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 :-)
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
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.
and one giant leap for airplane drag racing.
Slashdotter are stupid and biased.
Propelled by a solid-fuel rocket motor, the parachute is released from a special opening on top of the fuselage.
Cool!!! A rocket-propelled parachute!
Now it just needs a nuclear-powered life raft for the 'water landings'.
-- Heisenberg might have slept here.
If this works as well as I've heard, look for it to eventually become mandatory on small planes.
I've seen these used on ultralights - when the aircraft is being used for aerobatics that stress it far beyond design tolerances. I guess the product is a good idea for pilots who push the limits.
But any pilot has to demonstrate the basics of unpowered flight to get their license. The engine dies - so what! Just look for a place to land.
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
... 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
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.
How will they compensate for a plane that has spun out of control or is upside-down? Either way, it seems like the chute would get tangled up with the plane and not do much good.
Just because I doubt myself does not mean I find your position compelling.
For the most part flying is VERY safe. Not the most comfortible way to travel unless you are in First Class or Buisiness Class.
As for small planes, those are also very safe IF you have a competent pilot behind the yoke. Percentage wise, you have far fewer plane crashes than car crashes, for ALL types of planes.
As for the big airlines, most of the guys flying these things are ex military jocks who have thousands of hours of jet time and can and many can put a fighter plane onto the pitching deck of an aircraft carrier on the ocean. At the very least they have flown many types of jets large and small and they know what they are doing. 99.9% of all Airline captians and crew are very professional. The horror stories you hear or experience are the rare events which the media always blow out of proportion.
So don't be afraid to fly. The worst I fear when flying is dry skin and nasal passages (due to low humidity on board) and leg cramps from sitting in one place too long.
My biggest worry is that I won't get the window seat.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
for any sort of aircraft actually used in passenger airlines - I mean, it may be able to have enough lift to carry a small Cesna (or whatever's on the picture), but not even the smallest jet...
It'll have just as much effect as giving Red Bull to all passengers, i.e. none
Join the elite! Post at score:2! Ghostwheel is online.
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!
If you lose your engine in a single engine plane, and you have somewhere reasonably flat to land, you're probably better of just making a normal (emergency, dead-stick) landing.
Even helicopters don't just `fall out of the sky' when the engine shuts off :)
Let's hope these things never deploy accidently. It would get really interesting really fast if one accidently deployed close to the ground (right after takeoff, or before a landing, for example), or while your plane was cruising at 180 mph ...
(they must be strong enough to survive a deployment at Vne (Velocity to never exceed), but I can see where it could easily cause structural damage j
Just what I would buy if I were a Democratic Party congressperson who was considering flying in a private aircraft before next term's elections.
-- 3 events that reshaped the world in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, and WWW
You're not the first person to laugh at the concept. In this article the owner of Cirrus Design Corp says that the rest of the industry harshly ridiculed the idea all through development. Now vindicated, he countered, "We spent more than $10 million developing our parachute system, and if this is the only life we save, it will have been worth it."
I fly gliders, no engine to fail there, but people still crash and die...
Controls can stick, birds can impact the plane in flight. The list goes on, and on...
This is useful for those situations
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Ignore the creature on the wing and you'll be just fine.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
How will we get rid of unwanted politicians and pop stars???
Xaotik Designs
After many unsuccessful attemps with the "Half-Aircraft Parachute" engineers finally decided to advance their idea and encompass the entire plane.
Uh oh, we're gonna need another Bobby!
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
Not a bad idea! Surround hulls with a multi-chamber, rapidly deployable, self-inflating 'life-ring'.
Sitting at my keyboard, I can't see why this wouldn't be feasible or cost-effective :)
Fishing boats? Pleasure yachts?
The chute on a small plane like a Cessna172 is already pretty big. Most planes these are fitted on are likely less than 8,000 lbs or so.
Airliners full of people and baggage and fuel are incredibly heavy and you would need multiple chutes of massive size.
To get an idea of how massive these things are, when I took a trip to Australia back in September, on the way there the captain announced that we were going to "burn 130 tons of kerosene on the way there". That is 130 *tons* of jet fuel for, in this case a 15 hour flight. Even a domestic flight of just a couple hours is going to have a lot of weight just in fuel. Add on the plane itself, passengers and crew and baggage and you start to see the problem.
So I don't see this working even on a small commuter jet such as the Embraer or the MD-88.
Now NASA does use parachutes to recover spent boosters from Shuttle launches and they are fairly heavy, but they are also different shaped and maybe its easier to slow them down than a large jet.
