Slashdot Mirror
Huge Parachute Saves Crashing Planes
theodp writes "When his small plane banked uncontrollably and began spiraling toward earth, Canadian rancher Albert Kolk and his three passengers were saved by a single parachute. Big-as-a-house parachutes made by Ballistic Recovery Systems are stored behind the rear seats in small planes and fired with a rocket through the rear windshield; they're attached with high-strength lines to the plane's wings, nose and tail. Deployment videos here."
Hopefully no one packs a pack of pots and pans, or even worse, an anvil!
...to install one of them parachutes on the server..
Look at Genesis. Parachute failed to deploy, and the thing smashed into the ground. And that was a relatively small capsule. Also, think of the parachutes needed to save even slightly larger aircraft. If a parachute of that size was needed for small private aircraft, there probably is no practical way to use them on large commercial liners.
I don't see this being more practical in small planes than simply having individual passenger parachutes in small planes, and letting them bail.
but this isn't news ... Cirrus has been making such craft for years
are you implying that the plane was shot down with... mind bullets?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
The crash video one. Well, it had. I think it already crashed and burned.
funny munging
To prevent the parachute from catching fire, all future versions will be made out of fire-resistant cast-iron moldings.
If I had an aeroplane, I would certainly get one. Seems pretty cheap considering that this will save your life in the event of engine loss (and various other conditions as well).
Prices are not absolutely horrifying either (starts at 2000 USD, which has the ability to save 225 pounds of stuff and human).
Stop the brainwash
The insurance rates for planes with these parachues is MUCH higher than that for my 4 seat Cessna - because the statistics so far support my premise above: they are bandaids for idiots. If you have reasonable skill, INSPECT your plane before you fly, and don't make stupid decisions like flying into bad weather, then flying is very safe even without parachute 'bandaids'.
Here in Europe, in my case Germany, a rescue parachute is mandatory by law for ALL ultralight aircrafts. That are single and 2 seaters with max 472kg weight. (Similar to microlights in the US ?)
All planes have that rescue system. A small rocket which pulls the parachute out in about a second.
There are not many cases when you need it, but it saves your life if you make a fatal mistake.
Most cases are pilot errors, ie. flying in a cloud without instruments.
Wings dont break off and planes do not fall to the ground when the engine stalls.
I rather do a safe glide landing than pull the cute, EXCEPT I am over a forest or rocky terrain (which can also be put under pilot errors)
Such a backup is a good thing to have. Larger aircrafts can benefit from it too.
Welp, looks like the videos are down already.
I like the idea of the inflatable rogallo wing configuration. It's a balloon type deal shaped like a hang gliders wing, provides IIRC more than half the lift required. Originally I think they were helium filled, but I am thinking, suppose the engine had an integral air compressor, and used heat from the engine to pre heat the air going to inflate the wing. That would provide a lot of lift just like a hot air balloon, and eliminate the helium cost. Once inflated a pressure adjusted valve would automagically open and release some cooler air and add in more hot air from the engine to maintain optimal lift, that and the forward motion over the inflated wing gives all the lift required.. Even in the event of "catastrophic" engine failure, you would still have some decent lift left, and could glide to an emergency landing,much better than a normal fixed wing craft with an all of a sudden huge dead weight on the nose. Plus, it would be a lot more steerable than a parachute just hanging off a fixed wing, so you would have better choice on your emergency landing area.
Man, I hope those lawsuits fail. I don't care if it was a design flaw--nobody's perfect (though they should be obligated to fix it). I'd hate to see a lifesaving device/company like this shut down. Can the plaintiffs' lawyers possibly believe the crap they spew about trying to make the world a better place?
Forget IP law, guys and gals. This is what's wrong with our legal system.
Note that the Personal Computer was invented in the USA.
that's telekinesis kyle...
What never made sense to me on my my multiple flights was how rediculus the Safety system aboard many flights we have. Conventional wisdom says if you are flying in air you need something for survival when god-forbid something happens to you that works i air and not water. However it is just the opposite , even if you fly from two airports with no water body in between, the first thing you hear is how to use a lifejacket. C'mon now by the time someone would crash, he wont be alive to float and bolw the darned whistle for help.
Wouldn't it make more sense to have a parachute/ combination of parachute and lifejacket with each passenger. This would at least give a passenger some protection when they are heading down.
Hi fellow /. readers,
I've been an FAA certified private pilot for a couple of years and read many of the monthly general-aviation magazines/websites/etc...
