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."

Comments

Re:Counterpoint.

[wtansill]

I don't see this being more practical in small planes than simply having individual passenger parachutes in small planes, and letting them bail.

It may not make much difference to the passengers, but think about having the plane touch down (sort of) gracefully rather than, say, crashing into the middle of a housing development. Not to mention the fact that your insurance company will be far happier to repair a lightly damaged aircraft rather than shelling out for a replacement of the bits and pieces left behind in a smoking crater...

Re:Counterpoint.

[Fnkmaster]

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).

Re:Counterpoint.

[LennyDotCom]

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

Lawyers

[The AtomicPunk]

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. :)

Re:Not as good as it sounds

[mumblestheclown]

Since the pilot of the plane is responsible for determining if an airplane is airworthy before flying, you had better know what you are doing before you fly. You do get this kind of training when you get your pilots license (unless your flight school/instructor was an idiot).

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.

Parachute = safer?

[GarrettZilla]

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.

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.ht ml

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.