Parachutes

[Pilot DAR]

but gliders are designed for getting out of

Hmmm, if I designed GA aircraft to get out of in flight, I'd have a great number of people asking me "why?". If I answered, "because, I think they might need to one day", I doubt the aircraft would get approved, until I made right the defect in the design! (I have not had occasion to work on aerobatic aircraft, which I acknowledge require this capability as a part of their design.

I have flown both gliders, and aerobatic aircraft, and only ever wore the 'chute while flying jumpers, because of regulation.

Staying with the airframe is certainly going to kill them.

Huh?

Yes, people get killed in planes, but lots survive crashes....

[FlyingKiwi_73]

I just thought about the logisitics of getting out of a tommie.

Unlock the doors (central roof lock)
Unclip harness - (very quick)
Open the door - (This would be interesting above 70knts)
Try and get out the door - (difficult enough on the ground)
Jump

how long does it take a tommie to spin through 4000-5000ft? good luck hitting the silk there, anybody disagree?

[eharding]

Originally Posted by Pilot DAR

Huh?

Yes, people get killed in planes, but lots survive crashes....

My point was that if you elect to abandon the airframe, you have already made a judgement that the implications of staying with it are worse than the implications of making your own way down. Personally, if most of the control surfaces are behaving as advertised, the number of lifting surfaces you have available is roughly equivalent to the number you had on the walk-round, nothing worth mentioning is on fire, and you can see something vaguely flat onto which to make a forced landing, then staying with the airframe is a much better proposition.

[thing]

DAR, it's mandatory to wear a 'chute in UK in a glider. I suppose I'm just used to wearing one and it feels a little weird not to do so. It's part of my flying, much like I suppose wearing a seatbelt/harness is to a power pilot. There's no real reason to wear a seatbelt when flying but you would feel odd not doing so.

[FlyingKiwi_73]

There's no real reason to wear a seatbelt when flying but you would feel odd not doing so.

Turbulence?

[SNS3Guppy]

There's no real reason to wear a seatbelt when flying but you would feel odd not doing so.

It might feel odd when your head goes through the windscreen or hits the panel, yes.

Apparently you've never heat significant turbulence, severe or worse. I have, and I can tell you that you'd better be wearing your seatbelt if you wish to maintain control, if you wish to avoid a trip to the hospital later, and if you wish to make it back on the ground. If you're injured in turbulence, you may not be able to return to land.

The seatbelt is part of the control system; you control the airplane, and the seatbelt keeps you in a fixed place in order to do that.

I've had turbulence bad enough that it broke headsets inside the airplane and stripped the guts out of my computer, in a padded bag, rolled us inverted, and shook us enough that the instrument panel was little more than a blur. I've had turbulence bad enough that a flight engineer was ejected from the flight deck. Perhaps you haven't seen a good reason to wear your seatbelt yet. Hopefully you won't. Wear it anyway, for those times that you might learn why.

The seatbelt is an integral safety component in the airplane. The airplane may or may not come with parachutes, or provisions for them. It does come with seatbelts, and in most cases, shoulder harnesses. Wear them.

Personally, if most of the control surfaces are behaving as advertised, the number of lifting surfaces you have available is roughly equivalent to the number you had on the walk-round, nothing worth mentioning is on fire, and you can see something vaguely flat onto which to make a forced landing, then staying with the airframe is a much better proposition.

BINGO!!

An excellent treatise on the subject was penned many years ago, entitled "Fly the Biggest Piece Back," by Steve Smith. I don't agree with all he had to say, but I do like his sentiment. The CAPS crowd in their Cirrus's would do well to heed the admonition.

how long does it take a tommie to spin through 4000-5000ft? good luck hitting the silk there, anybody disagree?

I don't know what a "tommie" is, but perhaps you mean a Tomahawk. Yes, I disagree.

Spinning through several thousand feet can take quite a while, and there's ample time to get out. Whether you can or not is another matter entirely.

Whether you can get clear without being struck by the aircraft, deploying the parachute early, damaging the parachute, striking your head, or running into other complications, is also another matter.

In my opinion this is the way ahead and in many ways negates the arguments for carrying a second engine in light aircraft

A second engine is for performance, and carrying a parachute doesn't replace a second engine. Ever.