Just to give some real info about parachutes and small planes.
Myth # 1: Engine Failure ==> Crash.
This is very un-true. Reading usenet forums (rec.aviation.piloting/owning/student) there are a great deal of forced-landings involving full or partial engine failure. From the very beginning of flight training, you are tought to always have a place you can glide safely to. In reality, this is difficult - particularly on takeoff climbing out, but for most of the 'time' portion of any flight it is very doable.
Myth # 2: Personal Parachutes are easy - c'mon, we see them in movies all the time. Fact: it is *not* easy to jump out of a moving plane. I took about 5 hours of aerobatic lessons, and let me tell you - it's tough enough getting into small planes, but try it with a 15lb full-chair-back size parachute stuck to you. It was actually difficult getting in and out on the ground, stopped. Add to that, most airplanes have doors that open like car doors - opening to the back. Any idea what the aerodynamic forces are at, say 100 mph? The aerobatic plane I flew had an emergency full-door release that pulled out the door-hinge pins at the front.
Now, back to the BRS parachutes. These are being put mostly on Cirrus Designs aircraft - very sweet, beautiful planes IMHO. These aircraft are *very* capable, fast, and a bit tougher to fly than your average Cessna 182 (from the reports I've read). Most times an aircraft gets in trouble, it's due to the pilot making a bad decision, not due to engine failure. Bad decisions like: flying into bad weather (IMC), scud running below low overcast, etc... These are the places where BRS was intended to be used:
1. Inadvertant Spins - the Cirrus is highly spin resistant, but it is possible & people have died in Cirrus following a spin.
2. Full instrument failure in IMC (clouds,fog,etc). This could leave the pilot with few ways to save the lives of the people inside.
A last fact: from what I've read, the BRS does not in-fact save insurance companies money. It nearly totals the plane. Think about a house-sized parachute attached to your average family sedan, deployed by rockets at 120mph. The planes are mostly totalled, but the avionics & engine (most expensive parts after the airframe) are likely salvagable.
Your suggestion makes me think of tv-shop just after September 11 when "personal parachutes" where hot. They seem pretty cheap considering that they will save your life in the event of finding yourself in a skyscraper caught on fire.
--Stop the brainwash.
Take off every 'ZIG' !!
As a pilot (ASEL, IA) and owner (Cessna 182), I'm not convinced I could ever "pull the lever" on this thing. Once this device is deployed, you are no longer the pilot -- you are just a passenger with no control over where or how the plane will land.
Flying a small plane is not risk-free, and it never will be.
YOU Fail it sucka.... eat it neal
I think it's great that our brave lawyers can see through the fact that this system has saved 8 lives, and instead focus on getting $67M out of the company for a failure, thus hopefully putting the company out of business and saving no further lives, but ensuring the brave lawyers never need work again. :)
if a similar idea could be used to save a sinking boat. Instead of a parchute obviosly, you could use huge balloons. It could at least slow down the sinking to give time to get into a life boat or raft.
What?
Come back, ONE STORY!
[/fp nazi]
... unless I had a chance at getting a tie. =)
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
and on their discussion list was a report of another chute pull. If I remember right, on the first flight after the annual the pilot discovered that the left aileron hadn't been properly reattached and had pulled free and was dangling from one hinge. The pilot was able to get fairly low and slow over a golf course and pull the chute.
Given the choice between landing at DFW with no roll control or popping the chute... well the chute sounds pretty damn attractive to me.
--Rob
Speaking of which, heads up for anyone in the area:
The D are playing in New Zealand & Australia next week.
Get there if you know whats good for you.
AC comments get piped to
There is nothing new about either the BRS product or its use on the Cirrus airplane. This is a news item only because BRS/Cirrus employes some of the top promotional folks in the general aviation industry.
The fact is that the insurance industry considers the parachute-equipped Cirrus to be a very risky airplane as evidenced by very high insurance rates and restrictive coverage.
The occasions in which deployment of a parachute would be a good solution to a problem in flight are very rare. Having the perceived ability to "pull the handle" to get out of trouble creates a false sense of safety for the pilot; exactly the last thing you want to do.
deployment video is already slashdotted
The problem with marketing systems like this is that if you save someone's life, you get a thank-you note, and if you don't succeed, you get sued for 20 million dollars.
