Slashdot Mirror
First Emergency Use of Whole-Aircraft Parachute
Ahotasu writes "Over at SpaceFlightNow, there is a short NASA news release discussing the development of and first emergency use of a production parachute system for a general aviation aircraft. Whole-ultralight parachute systems have been available and used for some time, but this is apparently the first use in a "certified general-aviation aircraft". From the article: "In October 2002, a pilot released his single engine aircraft's parachute and landed safely in a Texas mesquite- tree grove. The pilot was uninjured, and there was minimal damage to the plane. The safe landing made aviation history, as it was the first emergency application of an airframe parachute on a certified aircraft." Here's the company's website. Looks like right now, they only have models for a select few gen. aviation aircraft, probably the most popular models."
I heard this guy interviewd on NPR on the way to work about a month ago...
Here's the link: NPR Story It's a real audio file.
... before these things were working 99+% of the time during real failures.
I read that it was difficult to get the parachute to open quickly with minimal altitude loss if deployed at low airspeeds, while at the same time limiting the inflation loads to a tolerable level if deployed at high airspeeds.
"The concept is comparable to automotive safety systems, which utilize energy absorbing structures, airbags, inertial restraint systems, padded interiors, and occupant protection cages working in unison to promote a very controlled and survivable crash condition." - http://www.aviation-engines.co.za/brs.htm
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
This aircraft was produced in my hometown. It is made by Cirrus Designs Corporation. They just started delivering their planes a couple years ago. Their aircraft are called the SR20 and SR22. These aircraft are designed and built in Duluth, Minnesota. Their test pilot, who was a jet fighter pilot in the Air National Guard(I knew him) actually died during a test flight about 4 years ago...the parachute had not been installed on the test platform. Very sad to see a test pilot killed in an aircraft that is designed to have the parachute for exactly that purpose. The next week our fighter wing flew the 'missing man formation'. I shed a tear. On the positive side, this system will probably help save numerous other lives in the future. I highly recommend this company's aircraft to any pilot...
Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
Ah, but what if the problem is with the control surfaces of the craft itself. It's damn hard to 'dead stick' a plane to a safe landing when you have an aeleron stuck in the down position.
Or there are the many times I've seen small craft crashes where the control surface fell off the plane.
Or (as we have seen with alarming frequency here in NJ) mid-air collisions. How do you dead stick a plane that has it's wing sheared off by some moron who isn't paying to the traffic while he's showboating?
And there's problems even if you have only a dead engine. in the case of a dead engine over water perhaps. Ditching in the drink was and is the fear of every neval pilot since there is no garantee that the water will not swell at the last moment and slap you hard.
It's an added safty feature that gives the pilot more chances to have a good landing...one that they can walk away from.
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
747-400ER's max take-off weight is 910,000lb (412,775kg).
.855 mach. Certainly you would not want to deploy them at cruise speed but they would have to deploy at some airspeed which is just enough to keep a big bird like that aloft which is probably many times faster than the Cessna's max speed!
A Cessna 150's max take-off weight is 1600lb. So, you'd need 569 such-sized parachutes to hold a fully-laden 747. Who knows if they can be made that large, or strong. Plus the Cessna goes far slower than the 747's
In short, it might be easier and more feasible to give parachutes to all the passangers!
Thanks,
--
Matt
This is real old news to aviation types. Cirrus has been producing these things for a couple of years now. A few points:
1. The Cirrus safety record is pretty poor compared to other plane types. There have been at least six fatal crashes in Cirrus planes already, which is unusually high, statistically. There have been a number of theories advanced as to why this is -- mostly it seems that there are pilots who buy one thinking it's a "lexus in the sky" and who get themselves into conditions they can't handle.
2. This was a good scenario for deployment. Stuck aileron means the plane is gonna be almost impossible to land.
3. You might have a parachute out there but you're dropping at 2600 fpm in an SR-22. I would not want to hit the ground going that fast. If you still have control authority I'd be going in for an emergency landing unless the terrain below prohibited it, or it was night.
4. This guy landed in some trees which may have helped out with the 2600 fpm factor noted above.
Light general aviation aircraft don't suffer very many airframe problems -- they're pretty damn strong. You can get yourself into trouble if you exceed Vne which is how most airframe breakups happen. And that usually happens because of sensory confusion during flight into weather the pilot can't handle (clouds).
Ultralights are where the BRS parachute system has saved at least a hundred people's lives. Who the hell would ride in one of those things anyway? Crazy fools.
All you slashdot types should start flying planes. I did. It's the best way I know to burn money.
I agree. I'm a CFI (Certificated Flight Instructor) and we do indeed train for engine failures. The problem is that training is no guarantee of anything. Terrain, weather, obstacles, these things are not controlled by the pilot.
One of the hard facts of life that we have to teach students is that they may not find a good field when the engine quits. They may just have to find the field that sucks the least. Even more aggravating, the perfect field may lie only 100 yards beyond a point you can reach safely; but you must choose the field you can reach, then do your best to ensure survivability.
It is by no means a cut and dried procedure, or a sure thing. The idiot who simply spouted out "What kind of pilot can't dead stick?" obviously has no idea how complex the task can be.
As for the chutes, the design in the Cirrus is good. It destroys the airframe upon deployment. This will (hopefully) prevent people from just pulling the handle as soon as something makes them nervous.
The pilot in this case should be applauded. He didn't just pop the chute when the problem occurred (and it was a MAJOR problem). He used his own skills to fly the airplane to a less populated area. He demonstrated a great deal of composure and guts; but I doubt he could have dead sticked the airplane in its condition. Does that somehow make him a bad pilot?
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!