Emergency parachutes in UK?

[Lowtimer]

Any pointers for advice / info / sales on parachutes in the UK? I'm starting to get into aerobatics and likely to be doing quite a bit of solo aero practice in the months ahead, in the likes of the Pitts and Yak. Haven't worn one isince the air cadets, and I'm aware that parachutes have come on a fair way in recent years. I've tried searching the web but not found anything.

[MLS-12D]

Lowtimer,

The British Gliding Association [www.gliding.co.uk/]
and the British Aerobatic Association [www.aerobatics.org.uk/] can both steer you in the right direction.

Alternatively, here's a couple of parachute manufacturers' website (presumably they can provide contact information for your local distributor):
www.strongparachutes.com/emerpara.html
www.nationalparachute.com/

I hope that helps.

MLS-12D:cool:

[chrisN]

Some extracts from some correspondence I had with other people, FWIW [sorry it's long, but I hope it helps]:


I had a long talk with [a person] who was then a director with
[ a reputable UK emergency parachute manufacturer of long standing] .

He told me that there are no industry standards which anyone has to
meet, for design or test of parachutes. Each maker does what he wants.
He led me to believe that GQ, Irvin and Strong are all good, reputable
makers who have their own test regimes and can be relied upon. The
absence of recommendation for others is either because he didn't know
the others or chose not to speak about them.

He emphasised that what glider pilots need is an emergency parachute
that will open quickly and reliably, does not need parachutists training
to work, etc.

I passed this info to my club, who needed 10 chutes. They looked at the
market and decided that [a newer entrant to this market] were cheapest
and bought 10 of those.

After a year, the chutes were sent for repacking to one of our nearest
packers. He refused to repack them on the grounds that he did not want
to be tied in to any liability claim if they failed to save life under
our circumstances. He explained that the chutes were designed for
experienced parachutists trained to jump and get into the right attitude
before deployment. If the user did not do this, the canopy could tangle
and fail to open properly. He advised that this could be partly cured
by having them modified by adding a "diaper" which lets out the canopy
in a sort of shroud, and then gradually releases it, reducing risk of
tangling, but adding seconds and hundreds of feet to the time and height
loss during deployment.

We sent the chutes back to the maker who added the diapers. He claimed
it was unnecessary, but did it for free anyway during their repack, as
we had not been able to get anyone else to repack his products.

In January we decided to have them repacked again by the maker. I took
the first 5 to his factory instead of posting them as before. I was not
impressed by what I saw. I did not consider that it would meet a
reasonably rigorous quality regime - bits of material and templates
lying on the floor, no apparent quality control procedure, etc. What I
was looking at was an outfit run by a sport parachutist who turned his
sport into a paying hobby/living, designing his own chutes and then
selling them I did not get the impression that he did stress analysis
on the load-bearing parts, but rather relied upon trial and error or
experience instead. I could not find out what test regime was used -
whether deployment in the wrong positions was tested (various modes),
how many times, how repeatable, etc.

I have heard that [some recently available] Polish 'chutes are military canopies etc. packaged
in a housing developed for cheap civilian sales. This is not
authoritiative, and if you seriously consider buying them I suggest you
ask some searching questions. Also, think about who is answering them
and how far you can trust their expert knowledge on the subject or
whether there is an independent source you can reliably check with. I
would not trust an unknown source where I could not find out if they
were properly catering for amateur users with no training who just need
to pull it once and have it work regardless of which way up you are at
the time.

I would not buy a parachute for my own protection from any company that
did not appear to have a proper approach of the kind I am used to in
aviation and automotive industries. I have a GQ 'chute.

( I worked for Rolls Royce Aero Engines as an engineer, and for Ford as
a financial controller associated with engineering costs and development
on cars and trucks - I learned a bit about test programmes, FMEA
[Failure Mode Effect and Analysis - a standard aviation/auto industry
approach to analysing what could go wrong and trying to design ways to
avoid them - just one of many tools used by professionals] etc.. I
doubt if the people I spoke to [at the recent entrant's factory] would have heard of FMEA or understood
the concept - they had not come from that sort of industrial environment
as far as I could tell.)

---------------------------

1. I saw [ a recent entrant's] repack facility - it is a long bench at the back
of their workshop. They appear not to rehang them. They don't have a
high enough roof in the facility I saw, and I believe it is their only
factory. I believe that sport parachutists don't normally rehang
parachutes because they use them and repack them frequently. They don't
seem to have the same culture as the folk who make and repack chutes for
emergency use only which never normally get deployed. My impression is
that they operate in a different way, with different risks, and what
they do is fine for them but not for our application.

