Thank you for taking the time to write this study.It is very enlightening and just confirms what is basically sound common sense.It would be better for manufacturers to take note of your study and at the very least put some further research and development into construction of suitable protection for Pilots.
Interesting read. One question about the last recommendation you made ("Make sure the protector covers up till the T8 vertebrae (bottom of shoulder blades), as the NASA study found that's where fractures happen.")
You use a graphic from the McKenney Report which investigates ejection seat injuries, the original Label is "Incidence of Vertebral Injury In Aircrew Surviving Ejection", how do you conclude a need for higher reaching foam protectors in paragliding? In my understanding the higher vertebrae can snap due to the hard impact being transferred by the lower vertebrae and the higher ones being the "weak-link". A high reaching protector wouldn't help this, right? I think there can be a point made for higher reaching protectors due to reclined impacts from stalls or similar, but there also are about as many sideways and frontal impacts recorded, so why not add protectors in those directions as well? (Here is the only data I could find on impact types in paragliding crashes: https://www.dhv.de/media/jahre/2024/02_fliegen/Lehrmaterial/Artikel/Geraetetechnik/Gurtzeuge/7_2011_172_wirksamkeit_protektoren.pdf)
Thank you for pointing that one out to me. I've updated that part, but I want to clarify this in a future version. I just need to research that area more.
In my experience, I've seen so many crashes around takeoffs where the pilot hit the ground at an angular direction, say 45 degrees. Stalled top-landings are a common example. Also, we are super reclined in these new harnesses! If someone hits an uneven or rocky ground, they directly hit these spine regions.
If this angular speed happens slightly frontal, of course there are the legs, which now I understand are incomparably better compared even to the best protectors, simply because they are long. The side is more of a problem, I've heard of many accidents involving the hips.
Really interesting thanks for your work! Out of interest have you done any simulations on inflatable protection and what jerk they provide? thanks!
He has the Range X-Alps 3 in the article. It has good values.
The range xalps 3 jerk is listed above as 1186 G/sec
Thank you for taking the time to write this study.It is very enlightening and just confirms what is basically sound common sense.It would be better for manufacturers to take note of your study and at the very least put some further research and development into construction of suitable protection for Pilots.
Really interesting. Thanks for writing this. I learnt a ton in just 10 minutes.
Great Work, Zolt! To me it was totally clear that we need some more cm of foam to break down the speed at a level that the a persons spine can stand.
Interesting read. One question about the last recommendation you made ("Make sure the protector covers up till the T8 vertebrae (bottom of shoulder blades), as the NASA study found that's where fractures happen.")
You use a graphic from the McKenney Report which investigates ejection seat injuries, the original Label is "Incidence of Vertebral Injury In Aircrew Surviving Ejection", how do you conclude a need for higher reaching foam protectors in paragliding? In my understanding the higher vertebrae can snap due to the hard impact being transferred by the lower vertebrae and the higher ones being the "weak-link". A high reaching protector wouldn't help this, right? I think there can be a point made for higher reaching protectors due to reclined impacts from stalls or similar, but there also are about as many sideways and frontal impacts recorded, so why not add protectors in those directions as well? (Here is the only data I could find on impact types in paragliding crashes: https://www.dhv.de/media/jahre/2024/02_fliegen/Lehrmaterial/Artikel/Geraetetechnik/Gurtzeuge/7_2011_172_wirksamkeit_protektoren.pdf)
Thank you for pointing that one out to me. I've updated that part, but I want to clarify this in a future version. I just need to research that area more.
In my experience, I've seen so many crashes around takeoffs where the pilot hit the ground at an angular direction, say 45 degrees. Stalled top-landings are a common example. Also, we are super reclined in these new harnesses! If someone hits an uneven or rocky ground, they directly hit these spine regions.
If this angular speed happens slightly frontal, of course there are the legs, which now I understand are incomparably better compared even to the best protectors, simply because they are long. The side is more of a problem, I've heard of many accidents involving the hips.
Brilliant summary, thanks Zsolt.
Excellent Summary. Thank you.