Parachute System Can Save Small Planes

flyover

flyover

New Member
Company That Makes Parachutes to Save Smaller Planes Working With NASA on a Model for Jetliners

Some of the stories in this artice are bizarre, like:

In another accident, one month before the Syracuse crash, pilot Paul Heflin of Lexington, Ky., repeatedly pulled hard on the parachute handle when his plane began a steep, uncontrolled dive from 3,000 feet. "He was pulling for his life," recalled Heflin's passenger, Benjamin Ditty. Both suffered minor injuries but walked away from the wreckage. (Is it just me or "does steep, uncontrolled dive" and "walked away" just not go together?)

and:

"People are crazy not to fly with them," said William Graham of San Diego, an instructor pilot whose plane landed beneath a parachute this spring near Stockton, Calif., after it unexpectedly flipped upside down at 16,000 feet ????. Graham, who was flying with his wife, Barbara, said they drifted onto a farm field so gently the landing didn't break fragile Christmas ornaments and glass bottles aboard the plane.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/041222/airplane_parachutes_4.html
 
[ QUOTE ]
"People are crazy not to fly with them," said William Graham of San Diego, an instructor pilot whose plane landed beneath a parachute this spring near Stockton, Calif., after it unexpectedly flipped upside down at 16,000 feet ????. Graham, who was flying with his wife, Barbara, said they drifted onto a farm field so gently the landing didn't break fragile Christmas ornaments and glass bottles aboard the plane.

[/ QUOTE ]Which also were somehow unbroken after -- what? a snap roll? -- at 16,000 ft. The stories told to justify the things done.
rolleyes.gif
 
Wasn't there a small plane specifically designed with these in them...the major issue being that if deployed it messed up the structural stability of teh plane and the thing had to be rebuilt after?
 
Cirrus makes their planes with these things, but it was because they couldn't get the thing to come out of a spin and it was the only way to certify the aircraft. Once you use it the aircraft is scrapped, though. It's impossible recertify the aircraft as I understand things.
 
The main reason they aren't in many aircraft is weight.

Having a balistic parachute instaled in a C-172 means cutting about 1/2 hour worth of fuel from the payload.

IIRC, the vertical speed under canopy is about 200-300 feet per minute. In the Cirius SR-22 this would likely total the airplane, and might cause back injuries to anybody inside. So don't think that you can just pull the handle and walk away.



I personaly wouldn't pay extra for a parachute. In the few scenerios that I would use it (spin at low altitude) it probably won't be able to deploy in time.
 
There have been a number of Cirrus deployments, including on featured in AOPA recently, which both saved lifes and allowed for a rebuild and recertification of the aircraft. The landing gear on the Cirrus is designed to absorb most of the impact and reduce damage to the aircraft. If you check out the BRS website you can see lots of testemonials, and pictures of aircraft after deployments.
 
It would be cool if they can have that system on an aircraft like the 738...
Just Imagine a huge Air tight aluminum tube with 27 parachutes on the top.

lol
 
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't 16,000 feet plenty of altitude to right the aircraft?

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe this is the gentleman that spun his cirus. They are not certified to get out of a spin. The recovery is to pull the chute.

Cirus can be put on the line again. A few planes whose chute has been deployed are back on the line today. The landing gear and seats are made to absorb the shock so that the pass will be ok.
 
It's worked before to save people, but I've read that it's not designed to save the airplane, just the people on board.

Have they developed a new one that doesn't result in a wrecked airplane?
 
[ QUOTE ]
It's worked before to save people, but I've read that it's not designed to save the airplane, just the people on board.

Have they developed a new one that doesn't result in a wrecked airplane?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's my understanding that the airplane will likely be totaled, but some guys have gotten lucky.
 
I don't know if it's designed to save the airplane, but if you have to use it, anyone cares about the plane.
That plane would have been a goner anyhow.
 
How about a huge airbad that deploys all around the aircraft? The aircraft can bounce it's way to safety.
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
How about a huge airbad that deploys all around the aircraft? The aircraft can bounce it's way to safety.
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
filed with helium so that you come down slowly and safely.
You'll also talk funny when interviewed by the press
insane.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
How about a huge airbad that deploys all around the aircraft? The aircraft can bounce it's way to safety.
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't laugh, BJ. That's what they used for the Mars landers.

And they are coming up with airbags for airplanes. I saw one that attaches to the shoulder harness.
 
What does anybody think about the main reason for the story. That NASA is working on a system for RJ's?

If the maker of the parachute that saved Kolk's life this past spring succeeds, one day commercial aircraft like regional commuter jets may have similar safety systems. First, though, there's the challenge of creating a parachute robust enough to rescue bigger, faster planes

I hope there is not much of my tax dollars invoved in this.
 
[ QUOTE ]
one day commercial aircraft like regional commuter jets may have similar safety systems. First, though, there's the challenge of creating a parachute robust enough to rescue bigger, faster planes

I hope there is not much of my tax dollars invoved in this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey if they can use parachutes to slow down the Apollo, and also use it to slow a space shuttle after landing, an aircraft like the RJ-200 shouldn't be a problem.

I don't know about the money though.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Hey if they can use parachutes to slow down the Apollo, and also use it to slow a space shuttle after landing, an aircraft like the RJ-200 shouldn't be a problem.


[/ QUOTE ] There is a big difference between using a parachute on the Apollo moon capsule that only weighed a few tons (if that) or slowing down the Space Shuttle after it has landed and being able to parachute a 50,000+ lb RJ to a safe landing.

I just don't see the point. On a small plane, ok it might make sense, especially on a single engined aircraft. On a transport category jet that is required to be able to fly after the loss of an engine, why bother? The cost of the system, and the cost to maintain it and lug it around for the 20+ year life of the aircraft would not be worth it. Few in the general public stop to think what the extra weight of a system like this would cost over the life of the aircraft. More weight = less payload and a higher fuel burn for the life of the aircraft. The fact is, it is very rare for a jet to crash due to engine failure, especially from an altitude that it would be possible to deploy the chute and live.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top