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."
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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!"
Obviosly, you're not a pilot. With your engine out, you glide to the ground in a controlled decent... not an uncontrolled decent as with the BRS.
If you loose your engine in a boat, does it sink??? No. If you loose your engine in a plane, it still flys.
Case in point, I had a "catastrophic" engine failure in my Cessna 172 a while back. Engine gone... pieces left the aircraft. I landed on a road and turned into some guys driveway. He was pissed because I was blocking his drive. Never asked me how I was or what happened. When he started yelling, I pulled him over to my plane... pointed at the big hole in my cowling and all the oil running down the side of my plane. He suddenly got quiet.
I had full control of the plane the entire time... there was a sudden Roll when the engine seized, but I could fly it no problem. Went through the standard saftey checklist... shut down fuel, electrics, picked my spot... got to best glide, tuned radio to 121.5. Delcared emergency... switched the box to 7700 and flew it down. It took me about 10 minutes to get down... I even circled my landing site and then dumped 40 degrees of flaps to get it down.
Now, I see planes like the SR22 with these BRSs installed and hear stories about guys who hit turbulance and pull the cord. That's a costly mistake if there ever was one. I'm not going to pull a handle that turns my $250,000 plane into a pile of junk unless it's already junk.
Lesson here... fly the plane if it can fly. A plane is nothing but a glider with an engine... if you loose the engine... it still flys just fine.
Bill
Bill
It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
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.
In the best case, sure.
In reality, not true.
Have a gander at the December 2004 Flying magazine (at least, I think that was the one) -- they had a really good article about BRS chute deployments and their contributions to safety, or lack thereof. The general conclusion was that they reduce the fatality rate by about 50% in loss-of-control accidents.
(Commercial pilot/CFII/MEI/AGI/IGI)
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!