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.
and one giant leap for airplane drag racing.
Slashdotter are stupid and biased.
If this works as well as I've heard, look for it to eventually become mandatory on small planes.
.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.
... 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!
Actually, a 747 is basically held up at just a few relatively small points. There is an incredible amount of torque at the points where the wing structure meets the fuselage and also where the empennage is attached. If these joints are strong enough to cause an upward acceleration against gravity, then certainly they are strong enough to effect a zero or very small acceleration with gravity.
Now, a parachute and cords strong enough to support a 747 - that is another story entirely.
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"
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
Rockets are a lot more common in aviation than you might first think. The Swearingen/Fairchild Metro III, a 20-passenger twin-prop plane popular for short-haul flights, actually has a solid-fuel rocket in the tail cone. That's because, when fully-loaded, the Metro would, under some conditions, be unable to climb on takeoff if there was an engine failure. Comforting thought.
When I was an air traffic controller, we referred to them as "aluminum lawn darts," for obvious reasons.
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
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.
Am I the only one that read this post and wondered about the airspeed of a fully-laden African Swallow?
That's because, when fully-loaded, the Metro would, under some conditions, be unable to climb on takeoff if there was an engine failure.
Er... I would think that would be a pretty common problem among planes, fully-loaded or not...
No relation to Happy Monkey
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!
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