2. I used to have my syndicate's chute repacked at least every year. I
once took an Irvin or GQ chute (I forget which) to a parachute club for
repacking, which they did cheaply as usual (and without hanging it
first). I watched while it was done - looked OK to my untutored eyes.
[Do you know how they repack the shrouds? This lady folded up the
bundle each time it had to be fitted into a loop of tape, zigzagging
across the case; pushed a piece of wood like a ruler into the fold of
cords, and pushed the folded bundle through the very tight-fitting loop
with a lot of effort. It looks a horrible thing to do to the cords.
Imagine that on the same place in every fold of cords, every 4 or 6
months for 20 years or so.] A year or so later I took it to a licensed
repacker at Marshalls (Cambridge Airport). He invited me to deploy it
there and then, so I pulled the handle. The case opened and nothing
else happened. He looked concerned and pulled the case further open. He
exposed the drogue (the little sprung chute that pulls out the big one)
and told me that it had been packed with the spring inside out so it had
not deployed properly. [Somebdy wrote of a reputable company's policy on repacking] "They will not guarantee a chute
without it is repacked either by them or by someone who is certified to
repack who has been through one of their authorised courses." I'm not
surprised, neither would I. I won't use unauthorised packers now.

3. I went to a talk by Mr. Strong, of Strong chutes, at a BGA
conference. He said that the only reason for repacking frequently is to
ascertain if multiple users or unknown history have caused a problem.
For one private owner who knows it has not been left out in the rain,
exposed to mice making nests, or any other hazards, repacking causes
wear and does no good. [See 2 above for example of how wear is caused.]
When I bought my current GQ chute, I left it 10 years before its first
repack at Marshalls. Their man said I had overdone it a bit but in fact
it was entirely serviceable, popping out as it should when deployed.
Compare and contrast with 2 above.
---------------------------------
German gliding bale-out statistics (more data than any other European
country AFAIAA) showed very poor survival rates below 1000 feet bale
out, very good above 2000 feet, and progressive between those two.


The most recent UK glider bale out was from about 1200 feet above
AIRFIELD level, but the pilot waited until he was over a valley and
hence had a few hundred feet more height above that ground level. I
heard yesterday that he was seen to be plummeting to the ground until he
disappeared below airfield level, but the chute then deployed properly
and he landed in trees in the valley almost unharmed.

----------------------------------------------------

Differences with leaving a powered aircraft that occur to me are usually
simpler exit procedures for gliders, canopies are designed to be
jettisoned quickly, and in modes where bale out is likely to be needed,
airspeed is often slower - exceptions being inadvertent exceeding VNE
which pulls the gliders wings off, and also usually results in fatality
of pilot - either disabled by aircraft breakup or just unable to get out
at that speed.

------------------------------

[chrisN]

Some extracts from some correspondence I had with other people, FWIW [sorry it's long, but I hope it helps]:


I had a long talk with [a person] who was then a director with
[ a reputable UK emergency parachute manufacturer of long standing] .

He told me that there are no industry standards which anyone has to
meet, for design or test of parachutes. Each maker does what he wants.
He led me to believe that GQ, Irvin and Strong are all good, reputable
makers who have their own test regimes and can be relied upon. The
absence of recommendation for others is either because he didn't know
the others or chose not to speak about them.

He emphasised that what glider pilots need is an emergency parachute
that will open quickly and reliably, does not need parachutists training
to work, etc.

I passed this info to my club, who needed 10 chutes. They looked at the
market and decided that [a newer entrant to this market] were cheapest
and bought 10 of those.

After a year, the chutes were sent for repacking to one of our nearest
packers. He refused to repack them on the grounds that he did not want
to be tied in to any liability claim if they failed to save life under
our circumstances. He explained that the chutes were designed for
experienced parachutists trained to jump and get into the right attitude
before deployment. If the user did not do this, the canopy could tangle
and fail to open properly. He advised that this could be partly cured
by having them modified by adding a "diaper" which lets out the canopy
in a sort of shroud, and then gradually releases it, reducing risk of
tangling, but adding seconds and hundreds of feet to the time and height
loss during deployment.

We sent the chutes back to the maker who added the diapers. He claimed
it was unnecessary, but did it for free anyway during their repack, as
we had not been able to get anyone else to repack his products.

In January we decided to have them repacked again by the maker. I took
the first 5 to his factory instead of posting them as before. I was not
impressed by what I saw. I did not consider that it would meet a
reasonably rigorous quality regime - bits of material and templates
lying on the floor, no apparent quality control procedure, etc. What I
was looking at was an outfit run by a sport parachutist who turned his
sport into a paying hobby/living, designing his own chutes and then
selling them I did not get the impression that he did stress analysis
on the load-bearing parts, but rather relied upon trial and error or
experience instead. I could not find out what test regime was used -
whether deployment in the wrong positions was tested (various modes),
how many times, how repeatable, etc.

I have heard that [some recently available] Polish 'chutes are military canopies etc. packaged
in a housing developed for cheap civilian sales. This is not
authoritiative, and if you seriously consider buying them I suggest you
ask some searching questions. Also, think about who is answering them
and how far you can trust their expert knowledge on the subject or
whether there is an independent source you can reliably check with. I
would not trust an unknown source where I could not find out if they
were properly catering for amateur users with no training who just need
to pull it once and have it work regardless of which way up you are at
the time.