So it could be possible, but only time and research will tell.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
I've always heard stories of airlines breaking up in mid air from over stress. So now people will be rushing for the seats next to the parachute section.
I'm curious if there will ever be an commercial airline version. I could see an application that has a parachute for sections of the fusalodge(sp). Then in a catastrophic event charges could fire seperating the plain into compartments which could be carried to earth safely. Each section could have air tight emergency doors which seals when the charges fire.
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.
The plane was made by a Duluth, MN company called Cirrus Design. Their (shitty) website is: http://www.cirrusdesign.com/
--
Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things.
The newscaster asked a company representative if this chute could help prevent lots of deaths in an airliner crash. The company rep just about laughed at the guy, and replied, essentially, that a parachute big enough to save an airliner would have to be so much bigger than the plane itself as to be infeasible.
My other thought on this (and I must admit that I am not a pilot and have never done any "flying" more realistic than flying a fighter plane in a number of "flight simulators" except the really realistic ones) is that it would seem to me that aviation accidents tend to happen in such a sudden and severe manner that this chute would have limited success. I question whether the chute can be useful in an uncontrolled spin. In addition, I suspect that most fatal aviation accidents (start to) occur under 500 feet, at which height I doubt the chute would have enough time to deploy effectively.
Anyone else get the mental image of a 747 sticking out of the ground with a giant parachute draped over it when they read the headline?
The rotary wing aircraft talked about a few days ago here could use one of these - one of the major drawbacks was that it couldn't glide in the event of an engine failure, but if it can just deploy a chute...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This occured near the intersection of route 121 and Main in The Colony, TX. The plane landed near the edge of a golf course just into the trees. The BRS apparently work flawlessless as the guy walked away from the site. From the pictures I saw on the news, the plane looked salvagable too. I had no idea this was the first use of the BRS on something other than an ultralight. I figured the guy would at least have a broken leg (many BRS survivors have something broken because there isn't much protection in an Ultralight) but he walked away with just a few scratches.
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
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.
It will not proctect you near the blast. But if you are in the much larger area outside the lethal zone where structural damage will occur to buildings, then "duck and cover" will help keep you from being injured from falling objects and other minor building damage (for the same reason you want to take similar actions during an earthquake or tornado). If it had been needed, then it almost certainly would have reduced casualites resulting from a nuclear attack.
Just because it can't protect everyone doesn't mean it should be ridiculed as useless.
and democratic senators. How long will it be before we see the first 'mysterious parachute failure?'
"...eyewitnesses report seeing a bright flash, before the senator's plane began to tumble earthward. A moment later the safety chute deployed. There was a second bright flash, and the plane mysteriously seperated from the chute..."
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The kind of pilot that can't dead stick is a pilot partially incapacitated by some on-board accident, medical condition or just panic.
Passengers can also hit the emergency button if the pilot is totally incapacitated or even dead.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
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
...I was thinking of a giant anvil popping out of the chute moments before the plane, anvil, and coyote plummet to the desert floor below.
That was an excellent book- read on the suggestion of my third grade teacher. I still think about it all these years later. Just goes to show you what a teacher who knows her students can do for them :).
~geogeek
An interesting note about this type of aircraft parachute: most of the ones that are deployed on GA aircraft are ballistic-assisted parachutes. Once triggered, the parachute is fully extended from a compacted state inside a tube by a small rocket. The chute itself reaches full extension in a little over 1 second. That short deployment time makes the chute more useful in the lower altitudes that a small aircraft would frequent.
Then there's the matter of "spillover" -- the state that a parachute will quickly find itself in if deployed behind a fast-moving heavy ballast. If this happens, the chute will collapse and begin to work a little more line a streamer than a parachute -- it won't inflate after the air gets forced out of it. To combat this, a "speed ring" -- essentially a small baffled airfoil attached to the chute harness -- blocks the air entering the chute from the bottom. As forward momentum decreases, gravity causes the ring to slowly fall downward, allowing the chute to slowly and safely inflate.
A really fascinating thing about the BRS type parachutes: Once they deploy the aircraft is totalled. It can never fly again. First, a deployment typically stresses an airframe in two ways that it usually never is stressed -- the wing spars are pulled backwards while in flight, and the vertical impact of the ground with the aircraft at a relatively high speed. The FAA will never allow the aircraft to be flown again.
