds of people who are walking about today from bailing out aircraft below 3,000 feet that really they shouldn?t have bothered because they had little to no chance of surviving. I find that a little worrying and off putting and factually incorrect. There are approximately 60,000 glider and light aircraft and stunt pilots in Europe alone that wear parachutes and most of them never get above 2,000 ft agl. But what we should tell them is that actually they are wasting their time wearing their parachutes after reading what you have written from your experience. Jim asks, ?I have stalled the KR2 but I did not spin it. Does anyone have experience with spinning a KR2. Seems the close coupling would make that an interesting aviation experiment. The tail is a bit small so would it stop the rotation? If you have any thought please share.? Jim, if you read accident report NTSB Identification: WPR13FA380 this will give you a 100% factual report about spinning a KR2. I suggest if you want to try it, make sure you go very high and have a parachute on. I agree that Safety gear is a personal decision. Even if it just adds confidence, it has value. But Tommy, you have included the important word. ?Decision!? It is a belief of mine that we can only decide what is right for us if we have honest genuine reliable information to consider, not opinions or hear say, or rumour, but true facts. That is why I am saying that if people do not know what they are saying is factually correct beyond all reasonable doubt, they should not say anything at all. If anyone is upset or a bit miffed about reading what I have written, well it was never the intention. Heck I?ve got far better things to do with my time. But in return, when I read something that I know is not factually correct, well it makes me boil, especially when there is so much valuable experience at hand on KRnet that may be discredited or ridiculed but hear say or misguided opinions. People look to this site and ask for knowledge so they can have better understanding to make often personal choices for their projects. Let?s give them the best chance of making their right choice, by keeping to the facts. Regards, Colin H.