My father-in-law invented and marketed a device that automatically deployed a parachute if a skydiver did not pull the rip-cord and the alitude is less than N feet above MSL. He got out of the business in a hurry after he was sued because the device did not work when the parachute partially deployed - which slowed the descent enough not to fire the safety mechanism, but still fast enough to kill on impact.
So while an insurance company might save money, the manufacturer has a strong disincentive to deploy imperfect mechanisms for saving lives.
these are not new my frend has a older bi-plane he added such a system to even thow he has never had to pull the lever its nice to have on to at least try to save most of your very expensiv airplane. but of course its only a oversized parashute and it can fail it happons so of course we can always bail if it failes using normal ones. but you guys are correct alot of small plane crashes are due to human error but even the most seasond pros can make a mastake.
Well, Cirrus have had these full airframe parachutes for at least 4 years, and Slashdot is only just picking up on the story!
The problem with the parachutes is like going from a twin engine plane from a single - they aren't a panacea.
At first glance, the uninitiated may think that the parachutes solve everything. But it's easy for the parachute to actually make things worse, not better. Why:
1. You are no longer pilot in command once you deploy it. You go where the wind blows you. That might be an open field, but it also might be a school yard at playtime, a busy motorway/freeway (depending on what country you're in), the top of a tall building, the top of a tree, in power lines, the edge of a cliff etc. These are things a pilot can avoid if they are still flying the plane, even in a state of distress.
2. The landing isn't exactly smooth. It is designed to let you walk away afterwards (even if you do have a bad back from the impact). Specificially, the aircraft's structure is used to absorb the impact.
I'm a private pilot (single/multi engine, IFR - or in US FAA speak, ASMEL/IA) and if I were wealthy enough to own a Cirrus, the only time I'd use the chute is if the aicraft had suffered structural failure and was now uncontrollable. If it's still controllable, I'm still flying it.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
One thing that I didn't see mentioned in the article is that, when they use the chute, the plane doesn't come wafting gently down. On the contrary, it comes down so hard that it causes significant damage to the aircraft; demolishing the landing gear and, sometimes, resulting in scrapping of the entire aircraft.
Granted, this is better than dying in a crash, but some pilots think that you can just pull the chute any time you get in a little trouble... which can cause a lot of unnecessary scrapped aircraft.
Server is allready down. Anyone have a mirror?
cat
Case in point: Flying with my dad in his Super Cub. We're flying along, then suddenly the plane lurches down 50-100 feet in a second or so. A second later, the plane lurches back up 50-100 feet or so.
Had I not been wearing my seat belt, I'd probably have been hurt, possibly severely -- there's support braces right above my head, and I would have hit them *hard*.
(It's not certain what happened, but presumably it was a vortex created by a jet airliner, possibly above us in the clouds. We never saw the plane that created it, however. It also did no damage to the plane (dad had it checked out after landing), but it certainly sent everything not strapped down flying.)
...because it would kind of suck to be plummeting, and then sigh in relief as the plane is slowed by the parachute, only to have the strings catch fire from whatever caused the plane to start falling in the first place.
You must be a Mac user.
isn't this developement 5+ years old? I remember seeing video of this stuff at least 3 years ago.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
Can someone get this for the entire airline industry, please?
from the ejection-seats-are-cooler-though dept.
Only in helicopters!
Informatus Technologicus
Background: I'm a private pilot who owns a 1946 Luscombe, a plane not considered to be a terribly "safe" airplane by many. But as with any machine, treat it with the respect it deserves and it will reward you. I prefer to program in assembly and C, as well.
t ml
I'm not convinced that a "safer" airplane actually makes one safer. Twin engine airplanes have worse statistics for post-engine-failure accidents; the Ercoupe (a stall/spin-proof airplane which was about the only non-tailwheel plane of its time), was designed for a high level of safety but didn't have that great a record (and by the end of its life, had had all the safety features removed save the nosewheel); and the parachute-equipped Cirrus had a horrendous safety record early on.
See, for example,
http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/2004/sp0402.h
I think that reliance on safety features may tend to lead one into more unsafe behavior than one would otherwise engage in. I can say from personal observation at the AirVenture fly-in (http://www.airventure.org/) this summer that Cirrus corporate demo pilots pushed the safety envelope to the point of being grounded this past year.
It's an old truism that the superior pilot relies on superior judgement to prevent the need of his superior skills. With very, very few exceptions, wings don't fall off airplanes until some time after the pilot makes a bad decision.
Ecce potestas casei!
