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!
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
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 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).
Yes, and I'm pretty sure Cirrus' planes use this system, which they purchase from this company. So it's the same thing - Cirrus is their largest customer, since relatively few people want to retrofit something like this onto an existing plane.
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
Parachute failed to deploy, and the thing smashed into the ground.
Any plane that has to use a parachute is going to smash into the ground anyways. At least there is hope with a parachute.
They did have one. But it deployed in the small closed server room. They're not sure where the rocket went and they're still trying to find the operator.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
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.
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.
Quick test: Your plane is about to crash. You have 1 minute to escape.
Can you:
1. Find your parachute
2. Properly put it on
3. Open the door
4. Jump in such a way that you don't hit the plane (wing, engine, etc)
5. Pull the cord
Lets say you've never worn a parachute. How much time will you freeze for?
If you have a parachute on the plane itself, there is now only 1 person who is responsible for saving everyone's lives, and that person (being the pilot) would likely have much more training than Joe passenger out for a ride.
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.
Genesis was coming back from *space*. airplanes are moving at considerably lower velocities, and are flying at considerably lower altitudes.
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.
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
Plus, even if the pilot has an incident, a big red lever marked "Safety chute" will probably guide the other passengers to the best decision.
liqbase
that's telekinesis kyle...
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.
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. . .
The first thing to teach them is to never jump out of a good airplane.
What?
Yes, Cirrus does use the BRS chute, and has been for many years. They claim to be be working for TSO approval on other light singles.
/. news?
But how is any of this front page
If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
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. :)
Chute deployment: perhaps 20-30 seconds. .....
Passengers (and pilot) putting on parachute (while strapped into their seat in a spiraling plane) then bailing out under uncontrolled conditions and not getting hit by plane parts, and then
splat.
Then of course, there's the problem of teaching your 5-year old kid how to properly deploy a parachute (not to mention ensuring that you have the right sized parachute for him and that he's in the right seat, and .........
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
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?
It should also probably be pointed out that Genesis was orbiting the Sun directly for a considerable amount of time, was a "one-off", and didn't have the quality assurance time that a commercial craft capable of carrying hundreds of passengers gets. The FAA is pretty severe about safety before certifying a plane for commercial purposes. While there are plane crashes, there are a very, very small number of incidents compared to normal flights.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
... 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
" 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.
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
Since the pilot is responsible for the safety of the aircraft, how can you be responsible if you haven't checked that its not going to fall apart passing 500ft or something? Even so there's always freak accidents of course...
To the people saying that a personal chute is better, I have a counter story, told to me while I was working on a glider field. (It's also true -- I met and spoke to the guy involved, he'll let you poke him in the back to feel the metal bolts he received!)
One time this pilot arrived and rigged his glider, and took off as normal. Unfortunately, the bolt holding the elevator part of the (T-)tail on (yup, there's only one bolt on most gliders AFAIK, to make it easy to assemble) fell off, and his 'plane skyrocketed, before crashing pretty much down on its tail but tilted backwards, breaking the guys back quite badly and forcing him off gliding for a while.
Now: How are you supposed to escape from a vertically oriented craft at 0g thats likely to fall on top of you even if you do get out? Even if not fully deployed a plane-chute would help to orient you better allowing a) a slightly softer more controlled "landing" and b) more chance of escape
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.
Alas, you are simply ignorant on this matter.
I fly and teach in a Cirrus SR22 with a built in ballistic parachute. Frankly, if you look at the cost/benefit of such a system, it's wasted money - for the vast, vast, VAST bulk of SR20/22 pilots, the money would be much better spent on an additional, say, 160 hours of flight training.
However, there are many many situations where a balistic airplane parachute is a far better choice than an individual parachute.
One is an uncontrolled spin / structural failure situation. Now, mind you that the parachute is not strictly certified to open in all flight regimes, but, frankly, if your airplane starts breaking apart, you may well not be able to make it the door. This is why fighter pilots in WW2 often died despite wearing parachutes.
Two is aerodynamic design. The SR22 is very sleek. The way it is designed, it is damn near impossible to open the doors in flight (not that I've tried - I've done this plenty of times with cessnas and so forth), but since the SR22 is designed for speed and (considernig the speed) economy, making jump-outable doors would be neigh-on impossible.
