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
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!
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...
How will we get rid of unwanted politicians and pop stars???
Xaotik Designs
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.