...remember the indestructible black box they have in the cockpit? Why can't they make the whole plane outta that?
The PC Weenies: 11 Years of Online Tech 'Too
Hand glider pilots have been using these for years.
RESERVE PARACHUTES
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
how DOES ancient news, reported elsewhere DAYS ago and well-known before that, show up here on an erstwhile "bleeding edge, you read it here first" site?
/. if it isn't the 1st place to hear something good ...
there's little purpose to
Keep in mind these BRS are not designed for use when the engine fails. When the engine fails, you land the airplane as a glider. It'll be a heavy, short winged, inefficent glider, but it'll still fly. As a pilot, I spent hours and hours training to do this sort of thing.
The purpose of BRS are when there is a structural failure or when the airplane has become uncontrolled, such as getting into a spin from which the pilot cannot recover. It's really a last ditch attempt when there is no other way of staying alive.
Don't expect to just dust yourself off and walk away from a BRS landing either. The plane is going to be seriously bent, likely a total loss after the impact. Chances are you'll also have spinal injuries, but at least you'll be alive.
Personally, I don't see much of a point of these systems. The likelihood of a structural failure or a complete loss of control is very rare. Anything else, a properly trained pilot can fly him/herself out of.
Maybe someone with more experience than myself can chime in?
Yes, IAALP (I am a licensed pilot). It's also the first time I've posted on slashdot. Please be gentle in modding.
Parachutes are hailed as the save-all for pilots. Except:
Eh?
Please help metamoderate.
The damage depends on many factors, such as what the weight and speed of the plane, as well as the landing surface.
The parachute is generally sized to drop the plane within the tolerance of the landing struts. Given a relativly soft & flat surface, the damage isn't bad. Of course, this depends on why you had to deploy the paracute in the first place.
Given how expensive a plane is, it is a major plus to save it. Of course, it is also much easier to deploy the plane-chute then to try to climb out of one of those planes. It requires less time & altitude to deploy properly.
I don't read AC A human right
if the hijacked planes on 9/11 had them.
To the greatest post in the word! Wooah-ooooooh
Entering a flat spin during a cross-country flight sounds pretty suspicious. A little research turns up this article in which it is stated that there is radar data showing the plane in a spiral dive.
A spiral dive is a high-speed descending turn which a typical result of loss of control due to disorientation in instrument conditions. It could also happen, as the article claims, when the plane is unbalanced (much more fuel in one wing than the other) and the autopilot reaches its control limits.
http://www.airsafe.com/stewart.htm
The major developer of this technology, Cirrus, has been doing so for at least a year (unsure of dates), and there have been many successful deployments which have saved airframes and, possibly, lives. This isn't newsworthy at this point, although it might be interesting to those who haven't heard about it.
We go back to the autogyro :-P
definitely worth th $16K--esp. with the higher risk for smaller planes. Of course, I'd want my mondo expensive-ass plane to survive, too. So this is much better solution than a ditch or crash landing.
They might re-think the design of larger planes to just have escape modules--kinda like the way they redesigned the Shuttle.
I'd also want hell if I were in ice water--or maybe the other way around, too.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
"I'm a private pilot (single/multi engine, IFR - or in US FAA speak, ASMEL/IA) and if I were wealthy enough to own a Cirrus, the only time I'd use the chute is if the aicraft had suffered structural failure and was now uncontrollable. If it's still controllable, I'm still flying it."
...well, it does, and this has been the reason behind several Cirrus crashes. The FAA allowed the Cirrus to become certified ONLY because they had the BRS parachute.
I guess you haven't heard that the Cirrus has a problem with unrecoverable spin modes
In short, it doesn't take structural failure to mean that the parachute might be your only way out.
I'd rather have a Mooney or a 182 any day. And so would most pilots, it seems.
To be absolutely correct, BRS has been supplying their system to Cirrus for several years (with several 'saves' too)
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
"f a similar idea could be used to save a sinking boat."
This idea has BEEN reality for years. These "float bags" are deployed using CO2 canisters, and deploy INSIDE the boat,
thus preventing water from occupying enough of the boat's interior to cause sinking.
Next time you "wonder", why not use Google ? You'd be amazed what exists already.
An add-on kit with a compressed gas charge to clear the parachute from airframe has been used for years and saved over a 1000 people from serious injury or death.
I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
What good is that when the mountains are up front????
Pilot: "MY GOD, ALL BUT ONE OF OUR ENGINES JUST DIED ON US!!!"