All I can say Guppy is that many glider pilots lives in the UK have been saved by using a parachute, without training. They would have been dead had they not worn them, without training. I can think of no instances whatsoever where a glider pilot has jumped and he could have saved his aircraft by sticking with it, or he has jumped and been killed as a result of, and I've read every glider accident report for at least the last 20 years and many from before that. You can't argue that. Well you probably will.

Gliding in the UK is a drop in the bucket compared to what goes on in other parts of the world. When glider pilots hit the silk, it's generally either the the result of a midair collision (too many beaks in the same spot of sky under a cloud, along a ridge, or chasing thermals), or a structural failure.

This is seldom the case in powered airplanes, in when it is, rarely will wearing a parachute do much to save the tattered remains of your battered body.

Only a dedicated sky diver would maintain that risk elimination can be achieved by throwing yourself out of a functioning aeroplane. Because - and I mean no disrepect - they're nutters

You're what's affectionately called a "whuffo" in the jump industry. That's because we grow tired of hearing the phrase "Wuffo you wanna goan jump outta a perfectly good airplane, wuffo?" Or something along those lines. In the military, you'd simply be called a "leg." That's someone who doesnt jump.

Risk elimination is done on many levels, and isn't a one-time thing. It's done in the preflight. It's done in the preparation. It's done in the dirt-dive. It's done in the pack job. It's done in the rig, the harness, the testing, the second rig, the automatic activation device, in the reserve ripcord stevens system, and many other safety devices ranging from audio altimeters to crossbracing in modern canopies, to the use or zero porosity and ripstop nylon to redundancy in design, and so forth.

Skydiving isn't about risk. It's about freedom. Risk really isn't part of the equation. Skydiving is life in microcosm. We enter this world knowing that we have a finite amount of time to live. During that time we have certain duties, certain functions to perform. We may not know early in life how long the remainder of our time on earth will be, but we do know what we have to do, or we learn, or we die trying.

When we begin a skydive, we have certain tasks that must be accomplished, certain things that must be done. We have a finite amount of time remaining. When we leave the airplane, we know that we have exactly the rest of our life to open that parachute. That may be a minute, it may be thirty seconds, it may be longer, it may be less. If you were to wake up a terminal patient, knowing you had a limited amount of life remaining, you might try to make those few remaining minutes, hours, or days to be the greatest of your life. You might try to make the most of that time, enjoy what you had left.

A skydive is a celebration of that time; it is about the freedom of swimming in a medium you can breathe, about the world's fastest non-mechanized sport, about relaxation, about peace. I've found few activites that leave me as calm, as centered, or as relaxed as a skydive.

I've spent time in an intensive care ward as a result of a bad parachute, high winds, rough terrain, and some cactus. I've had three malfunctions with attendant reserve rides. I've had some interesting experiences, and some downright spiritual moments. I've jumped into the dark, jumped into the mountains, dropped into the desert, over the ocean, into corn fields, and even into a county fair. Presently I own two sport parachute rigs. Those rigs don't represent danger, they don't represent hazard. They represent freedom, salvation, and a ticket to an aircraft unlike a balloon, unlike a gyrocopter, unlike a helicopter, and unlike an airplane. The chance to pilot a canopy is every bit as enjoyable and rewarding as to fly a J-3 cub around a traffic pattern. In the jump world, we call people who fly canopies "canopy pilots," which is an apt description, especially given some of the extremely high performance canopies in use today.

None the less, we don't undertake a jump frivolously. Very thorough gear checks are done. Parachutes are carefully packed, lines cleared. When packing a parachute, I check every bit of fabric that might be trapped between lines, and clear it. I check every bit of cable, housing, webbing, closing loop, container, reinforcing seam, control line, brakes, riser, and so on, carefully, methodically. The skydive itself is planned; we rehearse how we're going to exit the airplane in what order, and who will do what, when, where, and how. We cover emergencies, we review them, we check each other, we signal, we communicate.

We carry gear in the parachute rigs which automatically deploys a parachute under certain conditions. We have means to cut away one parachute, keep another. We have means to quickly release everything in the event of a water landing. Some parachutists carry cord or equipment for highly unusual circumstances, such as getting out of a tree. We carry hook knives to cut. We wear altimeters on our wrists, chests, and inside our helmets against our ears. We watch each other. We train, we jump, we enjoy, and we live.

Skydiving isn't about risk, but risk elimination is practiced. To the Whuffo, skydiving is risk. It is not. It is freedom.