Aircraft Survivability (at least the chance of) - at least one aircraft where the BRS has been deployed has flown again after not too extensive work. I dont know many bailed out of aircraft that can say the same.
Environmental survivability. These things are going to be pulled often over mountainous terrain. If you land with the airplane, not only do you have a shelter, but you have the survival junk you store in the back. Same can't be said for bailing out. Oh ya, and you're also close to the aircraft's Emergency Locator Transmitter for emergncy purposes.
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.
Skydiver: "There's no such thing as a perfectly good airplane!"
Pilot: "There's also no such thing as a perfectly good parachute."
Skydiver: "That's why we carry two of 'em!"
(Thank you, thank you, tip your server, don't forget to try the veeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallll...)
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.
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.
The extra weight and wasted space would make this very inefficient. You'd have more stuff that would have to work every single time.
Also, hijackers can threaten passengers instead of just the crew. Making the cockpit inaccessible prevents 9/11 style situations but doesn't prevent old style "take us to ___ or everybody dies" hijackings.
How would it be safe in case of an airborne accident? What's the risk of an airborne accident anyway? Air travel is so overwhelmingly safe that building giant parachuting passenger escape pods seems like a really expensive solution to a virtually nonexistent problem.
Keep watching those made for TV movies, though.
Added benefit -- it saves the plane. I imagine that the plane is damaged somewhat after a parachute deployment, but it's far better than having it crash. And it's safer for people on the ground ...
so at both a large and several small parachutes. if the large fails and one person saves himself, then there is on less person dead.
with the cost of wrongfull death(as if there is some right deads) lawsuits this properly even pays of.
Freedom or George Bush
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.
Yeah, and just think how much safer the roads could be if nobody had seatbelts or airbags!
After all, good drivers who inspect their vehicles prior to a trip and don't make dumb decisions never have accidents...
0 1 - just my two bits
Also, hijackers can threaten passengers instead of just the crew. Making the cockpit inaccessible prevents 9/11 style situations but doesn't prevent old style "take us to ___ or everybody dies" hijackings.
Actually, with that system in place, those would be eliminated or severly curtailed in their effectiveness as well. Try this one on for size: A hijack is announced with 5 hijackers, who claim they have a bomb. The pilot hits stage 1, which brings all the bulkhead doors down and seals the plane into 12 sections. He then comes on the PA and tells the hijackers to surrender their bomb and sit down and shut up or he'll eject all the modules. Worst case scenario is that one of the modules is breached by the bomb, while the other 11 are fine. Considering that the modules would be built for high-speed ejection over an ocean, it's not even certain that a smuggleable bomb would be sufficient to destroy the module it is located in, let alone any of the adjoining modules.
Or even better, it's decided that NTSB rules stipulate that in the event of a hijack, the pilot has no choice but to eject all modules immediately. Make it a big news story so that everyone knows that if that crap is even tried, all the modules just go away the second the pilot knows about it. There goes any and all motivation to hijack the planes since they won't get what they want.
If they're just after hostages for a cause, there's lots of places to find those that don't involve planes.
Keep watching those made for TV movies, though.
What movies? Like the show I saw on Discovery last year about Flight 261? I bet those people would have loved the modular idea. Certainly much better than spiraling to their deaths in an out of control aircraft at 400 mph.
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!
From what I understand, and have seen, most of north america is pretty sparsely populated. Ever fly across the US during the day? Lotsa farmland, mountains, a few populated areas. The odds of a plane crashing into a populated area, is fairly small. I somewhat suspect this is not a *huge* factor in the actuarial calculations of plane insurance. But would welcome enlightenment (or knee jerk misinformation, this being /.).
-d
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
...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
Not to mention, I'm willing to bet body parts that after a "lightly damaging crash" the insurance company (and any sane pilot" would want a complete teardown and inspection before declaring it airworthy again.
I bet the price between a major crash and a complete teardown inspection/rebuild will be closer than you'd think.
WTF? Over?
"I don't see this being more practical in small planes than simply having individual passenger parachutes in small planes, and letting them bail."
Don't know much about small planes or parachutes do you?
1. It tends to take some training to learn how to use a parachute. I do not think many four year olds would figure it out in an emergency. I guess you could leave the kids behind.
