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."
.they can make this work in bigger aeroplanes as well. Put a para on a 747 and i'll be really impressed, and perhaps even a bit more confident i will reach the ground safe :-)
Realistically, one would assume that they would put a large number of parachutes on a larger plane. The article talks about a small single engine plane, but you wouldn't want to try and hold a 747 up by one attachment point even if you had a big enough prarchute.
Just because I doubt myself does not mean I find your position compelling.
The space shuttle's parachute is to slow the craft down, NOT to let it drift slowly to Earth in case they lose control!
This parachute system for planes is meant to bring the plane down to the ground slowly, not to simply act as an aide to braking.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
I agree that reliability of the plane as a whole is far more important in terms of R&D investment, but a real sustained focus on emergency procedures would be extremely welcome too.
Except for those cases in which the parachute fails, in which case the parachute manufacturer is going to have a whole hell of a lot of lawsuit to deal with.
As opposed to the alternate situation, where everytime it would need to be deployed the insurance company has to cough up payment to everyone who was affected by the "uncontrolled flight into terrain"? If you happen to survive then they're buying you a new plane too...
This is presuming that the parachute is only deployed in extreme situations where gliding or a glide landing was no longer viable of course.
will be to make a parachute big enough to slow the descent of a plane that large that won't tear the wings off when it opens at cruising speed. A big enough chute (assuming they can find cables) will exert an unbelieveable amount of pressure on the anchor points. Far more than the forces needed to keep the plane aloft.
I vaguely remember a Discovery-type special on this years ago, where they were trying for chutes that would only open partway (using some sort of ring) until it slowed the plane enough to survive full opening, but I've forgotten the details.
According to people I've talked to, basically every time you pull the handle, the insurance company buys you a new plane.
Um, if you need to pull the handle, it strongly suggests that not pulling the handle would have also destroyed the plane.
With handle=probably will save your life, might save the plane.
Without handle= Both are doomed.
Am I missing something?
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
Also, the airplane has to be designed for it, and the chute is custom designed for the airplane. Just like any system on an airplane, pilots have to be trained in its use, and they need to maintain that knowledge; and the chute itself needs to be maintained. The whole thing is covered by much FAA paperwork, and anyone who's a pilot knows how expensive that is. There are a couple of airplanes that BRS has an "STC" (Supplemental Type Certificate, i.e. FAA permission to install) for the chute, but they are smaller training aircraft like the Cessna 152 and 172.)
The number of people that can afford a new Lancair is small. Pilots like me will continue to fly older and cheaper airplanes, and if there's an emergency, we will just land the airplane. Structural failures are rare, and there is not much country where a forced landing will result in injuries to occupants. Prudent pilots won't fly at night over hostile terrain. (In an emergency, I don't give a shit about saving the airplane; at that point it belongs to the insurance company, and I'd rather save life than their money.)
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
The military doesn't need one.
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
Erm. I used to think so, too. Then I spent a stint as an air traffic controller. I hate to take away from your reassurance, but there's a lot more planes up there than there used to be, and the majority of pilots still don't seem to be able to respond correctly to things like low level wind shear (which happens very infrequently, thankfully). Paradoxically, improvements in technology have led to some new problems. For example, I'm sending a plane from Pearson to Gattwick and you're sending one back. I put one at a wrong-way altitude for turbulence and uh-oh, we've got a conflict. Used to be, there's so much sky up there, they're going to be miles apart even on a direct course. But now, with GPS, guess what? They're going to be damn close.
:)
The good news is that an awful lot of crappy, outdated and falling apart nav and atc equipment was replaced courtesy of the Y2K scare. No more radar screens blanking out and frantically changing consoles. Well, not nearly as often, anyway.
But seriously, you are quite correct. Flying is still much safer than most other forms of transport. People just have a hard time understanding probabilities (hence the success of lotteries). It's the same with Indian trains. One might think they crash all the time, but the staggering number of trains they run daily means that in relative terms, it's very unlikely to be involved in a crash even if you ride them daily your whole life.
The important thing to remember is that safety improvements almost always highlight dangers. Often in the past that dissuaded companies from making those improvements. We cannot afford to take that attitude.
It's not just the dead weight too. Since a large commercial jet, even a dying one, would be flying at hundreds of miles per hour, deploying a chute in mid-air will essentially bring it to a halt (in terms of forward velocity). Not only will that exert a huge force on the chute, but it'll also practically be like a crash for those inside.
A cessna, on the other hand, can stay aloft at 45mph...
---
Open Source Shirts
My father has been a bush-pilot overseas for 17 years (i also have a logbook of my own), and his take on all this is that it is bogus and a waste of time..
Apart from the fact that a fully loaded airliner is just too dang heavy, there are a few facts..
1. Most (a very high percentage) of airline accidents occur during take off and landing. This is due to the fact that flying itself is inherintly safe, but throw takeoffs and landings in the mix and it gets hairy. At such low altitudes, parachutes become worthless..
2. If a plane has any sort of problem short of exploding, then a parachute would do no good (although im not sure it would do much good in that case either). An airplane can glide for more miles than you can see without any engine power. (Assuming you loose all engines at once, most planes can cover ALOT of distance with one engine). It is much more prefferable to glide the plane down to a safe landing spot, be it an empty field, or even the ocean. A parachute would render the all remaining control that the pilot has worthless..
Mind you, terrorism can put the destiny of the flight beyond pilot control, but heck, not even a parachute can save that...
~ Maintainer of the Skajake Projects
More important than this first (non-test) use of the BRS system, what about the months-old crash where the pilot did NOT deploy the BRS after losing control of the acft? THAT seems like a more newsworthy item... a system working as it's designed to shouldn't be news. This smells like a PR effort, or the excrement of a marketing department.
The glaring drawback to the BRS system is that, once deployed, the acft is almost gauranteed to be damaged in the crash-landing, so pilots are reluctant to give up control.. it goes against the lessons pounded into them by (competent) instructors. The BRS system is a waste of money and weight if pilots aren't trained to utilize it properly.
cirrus design is a small startup that, according to articles in Popular Science, for one, is producing small single engine planes that come with an airframe parachute standard. I think eclipse aviation might have said something about doing this, too, but im not sure.
Point is that if these become standard, use will go up. I for one wouldnt want to go buy one and install it, but if it came built in...