Sad day indeed.
Just checking in, folks, since some of you (Derg, Rocketman99, jtrain609, Ian J, MikeD) know about me. So, anyways, I wasn't on it. RIP to the crew.
Chutes were removed years ago for weight savings. .
Chutes were removed years ago for weight savings.
Sad day indeed.
Just checking in, folks, since some of you (Derg, Rocketman99, jtrain609, Ian J, MikeD) know about me. So, anyways, I wasn't on it. RIP to the crew.
A plane carrying 200,000lbs of fuel can't carry the extra weight of parachutes? More likely they don't bother with them because it would be about as impractical as bailing out of an airliner. I don't think you can install ejection seats in a KC135 without major changes to the hull and layout and you can't exactly open the door and jump out.
Never underestimate the ability of the government to do dumb things for bad reasons. Removing chutes for weight/fuel savings is just such a case.A plane carrying 200,000lbs of fuel can't carry the extra weight of parachutes? More likely they don't bother with them because it would be about as impractical as bailing out of an airliner. I don't think you can install ejection seats in a KC135 without major changes to the hull and layout and you can't exactly open the door and jump out.
Some bean counter flying a 5 year old version of Excel probably determined fuel cost savings over the life of the airframe across the entire fleet, and sold it up the chain of command in return for a pat on the back.Never underestimate the ability of the government to do dumb things for bad reasons. Removing chutes for weight/fuel savings is just such a case.
Bingo.Some bean counter flying a 5 year old version of Excel probably determined fuel cost savings over the life of the airframe across the entire fleet, and sold it up the chain of command in return for a pat on the back.