2. Everybody would have to wear the chute all the time and that would be uncomfortable.
3. Many four seat planes have only one door and I have never seen one with four doors so every one would have to try and squeeze out of the door wearing a chute. I suggest trying to get of the backseat of a two door car while wearing a back pack to see how well this would work.
The one thing that you said that makes any sense is that they are not practical on large airliners. If you look at airline crashes almost none of them happen in conditions that this chute would have helped. Not to mention that it would just be too large.
BTW these chutes have been used for years on ultralights and homebuilt. They do save lives in some incidents.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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?
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
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
FCC regulation being what it is, I don't think they'd let a plane that has suffered a 'light damage' crash fly again. Not without the complete teardown you mentioned, but expect to pay for everything (including the frame) getting replaced anyways. Probably is cheaper to just buy a new plane.
I don't see this being more practical in small planes than simply having individual passenger parachutes in small planes, and letting them bail.
I personally knew the man who died in the Oct 29 plane crash in Rhode Island. That article is a bit inaccurate, but all the news reports were in regards to the crash. He had built the plane (Adventure Air Amphibious 6-seater) in his garage over the course of almost 15 years and it had only been in the air for about a month when it went down. During that entire time he studied to get his private pilot's certificate and all the relevant certifications to properly fly his plane. He was a very good pilot by all the accounts that I had heard (my father - he's also a pilot, and other friends of his).
Anyways, the plane went down about 2.5 miles off the end of the runway, which is about a minute of flying, and by my guess (I am a student pilot with 47 flight hours logged), maybe 1000' or 1500' of elevation AGL. I don't yet know what went wrong that day, but I get the impression from the eyewitness report that the plane was intact until it hit. The bigger factor for me is that I saw how much detail he put into the plane... he was a stickler for perfection and he knew his stuff (he studied mechanical engineering before going into law). So this leads me to believe that the plane was OK as far as the airframe. With a huge parachute like that and even just 500' elevation to pull it, he just might have survived the crash.
The cockpit of that plane and the big harnesses that he had in there would have taken more time to get out than he had. Whole-plane parachutes give pilots more time to react, rather than having to aim the plane away from (as was the case in Paul's crash) a shopping mall, unbuckle yourself, open the canopy (not an option in certain planes where you'd have to push the door against the air resistance), bail, and pull your chute. This is a big problem because most crashes happen in the very first or the very last minutes of flying (when the plane is flying slow and is more susceptible[sp?] to stalling). It can save lives.
Just my $0.02.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
Here.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
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.
My thoughts exactly, seeing how we're in the litigious (sp?) society that we are, God forbid something goes wrong with the repaired plane, everyone remotely associated with granting it airworthyness again will get sued.
WTF? Over?
We go back to the autogyro :-P
I've taken flying lessons and talked with the instructors. Planes are not easy to get anymore, and I've heard of planes that land hard, had wings broken, even landed in lakes being recovered and restored to flying status.
You figure, people are still taking WWII planes out of junkyards and restoring them.
I don't read AC A human right
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...
Fairly small if you say that there is a constant chance of the plane crashing over the entire flight.
In contrast, most accidents happen around takeoff and landing. Which doesn't usually happen in unpopulated areas.
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.
Anything light enough to stay in the air is not going to be able to stop a bomb from destroying the module.
If we had a material like that, would we not put it around the engines and control surfaces already?
The insurance company won't care much, except for liability. Once you pop the chute, the FAA will not certify the airframe as airworthy ever again.
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
People aren't worried about "Take us to cuba" hujackings, they're worried about "We're all going to die" hijackings. Terrorists, not hijackings...
The point of terrorism is NOT to kill people, but to SCARE people. You kill a few, scare a bunch. With 9/11, how many people died? 4 thousand? How many people were too scared to fly? A few million? 10 million? Wouldn't it still be just as effective to kill a section of the plane (20, 30 people), scare EVERYONE on board, _and_ scare their families, friends, and anyone who heard the news about the most recent bombing?