I would not buy a parachute for my own protection from any company that
did not appear to have a proper approach of the kind I am used to in
aviation and automotive industries. I have a GQ 'chute.

( I worked for Rolls Royce Aero Engines as an engineer, and for Ford as
a financial controller associated with engineering costs and development
on cars and trucks - I learned a bit about test programmes, FMEA
[Failure Mode Effect and Analysis - a standard aviation/auto industry
approach to analysing what could go wrong and trying to design ways to
avoid them - just one of many tools used by professionals] etc.. I
doubt if the people I spoke to [at the recent entrant's factory] would have heard of FMEA or understood
the concept - they had not come from that sort of industrial environment
as far as I could tell.)

---------------------------

1. I saw [ a recent entrant's] repack facility - it is a long bench at the back
of their workshop. They appear not to rehang them. They don't have a
high enough roof in the facility I saw, and I believe it is their only
factory. I believe that sport parachutists don't normally rehang
parachutes because they use them and repack them frequently. They don't
seem to have the same culture as the folk who make and repack chutes for
emergency use only which never normally get deployed. My impression is
that they operate in a different way, with different risks, and what
they do is fine for them but not for our application.

2. I used to have my syndicate's chute repacked at least every year. I
once took an Irvin or GQ chute (I forget which) to a parachute club for
repacking, which they did cheaply as usual (and without hanging it
first). I watched while it was done - looked OK to my untutored eyes.
[Do you know how they repack the shrouds? This lady folded up the
bundle each time it had to be fitted into a loop of tape, zigzagging
across the case; pushed a piece of wood like a ruler into the fold of
cords, and pushed the folded bundle through the very tight-fitting loop
with a lot of effort. It looks a horrible thing to do to the cords.
Imagine that on the same place in every fold of cords, every 4 or 6
months for 20 years or so.] A year or so later I took it to a licensed
repacker at Marshalls (Cambridge Airport). He invited me to deploy it
there and then, so I pulled the handle. The case opened and nothing
else happened. He looked concerned and pulled the case further open. He
exposed the drogue (the little sprung chute that pulls out the big one)
and told me that it had been packed with the spring inside out so it had
not deployed properly. [Somebdy wrote of a reputable company's policy on repacking] "They will not guarantee a chute
without it is repacked either by them or by someone who is certified to
repack who has been through one of their authorised courses." I'm not
surprised, neither would I. I won't use unauthorised packers now.

3. I went to a talk by Mr. Strong, of Strong chutes, at a BGA
conference. He said that the only reason for repacking frequently is to
ascertain if multiple users or unknown history have caused a problem.
For one private owner who knows it has not been left out in the rain,
exposed to mice making nests, or any other hazards, repacking causes
wear and does no good. [See 2 above for example of how wear is caused.]
When I bought my current GQ chute, I left it 10 years before its first
repack at Marshalls. Their man said I had overdone it a bit but in fact
it was entirely serviceable, popping out as it should when deployed.
Compare and contrast with 2 above.
---------------------------------
German gliding bale-out statistics (more data than any other European
country AFAIAA) showed very poor survival rates below 1000 feet bale
out, very good above 2000 feet, and progressive between those two.


The most recent UK glider bale out was from about 1200 feet above
AIRFIELD level, but the pilot waited until he was over a valley and
hence had a few hundred feet more height above that ground level. I
heard yesterday that he was seen to be plummeting to the ground until he
disappeared below airfield level, but the chute then deployed properly
and he landed in trees in the valley almost unharmed.

----------------------------------------------------

Differences with leaving a powered aircraft that occur to me are usually
simpler exit procedures for gliders, canopies are designed to be
jettisoned quickly, and in modes where bale out is likely to be needed,
airspeed is often slower - exceptions being inadvertent exceeding VNE
which pulls the gliders wings off, and also usually results in fatality
of pilot - either disabled by aircraft breakup or just unable to get out
at that speed.

------------------------------

[Lowtimer]

MLS, ChrisN,
That's a mine of information - thank you very much. I think I'll stick with the well-known makes. The points about the differences between sport parachutes for free-fall etc. and emergency parachutes which you hope never to use, are well made and well received.

[stiknruda]

Lowtimer,

I did a pretty comprehensive study a couple of years back and shortlisted 2. GQ (UK) and Para-phernalia (US)

As I wanted a back-pack as opposed to a seat pack or half and half I opted for the American rig. It is one of their wedge shaped containers and as it is so comfy I have never flown my Pitts without it!

I met Phil Silvers (IAC Parachute guru and spoke to him at great length about my requirements) ie - I want to buy something I never hope to use!

Collected my 'chute on a trip to the States and all in all it was a couple of hundred quid cheaper than the GQ model from RD Aviation.

Hope that helps,

Stik