Co-Pilot: "Oh SHIT!! well, how far can that one engine take us???"
Pilot: "All the way to the scene of the crash!!"
I know the guy whose parachute saved his plane.. ..
.. not 6 months later..
But i have news.. this happened like 6 months ago!
and CNN just picked up on it
If this would have happened in the States u would have heard about it then
to bad th Americans can't have a parachute when their "Monkey in the White hHouse" to save you other people from his blunders
Is that now that if 5 arabs get onto a plane and announce they are taking it over, you assume that you are going to die, so you bull rush them and hope to kick their ass.
This is my sig.
The parachutes are stored behind the rear seats in small planes and fired with a rocket through the rear windshield.
:^) I hope Santa brought you all the techno-goodies you wanted!
What plane has a rear windshield? I hope there's fire extinguishers handy because that rocket may singe the back of your head!
Oh yes, Happy Holiday Session to all Slashdotters
No sig for you! Come back one year!
I've flown a lot for work -- as a passenger. I've never gave much thought to crashes or accident. I never really ever wondered why to I didn't "fear" flying and some people did.
Lately, a little fear (getting old, now have kids, youthful invincibilty's been modded down...) had crept into my mind during turbulence or expected "events" and it took a why to figure out what really was behind this.
The last part of Ann Elk's comment "...you are just a passenger with no control over where or how the plane will land" is EXACTLY it.
Elk may not be willing to ever "pull the lever" but he better be believe we mere passengers will be reaching for that thing.
the future is here, it is just not evenly distributed - w. gibson
FLY IT UNTIL EVERY PART STOPS MOVING
But, I would agree with using it in cases of structural failure. You can always do a no-yoke landing (rudder/throttle/trim)
The inflatable rogallo wing IS the permanent wing. There is no hard fixed wing. They were making these things a few years back. There's no "additional" anything besides my idea of keeping the wing inflated with hot air from the drive engine as opposed to a permanent helium fill.
Are they kidding me? Is this statistic true?
A single commercial jet holds 100+ people and they are saying only 81 people died in 2003?
I live near Albert Kolk here in Southern Alberta and I didn't actually see Albert's plane, but I do personally know who he is. I heard that his plane had serious damage to the fuselage and that Albert figures that he can fix it and save the fuselage. I've had a chance to fly with him before, perhaps I should have taken it because I for some reason don't feel comfortable flying in a plane that he would have repaired. Although, if the repairs are successfull, then it would show that the system isn't so bad after all.
Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right. --Isaac Asimov
Plane parachutes have been around for awhile; there's an example in the movie "The Gods Must be Crazy II". For most small planes, unless the wings fall off, you would probably try to land normally because once you pop the chute, you are at the mercy of high-tension lines, windmills, etc. A Cesna 152 lands at around 55 MPH, so it's not too hard to walk away if you ditch it in a field.
Aside from that it sounds like a great idea. Only feasible in smaller comute planes due to the weight limitations of larger aircraft.
having the passenger compartment on an airplane be a seperate "capsule." In case the plane loses all engines over the Atlantic, wing falls off, no fuel, etc. the passenger section of the plane could be ejected.
As with most safety devices you must take into account the problems such devices could cause and result in a less reliable craft.
This idea probally isn't practical (financial or technological). It's just something I have always had in the back of my mind.
The product didn't fire when he pulled the lever.
It wasn't a case of extreme weather that the chute wasn't designed to handle, or getting shreded by flying engine parts. The pilot pulled the lever and it didn't do anything. Not cool. Then the company replaced a part in everybody's chute. That's tantamount to an admission of guilt. The put out a bunk product that didn't perform as advertized.
Sue 'em!
This brings up another issue. The activation lever for this device damn well better be located such that it cannot be reached by nervous passengers.
Let's add a few more valid reasons for deploying the chute:
Engine failure and you cannot find a good enough place for an emergency landing
Medical emergency
and in the unlikely event that they can fit it onto a commercial airline - hijacking. Had those airplanes on 911 been fitted with some kind of emergency brake like this, the hijackers would have been limited to attempting to slaughter the people on board after the pilots had pulled that lever. Something to consider?
(I am not a licensed pilot, by the way)
Stop the brainwash
have seen malpractice insurance rates increase at a *faster* rate than those without tort reform.
"Tort reform" (as the GOP intends it) isn't a new idea. It's been tried before. It doesn't work. It failed. So why would it be a good idea on the national level?
