| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
|
Fred Wilson
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 230
Location: Vernon BC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
Fred Wilson
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 230
Location: Vernon BC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Fred Wilson
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 230
Location: Vernon BC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Fred Wilson
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 230
Location: Vernon BC
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 01:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Icaro See: http://www.icaro2000.com/Products/Hanggliders/Revisions/Revisions.htm
"In about half of the servicing operations that we perform on hang gliders, we discover that the top A-frame bolt is bent.
This means that all too often, hang gliders are not serviced sufficiently often, and above all they are not serviced after heavy landings.
In addition, it is important to remember that the lower side wires are constantly stressed during flight.
It is fundamentally important to ensure that they are in good condition, and they should be replaced at least every two years or every 100 hours of flight.
For pilots who fly hang gliders with a competition A-frame, the lower side wires should be replaced every year or every 70 hours flight, considering their smaller cross-section and greater rigidity."
cont... FYI:
The standard inspection includes:
1. Removal of the sail;
2. Complete examination of the frame;
3. Check of the profile of all battens;
4. Crossbar load test;
5. Checks for any signs of tube oxidation;
6. Checks on bolts and the respective threaded holes;
7. Replacement of lower side wires; (and front and rear wires in the case of a competition control frame)
8. Reassembly of the hang glider;
9. Check of glider adjustments;
10. Final checks.
Then a test flight should be performed.
Excellent test flight check lists used to be found in Wills Wing Manuals. Example: from Page 72 to 73 in the Sport 167 Manual
Wills Wing test flight video with titles for each maneuver (but no commentary.) See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAyFjZiu0xI
__________________
Icaro Microlight helmets http://www.icaro2000.com/Home.htm
From: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Airborne-Microlights-and-Hang-Gliders/203686909673872
It has been brought to our attention that the wire loops that hold the chin straps on Icaro Microlight helmets can fail.
The failure point has been close to where the wire attaches to the helmet. It can start with a broken strand in the stainless steel wire.
To inspect this you simply remove the inner lining of the helmet and bend the wire to see if any strands are broken.
If you find any damage to the wire do not use the helmet. A broken wire will cause the chin strap to come away and could result in the helmet falling from the head whilst flying.
Regular inspection is required. An update of this bulletin will be posted on the Airborne web site once Icaro have come up with a fix for the problem.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Fred Wilson
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 230
Location: Vernon BC
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Structural Failure Aeros Combat 09 size 13.2 GT with a tail (PDF) http://www.decolar.org.br/Enio-Analysis-Accident-English.pdf?attredirects=0
Brazil Accident Report.
Exerpt Pg 13 - 14:
"Hypothesis A – In flight failure of the left crossbar. This explains the left lateral roll observed prior to the tumble and spin.
The pilot was flying at a moderate speed 66km/h when he encountered the edge of a strong thermal that loaded the crossbar significantly.
The weak spot due to a manufacturing error broke the upper part of the crossbar initiating the sequence of events.
This hypothesis implies that the weak spot in the cross bar was growing and it reached a critical size in this last flight.
Hypothesis B – Turbulence generating a tumble. We can point to three possible consequences:
Failure of the keel provoked by the impact of the pilots head on the section without inner reinforcements, failure of the crossbar due to the negative loads or the failure of an upright due to body impact.
Any of these three failures could have initiated the sequence of events that caused accident.
The weak assumption of this hypothesis is that no severe turbulence was reported by other pilots in the area and that the pilot was flying way above stall speed.
Hypothesis C – In flight failure of the keel, generating the tumble and subsequent torsions destroying the crossbar.
The failure of the keel would then cause the failure of the cross bar.
The problem of this hypothesis is that we know for sure that the keel broke rotating upwards in a clearly negative load situation.
Hypothesis D – a failure with the assembly / locking of the stabilizer may have provoked an erratic behaviour on the glider which helped generate the tumble.
Pictures taken during the pilot’s take-off indicate that at least the keel lock was in its place (Figure 19)." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Fred Wilson
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 230
Location: Vernon BC
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 04:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Emergency Reserve Parachutes: Updated July 29th 2009
1. Inspection of a new harness a pilot had purchased produced a reserve parachute that had two rubber bands wrapped around it to secure it during shipping.
2. At an IHPA parachute repack session one parachute was discovered that would not open when it was deployed. Indeed, it could not be opened as it was packed inside out!
The parachute had been purchased new (or at least, not repacked since it left the manufacturer) and was discovered to have been incorrectly packed by the manufacturer with the pull-down apex line running outside the rest of the canopy.
The owner/pilot had been flying with this canopy for some time with the entirely false sense of security that it offered.
This incident underlines the extreme importance of test deploying and repacking your parachute regularly and not relying on the manufacturer or others to get it right.
These incidents were forwarded to the BHPA Technical Officer who replied that this was by no means an isolated incident and not limited one manufacturer! - CHECK YOUR PARACHUTE or get it checked by a professional.
3. Repacking a reserve parachute with the incorrect size and / or diameter of rubber band can lead to deployment failure. Abide by the manufacturer's recommendation.
High Energy Sports Rubber Bands Specifications for both HG and PG Parachute repacking is: Size 61: 50 x 6 mm (2" x 1/4") - Grade: 90+ % rubber.
4. 1 July 2009 Moyes Matrix harness and Parachute deployment
5. 19 May 2008 SupAir Altix & Evo X-C Harnesses Reserve Deployment Issue
6. 9 March 2005 Firebird RS2 Paraglider emergency parachute
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Fred Wilson
HPAC/ACVL Member
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 230
Location: Vernon BC
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 03:35 am Post subject: Safety issue with Harness Reserve Chute Containers |
|
|
Safety issue with Skyline Zero Drag Harness Reserve Chute Containers
See: http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=28501
I don't have that harness but it's that time of year for all of us to test all of our chute containers:
1. Throw the chute as many times as you can to reduce deployment times;
2. Inspect it; (Harness, chute and container)
3. Fresh repack.
Read: Thermaling Tips Wiki and Cross Country Coaching Manuals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Track Server
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Forum Subscriptions
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