For those who wear a parachute but never train with it, how do you know what the canopy is supposed to look like? Can you spot a malfunction? If you're using around canopy, which many pilot rigs are, do you know how to address line twists, or about an inversion or mae west? Do you understand a line-over or what it means, and can you steer the canopy? Do you know how to do a parachute landing fall when you come down, or are you content to break your legs or back, especially in wind? Are you truly aware of the consequences of being near powerlines, under canopy? How about a water landing? If your rig has releases such as capewells or shot-and-a-halves, do you you know how to use them? What if your canopy inflates on the ground and drags you? What do you do? How about a tree landing? That can prove fatal if you don't know what to do. What a shame to survive your bail-out, yet die in a tree or falling from a tree.

If you're going to carry a gun, learn how to shoot it, use it safely, secure it, clean it, maintain it, load it, unload it, carry it, safe it, and employ it. If you're going to drive a car, learn how to go, stop, turn, park. If you're going to do anything, carry anything, use anything, then most of the time, you should learn about it. This is especially true in the case of a parachute when you're thinking of stepping into the void with little more than a non-existent aircraft bundled on your back that you hope will materialize when you do *something.*

Advocating the carriage of a parachute without advocating receiving parachute instruction is a foolhardy endeavor, but it's very much in line with many of the other comments we see here...pilots released to get their private who haven't a clue what to do with the mixture or carburetor heat or who can't calculate performance using the manufacturer data because they've never been allowed to see the flight manual. Simply because such a state of ignorance is tolerated and normal in some sheltered circles doesn't make it right; don't project that level of ignorance into critical equipment such as a parachute by suggesting that one shouldn't be trained and experienced on the gear. One should.

Whether the gear is warranted or not in most general aviation powered airplane operations is another matter entirely.

Wearing a parachute doesn't replace a second engine. Nobody loses an engine in a twin and says "it's okay, I have a parachute." Manufacturers don't say "Let's just make it a single engine airplane, and issue everybody parachutes."

Wearing a parachute doesn't mean one should bail after an engine failure. One should fly the airplane back down. If you can't land off field then you should ground yourself and seek competent instruction. It's not a superhuman event; it's a basic bare-bones skill, and if you don't have it, then you have no business being a private pilot. After all, if the engine quits, you're expected to be able to do it.

If you have a choice between a day flight and a night flight in a single, especially a cross country which may take you away from possible landing sites, then take the day flight. Just like flying IMC or over a layer, it's not just about the engine quitting; it's about lack of redundancy, single electrical sources, single vacuum pneumatic sources, instrument issues, etc. Flying a single isn't a do-all event. It's limited, and should be so, if you have any common sense. Generally those who cry the loudest about that are those with the least experience; you'll find that most experienced aviators are far less welcoming to single engine night cross country, single engine over water flights, or single engine IMC...that's usually the bailywick of the less-informed.

If you think that level of ignorance can be compensated by the wearing of a parachute, you're only compounding the original ignorance and making it worse, but you're welcome to that dangerous view. It's all yours.

You certainly won't find it much down the road when you gain some experience, or seek among those who do have some experience.

As per the above, for the average potential user of an emergency parachute, should they have to eventually use the thing then a downwind water landing into trees and powerlines with a canopy problem is probably going to kill them. Staying with the airframe is certainly going to kill them.

Ah well. There you go. The argument to maintain ignorance and bury one's head in the sand is that one was likely to die anyway, so one certainly shouldn't engage in any training that might save one's life.

With that logic, next time the barn burns down, we should dehorn all the cows. It makes no sense, but at least we're doing something. Unlike advocating ignorance of one's emergency pilot parachute rig.

Wouldn't it be much better to learn water landings, tree landings, a parachute landing fall, and experience several canopy rides and receive actual competent training, instead? Is that too complicated?

[FlyingKiwi_73]

I'll take my little bit out of your substantial response

I don't know what a "tommie" is, but perhaps you mean a Tomahawk. Yes, I disagree.

Spinning through several thousand feet can take quite a while, and there's ample time to get out. Whether you can or not is another matter entirely.