Besides, if there were 5 terrorists on board, and if they happened to actually smuggle some explosives on board, each one of them takes a portion of the explosive to a different section. Now you get just under half of the plane. Of course, the terrorists could just detonate without any notice, or could put stuff in the food, or maybe taint the air supply, or any other thing. There are many points of failure in the current system. You may not get the plane to fly into a building, but you can still do lots of damage. Especially if you time it to be during approach somewhere - you might get more casualties and make people even more scared.
Sure they will. The FAA only cares that the plane can pass it's rigorous inspections. Actually the FAA has eased up quite up bit on safety and inpection requirements over the last decade or so. Believe it or not they want private/personal pilots to be able to afford to fly. For instance you can now do major engine and structural work yourself. Unlike commercial aviation where safety at all costs is the rule, private aviation allows for personal responsibility for such matters. Despite being much more dangerous than commercial aviation, private plane crashes are rare. Pilots generally respect nature, thier planes and thier abilities.
Frankly this is might be a good product but it can in no way make a plane crash proof. Things like major structural failure, crashing in an object (mountain or building), or landing takeoff crashes will render it useless.
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!
Two is aerodynamic design. The SR22 is very sleek. The way it is designed, it is damn near impossible to open the doors in flight (not that I've tried - I've done this plenty of times with cessnas and so forth), but since the SR22 is designed for speed and (considernig the speed) economy, making jump-outable doors would be neigh-on impossible.
A few years ago, I was taking lessons in a Cessna 152. On my third flight, when we were to be doing stalls, the door opened at about 100-200ft and didn't want to shut. The instructor just says, "Yeah, it does that sometimes."
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
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.
There is NO FUCKING WAY that I'm dying in a plane crash with a perfectly good parachute on my back. Let me the Fuck Out.
e ee eeeeeeeeee
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Bailing out of a small aircraft is pretty dangerous. Pulling a handle and letting the BRS save everybody's butt is much safer, and your passengers are all still sitting in a crashworthy structure.
Are you going to strap a parachute to your four year old kid? BRSes are well engineered, proven safety mechanisms.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
A gas leak that causes you to run out of gas in midair? Somewhat acceptable.
Your flaps stick? Your landing gear sticks? Somewhat acceptable.
Your left wing falls off? Um, no. Not acceptable.
You screwed up pretty seriously somewhere. Your plane shouldn't be falling apart unless it gets hit by a meteorite.
Same thing with getting into an uncontrollable dive. What, exactly, was going on leading up to that? Was the pilot joining the mile high club? Was there a bet involving how long the pilot could hold the stick all the way to the right?
It's like with cars, having roll bars built in. If you're tumbling down the road...well, possibly you should have planned your trip better.
With roll bars you have the excuse that someone else might have screwed up and hit you, so I can see that, but, as there are almost no airplane collisions (And no small airplane holds together during them anyway.), that logic doesn't really work for parachutes designed to get people out of uncontrollable dives. You either got in an uncontrollable dive because you were goofing around, or you got in one because you didn't check the weather report and flew into a tornado.
I mean, I'm not against parachutes on planes, they could help the few times something really weird happens. But, mostly, they do seem to be some sort of way out of not getting killed by shitty flying, and I have to suggest the solution to that is less shitty flying.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
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.
The Challenger forced NASA to study ejectable compartements. They concluded that it was infeasable, far too expensive, and wouldn't be very effective. Eject hundreds of people? If the plane is going down, how much time would that have? Can you eject during a botched takeoff/landing?
Doing that much engineering to solve a non-problem is just silly.
You are safer getting on an airplane than going into your bathroom. Just as a wild-ass guess, you'd incur a weight penalty of at least 30-40% in equipment that will, in all likelihood, never be used.
Have you taken a look at the airline business lately? If you're an airline, or an airline builder, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel for funds to just keep operating, never mind inventing Buck Rogers safety technology that is simply not warranted.
I'm all for technical advances, particularly those that improve safety. But what you propose is simply unworkable.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
You know how much a personal chute weighs? Every pound of parachute (about 20 or 30 pounds) is one pound less of luggage, or fuel.
Airplanes are light for a reason. Weight costs money. Minimizing it is valuable.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
It's a hell of a lot faster than that. The chute is deployed by a rocket, and the airplane is chute-borne in less than five seconds.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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.
Credentials: Wildly inexperienced private pilot.
The thing with light aircraft accidents is that they tend to occur in 3 main different ways.