The second reason: the parachute tethers are typically stowed under the skin of most aircraft, and in deployment can actually rip through the skin. Damage of this type is very difficult to repair, so the pilot that chooses to use the BRS system _knows_ that he will lose the plane permanently.
That usually keeps pilots looking for that tempting field or road if they have an in-flight emergency.
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.
why would you want to take off when you already have an engine failure? (besides, of course, a whole army of orcs and a dragon on your tail...)
just wondering....
nbfn
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'm going to call you on this bullshit. How many instances are there where a control surface "fell off" an airplane? This only happens with completely crappy maintenance. An airplane that was that badly maintained is not likely to have a $15,000 BRS chute.
How many instances of mid-air collisions where a BRS chute would have saved lives? I'll grant that this number is non-zero. Is this number large enough that we will see (or should have) large-scale deployment of BRS chutes? No.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
No need .. if everyone were to use a compartmentalised hull where each compartment could be sealed from the others you would have something completly unsinkable.
It would even lower costs elsewhere since lifebots would be rendered obsolete and you would only need just enough for your boat to look stylish.
Where are the flying cars?!
seriously though, if falling out of the sky is the main concern, just give everyone's car a parachute!
C'mon, I want my holographic video telephone to be mounted on the dashboard too.
- passion
Speaking from experience, the one plant on earth that I least want to fall wile-e-coyote style onto would be a Texas mesquite.
I once spent a spring break picking the immature ones (1' tall at most) out of some dry, rocky soil, and it was horrible. Those plants were created by cross pollinating pure evil with cruelty.
If all the parachute does is drop you into something WORSE than a cactus patch, well, maybe I wouldn't deploy...
Austin is more fun than Dallas.
I saw a news story on one variant. It used a really nifty limiter ring around the shroud lines. At high speed, the wind pushed the ring up towards the chute, thus pinching it mostly closed. As the speed reduces, the chute's expansion force overcomes the wind's push on the ring, and it slides forward, allowing full deployment.
WINGS FALL OFF (it happens). PARTS FALL OFF (it happens). ENGINE DIES, STRONG WIND CONDITIONS (it happens).
While I don't doubt the validity of the article, comments like this make me wonder.
We have Mesquite trees here in Hawaii (we call 'em Keawe). The trees support 2 to 3 inch thorns and drop branches like there's no tomorrow. I've been lost in a Keawe forest and let me tell you , by the time I made it out I was slashed dotted.
A friend of mine once pulled his car under a Keawe tree and popped two tires.
While I don't doubt that he landed safely thanks to the parachute... I DO doubt that he got out of the grove safely :))
Of course, maybe he just hunkered down... lit a few branches and grilled a delicious dinner and waited for helecopters to drop him a ladder.
Aloha
Sounds like this happened to be one of the few situations when a chute would be useful. It's only useful when the plane is more or less under control, has some altitude, and the pilot is aware there's a problem. Most aviation accidents don't fit those criteria. It won't help on takeoff. Won't help on landing. Won't help on loss of control accidents. Won't help on controlled flight into terrain.
Remember, a capitialist will never turn down a situation to make money. What will happen is this will be required on small aircrafts, not by law of the land, but by the para-governmental, judicial precedence of quasi-civil insurance law. Thus, since there is little competition, there is no modivation to compete on prices, as such, the cost of the plane goes up, and the cost of insurance stays about the same unless you have one of these. If you don't have one, expect to pay 20 times more than others.
Democrats and Republicans only disagree about how to enslave you
While not a general aviation aircraft, wasn't the F-111 the first aircraft overall to employ the idea of ejecting the whole cockpit on a parachute?
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
Indeed.
But if the worst happens and it does sink, then there's a chance that someone might one day make a really really terrible film about it.
It also happens that I like to fly acro, and wear a chute when doing so; that is a much better tradeoff for me.
Or, in other words, I agree with you!
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Weight scales with a cube function
Parachutes are mainly a surface area.
They scale with a square function
They get more efficent with a larger scale.
Also contributing to this is the reynolds number.
i.e. small scales go inefficent (turbulent) at a slower speed.
Trust me, I'm a parachute rigger.
I saw that special, they were talking about the development of the chute that saved this plane.
The REAL trick would be to make it light enough. Any wieght that they add in chute would have to be shed in fuel, and no airline likes range reduction
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Lots of little chutes...yeah, what if one or more doesn't deploy properly, and you end up with tremendous drag forces on one end of the plane and little to none on the other? They might stand a better chance in the more traditional crash.