Yes Piper Tomahawk PA38, my point was after orientating oneself and extracting your self from the aircraft which would be very difficult in a 'car door' type aeroplane there would be precious little time left to deploy a chute (if the tail doesn't whack you first), in saying that i know a glider pilot who reckons he pulled his chute at 500 ft AGL and escaped with a nasty sprain

of course the only reason you'd probably want to do is if the aircraft became aerodynamically unfly-able in that case it would probably not be stable and throwing you about abit.
All bravado aside i seriously wonder how many of us would actually be able to extract ourselves in this case?

Not a converstaion you want to have with non flyers in ear shot.

[SNS3Guppy]

I suspect it's much like the answer we typically give to a jump student who asks "in an emergency, how long do I have to deploy my reserve?"

Why son, you have the rest of your life.

How long do you have to get out of the traumahawk? The rest of your life.

Not all airplanes are easily exited, of course, and certainly not all are well advised.

Even in aircraft equippped with rapid egress doors, such as those held on by pins, carrying a parachute may not be the order of the day.

All ag airplanes come with jettisonable canopy doors; pull the handle, the pins in the hinges pull clean,and the door is knocked away. I don't know anyone who flies ag that wears a parachute, however, or anyone that would, in their right mind suggest it to be a good idea.

Even where we fly ag airplanes at higher altitudes, none of us wear parachutes. Most have enough common sense to know that we can fly the airplane (or what's left of it) back down.

Where aerobatics are performed, assuming they are performed high enough, one has a reasonable chance of getting clear and deploying one's canopy. Low level aerobatics, not so much.

So far as wearing or use of parachutes in light airplanes such as the venerable Cessna 172; not really a good idea. Then again, when was the last time we saw or heard of a wing come off a 172 in flight?

[Pilot DAR]

Thing, Not wanting to appear to challenge you perosonally, but rather the system on the whole [in the UK, I suppose]

it's mandatory to wear a 'chute in UK in a glider. I suppose I'm just used to wearing one and it feels a little weird not to do so.

Mandatory to wear a parachute, but not a helemt? Is not a helmet appropriate safety gear for a person who expects to need to use a parachute?

I suppose that I do agree that there is an increased risk of mid air collisions during thermalling. I've only done a bit of it, but I do see the logic. I would imagine if you're thinking there's a risk that you're gonna bump two gliders together, you'd want to be wearing a helmet when it happened.

I wear a helmet whenever I fly helicopters (though a parachute seems obviously rediculous - helicopters never seem to be flown far enough from earth, that you would ever have time to use it, let alone it being chopped up on your way out!). My personal reason is that helicopters crash in directions other than forward too often. Planes generally crash mostly forward, and I'm a keen wearer of shoulder harnesses. I have not thought the need to wear a helmet for fixed wing flying yet, but if I thought I might be getting out in flight, I'd be thinking about that carefully. (I did not think that far through it when flying jumpers - flying a C 185 was just too "normal" to me). That was a long time ago, I wonder what the norm is now....

What about life jackets? Do you actually wear them when flying over water, including float flying? I do, and have the necessaries clipped to me, so they go out with me automatically.

What about low flammability clothing? Are pilots generally conscience of the risk of fire, and the need to not have burning clothing sticking to them (glider pilots excepted)? I do, cotton or wool only (or Nomex, of course).

Sometimes we just wear the gear, 'cause someone says to (or we have it, and it looks cool). Do we really think it through?

Oh, and although I do generally agree with:

Spinning through several thousand feet can take quite a while, and there's ample time to get out.

During my recent spin testing of a Cessna Caravan, I attained descent rates as high as 9200 feet per minute! (but not for long).

[cats_five]

I know a number of people who fly gliders without parachutes because they are so tall they don't fit in when wearing one. Some of us only fit wearing one.

But it's not mandatory except for cloud flying - see the BGA Laws & Rules paragraph 6.14.

It is however recomended practise to wear one - see Laws & Rules RP16 & RP17.

http://www.gliding.co.uk/forms/lawsandrules.pdf

[astir 8]

In general glider seats are designed to accommodate a parachute. So you either wear one or use a (firm) cushion in its place. I expect the gent who had to vacate his glider after the mid-air with the Tutor near Didcot the other year was quite pleased that he wasn't leaning on a cushion. Ditto the two guys some years back whose glider was disintegrated by a lightning strike.

Re parachute training, I believe that it's a question of risk balance. e.g. I believe the RAF stopped doing single engined landing training in Mosquitos because more pilots were dying in training than in the real thing.