20 years ago is when I had one bolted to my twin-engine Lazair ultralight. At the time there were 2 basic models available - one deployed by a rocket and one by an explosive charge. I opted for #2, which would sucessfully bring down an aircraft when deployed as low as 400 feet. I put this on my second plane after I lost my first one in a thunderstorm (yes, while flying it). Even way back then they had plans to make em a bigger and market to general aviation. Don't see why this is making the news today. And, this thing didn't make me feel safer or make me even more reckless than I already was. I was constantly in fear of the damn thing going off by itself.
If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
Well, I know from reading the feedback that a lot of this has already been said, but some of this does deserve some reiteration... for which I will relay my opinions on the Cirrus/BRS systems.
,if you're dumb enough to be doing barrel rolls in a plane not designed for it then you probably deserve to become an expensive lawn dart.
When I first heard about the BRS in Cirrus planes I was quite excited. This sounded like a brilliant idea and from all my reading seemed to work great. Of course, at this time I was not even a student pilot and the only Cirrus was the SR-20 (the SR-22 followed on a few months after I first started reading). I'd had an interest in flight for some time, that much is true... but I hadn't yet had the financial stability to take the plunge so to speak.
So, leap forward to the present. I'm a PP-ASEL (in FAA speak... Private Pilot, Airplane Single Engine Land), and planning on doing my Instrument and Multi in the new year... finances allowing. So how has my opinion changed in that time? Well, quite a bit actually.
1. The only time an airframe parachute makes sense is in the event of a structural failure of the aircraft. I can only see two times when this would come about; pilot error (doing aerobatics in an aircraft not built for it) or SEVERE turbulence... enough to snap the wings in a negative-G state (VERY hard to break the wings in a positive-G state on most GA aircraft). Either of these are PILOT ERROR INDUCED under most circumstances. At the first hint of severe turbulence, standard practice should be to slow the hell down and get to or preferably below maneuvring speed... at that speed the airfoil will stall before the aircraft will be severely damaged. Also
2. A BRS "save" in a Cirrus occurred some time ago when a maintenance error led to the departure of the aileron from the airframe during flight. This was probably a valid use of the parachute in this case since it was a situation that would be less than perfect. HOWEVER... it IS possible to control a plane without ailerons. I've done it... in fact my instructor was VERY adamant that I should be able to fly the plane with only rudder, throttle and trim if it came down to it. I probably have several hours of time (under the IFR hood and visual) where I was flying "hands off the yoke" for some time. Nerve-racking... but doable. Even if I then lost the rudder I have at least once flown with elevator trim, throttle and the doors of the plane (sounds funny, but it works!) If you suffer this kind of multiple failure simultaneously then you probably should have landed after the first failure!
3. An engine failure does not a parachute situation make. In fact I would avoid this where possible. Engines fail... fact of life in aviation. A plane with no engine WILL glide VERY well. During my training again I had a joke early on that by the time I reached my first cross country solo I had had more "engine failures" (simulated) than I had landings. This wasn't far from the truth. Through sheer repetition my instructor ingrained it in me to the point where it's almost a reaction now... loss of engine power equals ABCD... "Airspeed" (best glide, 65 knots in a 172), "Best Field" (locate my location to land), "Checklist" (check my fuel, mixture, carb heat, primer, fuel selector valve) and "Declare" (tune 121.5, declare an emergency, give location, dial 7700 on the transponder).
I also have an advantage with the engine failures though... I live in St. Louis, MO where there's nearly always an airfield or a suitable corn field close by... but I'm ALWAYS conscious while flying of where my "best bets" are.
4. An airframe parachute will only really help about 15% of annual accidents. This might be a low estimate, but most of my reading tells me that the most common accidents are things like controlled flight into terrain, VFR into IMC, and often bad pre-flight. One example of the latter was a recent accident here in STL where a Cessna 182 (or 210... not sure) went down after a go-around at a l
It doesn't take long to learn how to tune the radio to the emergency channel and learn to land an airplane. Teach the wives to do this. It is much easier for an ambulance to meet you at an airport than someplace on the ground.
I'm not talking about a nice smooth landing, I'm talking about a landing that you walk away from, but the plane doesn't fly without some major work. Actually if you just know how to tune the radio to the emergency channel there is often someone that can talk you through a landing even though you have never done it before. But if nobody knows there is a problem nobody will help.
Thank you for totally not getting the python reference.
ass.