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."
The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. -- Daniel Webster
I don't see this being more practical in small planes than simply having individual passenger parachutes in small planes, and letting them bail.
The thing is that only works if you are at high enough altitude that you have time to put on the parachutes, get the door open, jump out, and have the parachute deploy.
This is much faster - you just pull a lever and it deploys, and thus is much more likely to help out in the more common real world scenarios where something goes wrong shortly after takeoff or before landing (obviously, you have to be high enough for this parachute to deploy, and it's hard to look up the stats right now as their server is toast).
If you had ever been skydiving you would know it takes a bit of training to learn how to jump and control the parachute I doubt your going to train every passenger before flight
http://Lenny.com
Yes, but that was due in part to sensors not triggering properly. If *your* sensors are on the blink (your eyes), what the hell are you doing flying a plane to begin with?
It's true these will not work for larger aircraft, but some have had the idea of breaking the larger airframes into a series of seating modules, and if disaster hits, the modules get closed with bulkhead doors and then each module gets ejected from the plane with 20-30 passengers and a big honking chute. Rather like the ejection system on some military craft that ejects the whole cockpit instead of just the guy.
The downside of this is obviously this won't work for existing craft. The planes would have to be built entirely differently to accomodate such a feature, and that would cost lots of coin, so of course it won't happen.
Assuming you're the pilot, I imagine you mostly care about your own ass. I didn't know having a mechanics class was a required part of flying (which is why you have techs and mechs to handle that sort of thing).
There's those errors, there's the freak accidents, and there's those kinds of wierd whether conditions you couldn't predict (like a sudden fog when there's supposed to be none). I'd still like the safety of a parachute.
Your claim is kinda like saying that cars with airbags are more unsafe too, because people will rely on the airbag when they crash. It doesn't really make sense, so I imagine there's some other properties about those planes which make their premium so much higher. I don't think anyone who has used such a parachute would ever rely on it to save their ass. It might, but it is hardly a safe bet.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Modularize passenger/luggage compartments: when a module is filled, the next module is loaded. Say, 2 first class rows, 3 business rows, a small kitchen module, a 6-7 rows of cattle class, with bathrooms fore and aft.
Zero hijack potential(after all, the cockpit is TOTALLY inaccessible...). Efficiencies of loading and unloading, INCLUDING luggage (Your luggage is with you in your module...). Safety in case of airborne accident
Yes, we'd have to build a whole new class of jetliners, and this would only be efficient for trans-continental and oceanic runs, but this idea has promise. . .
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. :)
I'm not a pilot, but one thing I didn't like in this article was the talk of "relying" on one. It seems to me, the parachute would be the absolute LAST option - if there's no way you can land the plane on your own, then you pull the lever and hope the parachute saves you.
.. if there was no parachute, then the plane would still crash.
The article talks about the families suing the company because the parachutes didn't work. It's not like the parachutes killed them
Speak before you think
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
" Deploying a parachute on a plane like this is _almost_ always a coverup for poor piloting skills or poor maintenance." Well, there's the stupid truism of the day. Bravo! Boy, with a logical prowess of that depth, no wonder they gave you your license. Yes, you're right. But, that does not remove the value of an extra level of safety. Unless, that is, you're one of those guys that says things like: "His motorcycle helmet is a cover up for poor driving skills." "Seatbelts are a cover up for poor driving skills." "Real men don't need helmets, seatbelts or parachutes. These are simply indications that they shouldn't be taking part in the activity, in the first place." Suggestion: freak accidents aside, perhaps the issue actually is never "poor piloting skills" but rather poorly regulated systems of training that allow pilots who shouldn't be flying in the air to get a license. Very strong government regulations and oversight for this type of training should be able to protect people from themselves. But, does this mean that would then remove the need for safety mechanisms? No. Silly rabbit.
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.
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
BULLSHIT!!!
I am a flight instructor. I also teach on the SR22 (340 hours SR22, 7800 total time).
I am *not* a big fan of the parachute--I don't think it's as cost effective as additional training, but your claims about its use and insurance rates dont stand up to any scrutiny.
First, the insurnace bit: the insurance rates for an SR22 are higher for your Cessna because an SR22 costs about 5-6 times what your cessna 172 does, has an engine with over twice the horsepower, and flies a hell of a lot faster. Plus, the SR20/22, the only aircraft with these included standard, are relatively new airframes, which always make rates higher.
Second: the "instructor idiot" bit. Let me ask you: do you also wear a seat belt / shoulder harness because your instructor was an idiot? Because, the first thing that must be said is that your assinine comment is no smarter than that of the idiots in the 50s who said that seat belts would only encourage reckless driving.
No? then let me ask you another question: when would a good pilot deploy the parachute? say, control system failure due to a control line being snagged at a pully or something? Hmm.. let's see.. no way for a pilot to check this during preflight. So according to your "explanation" this is to be blamed on maintenance. So basically what you're saying is that "we should not install safety devices in aircraft because this will encourage bad maintenance." That is beyond stupid.
Third, there is another MAJOR aspect to the BRS system - a lot of these planes are being bought by 60 year old doctors and lawyers. Doctors and lawywers who have heart attacks. While flying with their wives. 'Nuff said.
I'd write more, but you are a moron and it ain't worth it.
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.)
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!
Yeah, except if the freakin plane is falling out of the sky, I'd be willing to take my chances with the parachute. I may not make a Golden Knights worthy landing, but at least I'd have a chance.
WTF? Over?
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.