And I've seen three people die in freefall accidents (ok out of a lot of successful jumps and two of them were grandstanding low down)

Personally I have decided that the chances of my having to bale out of an uncontrollable glider are sufficiently low, combined with a reasonable chance of not meeting power lines etc on arrival on terra firma that I won't be practicing parachuting (plus the British Sport Parachute Association would say that I'm too old to start anyway!)

But each to his own, always. I'll keep strapping on one of those fancy backrests with a handle with the firm hope that I never see its contents.

[moona]

how long do I have to deploy my reserve?"

Why son, you have the rest of your life.

Brilliant!

[LH2]

Quick question here: are glider chutes the spring loaded type, like reserves are? I've done a few hours gliding but never paid much attention to the chute (my vague recollection is that they were the spring loaded drogue type).

[Biggles78]

thing, when you start taking passengers, are they going to get a parachute as well?

I know of 2 jump pilots having to deploy their ripstop material (both were flying Cessnas). The first on was Tapuo, NZ and he was so excited that he did the full jump course and on his official jump broke both ankles. A far cry from his emergency egress.

The second was at Pakenham, Vic, OZ. Jumpers hanging on outside and one had his throwaway come out of the leg pocket. Did fatal damage to tailplane and the pilot managed to get out and initiated opening at approximately 400'. Jump run was at 4,500' (low cloud base). He was given a First Jump Certificate by the skydiving club and immediately grounded for opening too low. Hope they both applied to the Caterpillar Club for membership.

I flew a PA32 and before the above incident I had estimated it would take me 5,500' to get out and deploy. I was pretty much on the money as it turned out (getting out of the seat had a complication). When it came time for the pilot's rig to have it's repack, I pulled the handle so I would know what to expect (in addition to the broken legs from a 22' round).

S3, I learnt as much as I could about skydiving without actually jumping. I also learned to pack the mains and in my several hundred repacks never had a failure or a line over. We did have one FRAP when the jumper had a line over and cutaway to late. She unfortunately impacted at "line stretch". If she had ridden it down it was estimated by experienced jumpers (1,000+ jumps) a broken leg at worst or a stand-up at best (depending on the part of the rotation at ground level). Given that, I do not consider myself a whuffo; rather an enthusiest. They loved jumping, I loved flying. Funny thing was that I was unable to get life insurance as a pilot because the company considered that it was too dangerous but if I was a skydiver then that insurance was available. Go figger.

thing, with the above info about altitude and bail outs, how would you manage this with 3 passengers and a single over the wing door? The thought of flying jump ops without a rig made me uncomfortable but I had not such feelings flying the same aeroplane with the back doors on. If you feel you need the reassurance of a parachute strapped on when flying then maybe flying is not for you. It will certainally not inspire confidence in your passengers if you walk out to the plane with a funny looking backpack that they don't have. Just jump in the plane and enjoy the thrill of flying and the challenge of improving your skill level with each flight. More pilots (and skydivers) are killed driving to and from the airport or DZ than flying or jumping.

[SNS3Guppy]

During my recent spin testing of a Cessna Caravan, I attained descent rates as high as 9200 feet per minute! (but not for long).

I've had some high rates of descent in a Caravan while dropping jumpers, but it's after the drop and not in a spin. That occurred on a downwind to the runway at 18,000'. By unloading the wings and configuring for landing, letting the nose fall through to the vertical, and then respecting the door speed on the way down, a traffic pattern from 18,000' was very doable.

During the initial spin entry or at the incipient spin stage the descent rate is generally high. In a steady-state spin, especially as the spin flattens or passes through flat rotations, the descent rate isn't very high. The first rotation for many airplanes can eat up several hundred feet to a thousand feet, but after that the descent rate isn't usually very high at all.

The problem in a spin is exiting; the airplane is both yawing and rolling in a coupled motion, and typically is oscillating in pitch, or varying in pitch, as well. Getting out during that action may prove difficult, especially if complex exit requirements exist. Standing during the spin, or turning, working a door, squeezing out the door, etc, may be a problem.

Quick question here: are glider chutes the spring loaded type, like reserves are? I've done a few hours gliding but never paid much attention to the chute (my vague recollection is that they were the spring loaded drogue type).