The first is inadvertant entry into IMC (Instrument Metoerological Conditions - essentially weather conditions inadequate for flying visually). This is all well and good if the pilot is instrument rated, but, if a non rated tries to keep flying visually, it is likely that they will enter a spiral dive, or, a spin. A BRS (Ballistic recovery system - ie parachute) will be advantageous in these conditions - passenger parachutes will not, you can't get people to jump into that sort of soup, and, you may not even be able to get the plane appropriately oriented for them to do so (in a spin for example, you know exactly what your seatbelts are for - you do a bit of spin recovery in training - a most unpleasant experience). Incidentally, a spin is when one wing stalls (fails to generate lift) and the other wing is still operating normally.
The other nasty that occurs during accidental entry into IMC, is the innocuously named CFIT (controlled flight into terrain - used in accident reports to categorise the type of accident where the aircraft is operation normally, but, impacts with terrain anywyay - almost always due to pilot error). If a BRS is deployed early enough then it would be advantageous here - once more, passenger parachutes wouldn't be much use.
Incidentally, the aviation community is a bit split over BRS in the above scenarios, the logic being that pilots may take bigger risks knowing there is a BRS sitting there as a backup. I guess that is inevitable, but, I find it to be much the same logic as "people will drive faster if they have seatbelts".
The second way they occur is with the pilot (and this is the biggy) failing to maintain sufficient speed on takeoff/landing either due to human error, or some other factor like engine failure after take off (which is another cool acronym we use - EFATO), and stalling and falling. BRS could potentially be useful here, passenger parachutes absolutely useless - you are too low, and there is no time.
Finally, the third main cause of crashes (and the smallest category) is mechanical failure of the aircraft (usually engine, but I have heard of a wing being torn off in a steep turn (for which the aircraft was not certified), when it (the wing) was covered in snow and ice). BRS could be pretty handy here, but, 99% (made up stat - a very high number anyway) of these types of accidents are non fatal as, as long as you have sufficient height, you can normally glide to a suitable landing site (field, beach, golf course, whatever - interestingly, they teach you to tend to avoid roads, they often have power lines running up the side of them that can't be seen from height). Another acronym here - PFLs - practise forced landings, where the instructor pulls the engine power, and says "OK - emergency, land from here!". Whenever you are flying, you are constantly planning for engine failure *right now*, and scanning the ground for suitable landing sites within gliding range. BRS would be pretty damn handy in these cases, especially when flying over inhospitable terrain like mountains or water.
My feeling is that BRS is a good thing, and I hope to see it being put on more and more aircraft, but, it is only an option of last resort, and should be treated as such. IMC should never be entered by non IMC pilots, spins and spiral dives are recoverable, given sufficient height, and engine failure will normally just result in a forced landing in a field. Nothing can contribute to the safety of a flight more than a cautious, sensible pilot who flys within his/her limits.
The other thing to remember with passenger parachutes, is, a certain amount of skill is required for their use, with BRS, passengers require special skills or physical agility.
I don't see this being more practical in small planes than simply having individual passenger parachutes in small planes, and letting them bail.
There are many reasons why your spectacular solution will not work.
For one thing, there is not enough room for passengers to wear chutes in a small plane. Space is very limited. You have more legroom in coach on an airliner than you do in a small plane. Imagine trying to sit on a flight with a parachute strapped to your back.
If a small plane gets in a situation where it is going down, you are not getting out, short of the fuselage ripping away and you land on your ass still strapped to the seat. Getting in and out can be very difficult, depending on the model of plane. Low wing aircraft most notably. High-wing aircraft like the Cessna are a different story. Throw in the fact that the aircraft will be rolling or diving out of control and the g-forces are pulling you in one or more directions, your chances of getting out quick enough so that your chute will have time to deploy are slim to none. These things aren't like on TV where the plane is completely unresponsive and goes in to a long slow dive, giving you time to unlock the doors, undo your seatbelt, call your mommy, etc... The average small plane flys at an altitude between 6000 and 11000 feet. Above that and you are flying IFR and talking to the regional traffic control, plus most small planes can't fly above 13 or 14 thousand feet anyway. I myself fly around 3500 to 4000 feet. At that altitude, if I cut my engine and glide to the surface, it takes between 90 to 120 seconds to reach the ground. Again this varies from plane to plane, (Cessnas have an astounding glide time). In an emergency descent situation, where I descend the plane as quickly as possible, staying within the performance limits of the aircraft (meaning my airspeed does not go into the red), I can put the plane on the ground in less than 60 seconds, from 3500 feet. And that is in a controlled situation. If the aircraft is completely out of control, chances are it will get to the ground a lot faster, and not at an attitude that will bode well for the aircraft or its passengers.
