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."

Comments

Re:Hopefully drive down costs. . .

[ari_j]

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.

Re:Hopefully drive down costs. . .

[Zathrus]

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.

One pilot's view: This is not a panacea!

[phliar]

First thing to remember is: this thing is heavy. The old joke goes: how do you know if something is too heavy for aviation use? Hold it out at arm's length and let go. If it falls, it's too heavy. If I remember correctly the BRS parachute for a 4-seat airplane is about 100lb. That's about 16 gallons of fuel -- about 1.5 hours of flying, or about 200 miles of range. (Or 100 lbs. of baggage.)

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.)

Re:Wonder if...

[ryochiji]

>Now, a parachute and cords strong enough to support a 747 - that is another story entirely.

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...