It's called a spring-assisted pilot chute, and the answer is yes. The spring assist is necessary for two reasons. One is to get the pilot chute out of the pack container as quickly as possible and get it working as early as possible (because nothing is going to happen until the pilot chute is inflated and removes the parachute canopy from it's container for inflation). The other reason it's spring loaded it to get it away from the user. Particularly in stable freefall, a "dead air" space exists near the jumper. A non-assisted pilot chute can lay in that burble and never inflate. The same can be true of a spring assisted pilot chute on occasion; if nothing happens after pulling the ripcord, one may want to check over one's shoulder, spill some air behind one's back, and see if that doesn't pull the pilot chute clear. I've seen them pop and then lay on my back before, without extending the bridle or removing the pack off the container.

The spring-assisted pilot chute still stands the greatest chance of getting clear of you and getting good air, and getting open. Spring assisted pilot chutes are also used on most all sport and military reserve parachutes. They can work fast enough that following a cut-away of the main parachute the reserve can be open nearly right away.

S3, I learnt as much as I could about skydiving without actually jumping.

Most DZ's where I've been won't allow someone to pack who doesn't jump. I worked part time at a drop zone years ago, packing at night and turning wrenches on the aircraft. I hadn't jumped in several years. One afternoon during a busy pack session with a lot of tandems and students, one of the riggers stood up and pointed his finger at me. "We don't trust people packing who don't jump." He said.

As I stood, he tossed a rig at me, nearly knocking me over. He told me to put it on and go get on the next load, which was just starting up. I did. He met me at the landing site, which was away from the airport. He drove me back to the airport, gave me another rig, and said "go do it again." After that, nobody said another word.

It's unusual for someone to pack who doesn't jump. I've never actually encountered it, in fact. Interesting.

Given that, I do not consider myself a whuffo; rather an enthusiest.

Whuffo's aren't people who don't jump; they're people who don't understand jumping. You're not a whuffo.

[cats_five]

Originally Posted by Biggles78

thing, when you start taking passengers, are they going to get a parachute as well?

As per the BGA, the only reason for not wearing a parachute is because one doesn't fit with one on - that means one is very tall. So yes, any one taking a trial lesson will wear a parachute if at all possible and will receive brief instruction in it's use. There isn't much to say as they are circular reserve-style chutes designed and packed to open very quickly, and they can't be steered like a square one can.

That policy has saved at least one life - both occupants of the K21 that was hit by lightning near Dunstable survived with relatively minor injuries.

[thing]

Who would have thought parachutes would cause so much fuss? The original post was just an idle daydreaming type question, not meant to provoke Defcon 1.

[SNS3Guppy]

So yes, any one taking a trial lesson will wear a parachute if at all possible and will receive brief instruction in it's use.

In a glider, perhaps.

There isn't much to say as they are circular reserve-style chutes designed and packed to open very quickly, and they can't be steered like a square one can.

Ram-air canopies open very quickly, too, which is irrelevant. Round canopies can be steered, and this should be part of the instruction, as should how to address certain malfunctions, how to land, how to collapse one's parachute on the ground (especially for those that can't be cut away), etc. Line twists are common in ram air and round canopies. Pendulous motion (swinging) in round canopies is common.

That policy has saved at least one life - both occupants of the K21 that was hit by lightning near Dunstable survived with relatively minor injuries.

If you're referring to a Schleicher ASK-21, the obvious question would be why the aircraft was being operated near thunderstorms in the first place. Convective activity and lift, yes. Thunderstorms, no. Bad idea. Welcome to the Darwin Club.

[Pilot DAR]

not meant to provoke Defcon 1

Most threads in this forum, which make it past about 5 posts, eventually get to Defcon 1. Occasionally, even the most benign can get nuked by a moderator.

[cats_five]

Originally Posted by SNS3Guppy

If you're referring to a Schleicher ASK-21, the obvious question would be why the aircraft was being operated near thunderstorms in the first place. Convective activity and lift, yes. Thunderstorms, no. Bad idea. Welcome to the Darwin Club.

A worthwhile question, and one I'm sure was asked at the time and which is hinted at in the AAIB report, which also comments that this very strong bolt occured not that far from LHR.

The strike was estimated to be some 8-9 times stronger than lightning certified aricraft have to tolerate and I believe have or will affect the certification requirements.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...pdf_500699.pdf

Thankfully the two occupants survived, because they were wearing parachutes, and because despite all the things that can go wrong the parachutes worked and AFAIK that is generally the case when people manage to bail out of gliders.