In a situation like this, it is way easier to reach up and pull the knob that deploys the planes chute than it is to help your passengers out because they are packed like sardines due to the enormous packs strapped to their backs.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
Eek.. what the hell were you doing stalls for at 100AGL?
I always climbed up to at least 1500AGL before trying any departure stalls, 7000 for a spin.
Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
Eek.. what the hell were you doing stalls for at 100AGL?
I always climbed up to at least 1500AGL before trying any departure stalls, 7000 for a spin.
Well, you see, in going from 0AGL to 1800AGL, you have to pass through 100AGL. If you do not, you are doing something terribly wrong.
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!
smart-ass :)
jred
I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
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?
I like the concept and hope it works its way into the GA fleet. Problem is that the GA fleet is very old. Planes from the 50's and 60's still fly. Planes from the 70s often form the core of most aeroclub's fleet - it's just too darn expensive to replace them. I know very few pilots who fly planes less than 5 years old. Its not like a rental company that cycles its cars every 3 years.
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.
IANAL, and IANAP (I am not a pilot), but I worked for someone who owned a small plane airport hanger/service/gas complex and that's what he told me in conversations back in '84. I'm sure there are parts of the story that are missing, and parts that have changed. But that is my current understanding of the problem.
WTF? Over?
Yep, because everybody should be perfect and not worry about the possibility of a loose bolt or whatever. I always tighten every bolt on my car before leaving for work.....right.....
________
Huh?
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.
That's exactly the reason. Also the reason that a new plane costs a huge amount of money. There's no reason why a small single engine plane in good condition should cost more than $100,000.
The engines in cars today are more advanced than what's in planes. The frames are often more advanced as well. Now, much of this is done for reliability, but you have to ask, how further along personal aviation might be if it wasn't for liability concerns and the FAA holding things back.
I don't read AC A human right
I heard the FCC HATES it if you use swear words over the radio on the way down.
In comparison, I can't see passengers being able to consistently bail as fast as 5 seconds, even if they're allready wearing their suits. (Of course, having everyone wear parachutes during flight 'just in case' is gonna do nasty things to passenger morale.)
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I'll reply in the vain hope an AC re-reads threads he's posted to, but there are a few certified planes with unrecoverable spin modes (take the Cessna 310 for example). Certification for Normal category (IIRC) only demands the demonstration of a recovery from at most a single turn in a spin.
I'd not have a Mooney or a 182 - give me a Bonanza any day. But given the money for a Cirrus, it'd have to be a serious contender.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
I believe the major car rental companies recycle their fleet yearly. :-)
Darin
Yeah, these things are a Really Good Idea, particularly in cases like the Cirrus where they're integrated into the airframe (and hence don't occupy cargo volume).
They're pretty lightweight, and they give you a big safety margin in the event of a disabled pilot or a seriously broken airplane.
It's hard for me to understand the objections. I mean, yeah, pilots get nervous when they're in any airplane they can't control, but I can't imagine deploying that chute any time the pilot is still in control of the airplane.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
The other thing that comes to mind is that most fatal aircraft incidents occur around takeoff and landing (( I can see this occuring for two reasons: One is that during takeoff and landing, your aircraft is going thru the most (and most rapid) changes -- both mechanical and aerodynamic. If anything is going to break, it's probably going to be then. The second reason (somewhat linked) is that if something does go wrong the pilot has precious little time for recovery)).
At the lowest (and most dangerous) altitudes of takeoff and landing, the most that a chute is going to do is dissapate some of the horizontal kinetic energy (not an inconsequential result), but at the cost of ensuring a crash.
My last fears would be accidental, spontanious and/or partial deployment.
All that having been said, if I owned a small aircraft, I'd certainly take a serious look at installing a chute on it.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.