Older aircraft are where you have structural failure. Aluminum has an endurance limit, at some point it will fail, unlike steel which can be designed to last forever. Steel aircraft don't fly very well, chuckle.
In any case, structural failure is not the only situation you might consider deploying a parachute. You might have failed control surfaces. No control = no glide. It happened to my step father about five minutes after a flight once. The hydraulic system failed.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Or you would need one with 24 times the diameter.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The U.S. Air Force developed special parachutes for nuclear weapons that allowed a high-speed aircraft to drop a parachute-retarded bomb on a target. These parachutes can be deployed at high-speed without self-destructing or putting unacceptable loads on the nuclear weapon.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
This is great for those of us in the states, and I realize that it will be a while before this system wind up in some of the poorer nations of the world. But there is a lot of small aircraft aviation in poor regions where (stupidly) maintenance is viewed as a luxury. When this gets down there, it WILL save lives, lots of them.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Could you jettison the cargo before deploying the chute, to reduce the load of the chute and the impact when landing?
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.
The people who made the thing know it, and aren't trying to install any on airliners. It's used mainly in ultralights, where catastrophic structural failures (ie, a wing (or two) falls off) are common enough for a system like this to be useful, and are light enough that a parachute the size of a few large city blocks wouldn't be required. The exceptionally low speed of ultralights is also very very helpful.
The only reason this case is special is that it's the first time it's been used successfully in anything other than an ultralight in a real emergency.
So yes, a system like this won't be used in airliners anytime in the near future. They probably won't even be used in the majority of civilian single engine airplanes. But they will be used in some, and will probably be present in a lot of ultralights.
Also, this system isn't intended to be used when an engine fails. (well, it would be useful if an engine failed immediately after takeoff- keep in mind it can be used effectively in as little as 300 feet of altitude) It's main intent is for when the plane is incapable of landing safely. In this case, it was because an aileron was stuck.
That makes no sense.
1. "Slower moving" doesn't make a plane easier to jump from. Parachutists want to jump from a stable, level platform. When the plane is tumbling around at the end of a cable, he'll have a hard time even making it from the cockpit to a door.
2. And then him or his chute will probably get tangled in the airplane's chute.
3. Even if they don't tangle, you've got two parachutes falling from nearby initial points. They'll stay nearby each other, and he may never get to a "safe distance".
4. Even if he lands safely, many people saw him descend and will be coming to find him, where he'll probably be tangled and disoriented.
5. Even if he's not caught immediately, then he's on foot next to a smoking crater. He may as well have driven a truck bomb to do the same thing, without the need to learn how to fly & jump.
All in all, if you want to target a city with a flying bomb, just put it on autopilot ten minutes out, start the detonation timer, and bail out immediately.
These parachutes will almost certainly be used prematurely on occasion, "saving" the occupants from what would have otherwise been a survivable off-airport landing.
The most likely use for the parachute is to recover from spins. Most countries (other than the U.S.A.) teach their pilots how to recover from spins using brain-power and control surfaces instead of relying on silk.
Speaking of which, does the pilot of the airplane in question get a membership in the Caterpiller Club?
Problem with that is that all the luggage and fuel have to go somewhere after that, and that means down towards the ground. The fuel might largely evaporate but the luggage is going to hit a wide area on the ground like a shotgun blast from above. If this happened over a populated area, you might end up with a ton of property damage and a lot of people hurt of killed on the ground. So with jets, its generally going to be a save all or nothing effort.
For the most part, if even a jet has an engine failure, they have enough other engines to limp to the nearest airport they can land at. If all engines fail, then they can coast as far as they can and do their best to bring it down in a field or into water if they can since it will likely float long enough to get people out.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
Statistically, general aviation has 7 times the fatal accident rate per mile travelled than driving a car. GA has about the same safety record as riding motorcycles on the public roads.
However, unlike motorcycling (where the hapless biker is usually taken out by someone else), the pilot can do a lot more to manage the risk. Mid-air collisions or accidents caused by something OTHER than the pilot are very rare - so you're right - it CAN be very safe if you've got the right pilot behind the yoke. Even our ancient GA planes very rarely suffer mechanical failure.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
They don't need a chut to glide down out of power failure. Wings are fine in that regard
Really a chut's only needed if the wings break off
Attila the motherfucking Hun was badder than all those pink-ruffled pansy faggots mentioned here, combined. You'd better make your offerings real fucking soon, 'cause you miserable dicklickers are totally fucking doomed if he rises again on the Dark Solstice and shows your queeny asses the meaning of "total pain".