Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Plane About To Crash? Why Not Parachute?!  
User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2795 posts, RR: 14
Posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5524 times:

No, not the same ol' same ol' "put parachutes in every seat instead of flotation devices" argument, but a different aspect on the parachute question. Space shuttles and drag racers have parachutes - why not use all that preacious overhead space above the passenger cabin for one big-*ss parachute. Attached to rings 2/3 of the way to the front or back of the fuselage by thick steel cables, made out of some sorta' really strong cloth, the parachute could be deployed in the event of engine failure or something else which might make the plane dive. Let's say, for example, that Terror Ist puts a bomb on board and pops out a few rows causing explosive decompression. Okay, the other 3/4 of the plane are still there even if they're really cold and really thirsty for air. The plane is out of control and the flight crew can't manipulate a plane which has, for example, lost it's entire tailcone. Passengers are seatbelted in as safety recommendations suggest, so they stay strapped to this hurtling death tube... Earthward she goes. All the captain has to do is press one button and bam! the engines shut off because, well, that would sorta' reduce the point of having a parachute, and when the plane detects the ground at X distance OR the speed below Y velocity, it whips out the chute and the plane drifts casually to Earth.

LOTS of technical problems, yes, so let's hear it - what do you think?


"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 31
Reply 1, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5436 times:

Would love to see the parachute needed for a B747, or even for the A380  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Gerardo



dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offlineVonRichtofen From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4634 posts, RR: 36
Reply 2, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5416 times:

There is already parachute systems available for some small general aviation aircraft (cessna's etc.)
The size of Parachute needed for an aircraft the size and weight of a 747 would be ridiculous. I was watching a show on TLC or something about this, and I think the estimated size of parachute that would be needed for a 747 was something like several football fields in size. It might have been several dozen because of the weight. I don't think there's a material light enough and at the same time is strong enough to handle it that exists yet. Might be a possibilty in the future but pretty much impossible with todays technology.

Regards,

Kris  Smile/happy/getting dizzy



Word
User currently offlineJaumett From Spain, joined Mar 2001, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5398 times:

About a couple of months ago, there was a very interesting article about the future of aviation in the US in The Atlantic Monthly magazine. It talks about some research to develop cheap aircrafts that will have parachutes. If you have a chance, try to read it, it's quite interesting.

saludos

jaume


User currently offlineFBU 4EVER! From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5361 times:

Just thinking of the modifications needed to an airframe to withstand the opening jerk of the chute,however soft it could be made,is mind boggling.The plane would weigh so much it would never get off the ground.

No.let's cover the earth with huge,soft pillows!  Laugh out loud



"Luck and superstition wins all the time"!
User currently offlineWatewate From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 2284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5337 times:

Most accidents occur during takeoff/landing phase. When accidents do occur during cruise, there's usually plenty of time for crew to land the plane on an airsfield or there's no time to react at all.

User currently offlineJared From United States of America, joined May 2001, 685 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5322 times:

I thought I had read about technology that WOULD make it possible for airliners to deploy chutes.

However, to outfit planes with the technology would cost so much more than the airlines pay out in lawsuits from crashes. Sucks but that's how it goes.


User currently offlineContrails From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5308 times:

What type and how many problems would there be with putting a chute onto a commercial jet?

First, how big would it have to be? Even a DC-9 is a little heavy, it will take an enormous chute to set it down at all, not to mention reasonably gently. Then try getting a 747 down.

Second, how will the chute be controlled? You don't want a plane landing on top of a school or in the middle of downtown.

Third, can a chute bring a plane down gently enough to prevent everyone on-board from getting broken backs, thighs, etc.?

Fourth, and finally for me, I think there would be some structural issues involving a fuselage that can be split open on top for the entire length of the plane.

I know the concept has been tested on small planes, but I don't see it on the big boys.




Flying Colors Forever!
User currently offlineSeagull From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 340 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5312 times:

I can see two immediate flaws in this entire argument:

1. If pilots knew the airplane was about to crash they probably could do something about it without going through the trouble (how often do you think the crew knows well in advance and at a high enough altitude?).

2. Things such as engine failures are not life threatening, the injuries to the people and aircraft by the stupid parachute idea would be far worse than any injuries incurred by people being nervous about what is a very basic aviation technique (landing with an engine inop). This is true even in a single engine light airplane. The bottom line is that we train for engine outs, they're not a big deal and the landings out of them are virtually always uneventful.


User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2795 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5256 times:

If that's true (#2) why haven't they built any ultra-high-efficiency monojets yet?


"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7801 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5229 times:

I will entertain your terrorist bomb scenario, just for a moment. So even if a good chunk of the fuselage is blown out of the plane and there is an emergency decompression the chute won't do a like of good. Without being force fed oxygen at FL350 your passengers would very likely be dead by the time you made it down to terra firma. I would imagine it would take several minutes... perhaps well over 10-15 to have a gentle enough landing, to descend from 30,000+ ft to the ground. By then the effects of hypoxia would have taken their effects pretty well rendering most of the passengers unconscious and many of them permanantly.


Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineNotar520AC From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1606 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5197 times:

Parachute systems are already being incorporated into smaller turboprops, but like most of you said commercial jets are just too big and heavy for a parachute and the airframe modifications to withstand the deploying stage would cost billions. At cruising altitude I believe it is possible to glide the plane down to an airport safely, so why bother? Most accidents do occur at takeoff and landing and the parachute would not help that much then.

-Notar520AC



BMW - The Ultimate Driving Machine
User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5182 times:

No one has brought up the fact that, fine, great...your stricken airliner is drifting safely to Earth beneath its parachute...

Now how many people get creamed when it lands on top of a supermarket! Or high school....or Yankee Stadium!! (which it could be argued is not a bad thing )  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

I will say that it's not inconceivable to see some of the first generation hypersonic airliners equipped with some sort of emergency chute....


User currently offlineRen41 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1524 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5173 times:

Why not just make the plane out of the black box? Big grin

--\/Ren41/\--


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21495 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5169 times:

Just one more:

What about accidental parachute deployment due to a malfunction? The probability of someone getting killed by that would be far greater than the probability of getting saved by it.

And, of course there´s the pressurized fuselage; You would have to build unpressurized chambers for the chute into the plane. Tricky. And also potentially dangerous.


User currently offlineCaribb From Canada, joined Nov 1999, 1639 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5158 times:

I think in most cases when the plane's condition has come to the point where it's about to crash then a parachute, although a cool idea, probably would be useless. TWA, Pan Am, Air India, Swissair, Iran Air, Egyptair, Alaska Air etc.. all happened so fast or the circumstances were so particular that a parachute would have been either useless or in Alaska's case maybe a greater hinderance to getting down safely.

Another alternative in a perfect world would be larger swept wings or blended wings that would allow a jet to more easily glide to earth.. or giant inflatable air bags on the outside to allow for a more controlled Mars-like landing that would hopefull keep the plane upright and passengers in one piece.. or if nothing else at least keep it afloat if in water. All this though would increase weight penalities, fuel consumption, reduce range and be prohibitively expensive... and this does nothing if the jet is on fire or breaking apart.

Another possibility is a giant inflatable helium filled balloon or those outside air bags I mentioned above.. but then where do you store that much helium on a 747 and would it inflate in time and would it be effective at -50 degrees??.. would do wonders for weight penalities though  Smile I guess I'm really just waiting for the first anti-gravity device that might solve all these problems... Smile


User currently offlineFlight152 From United States of America, joined exactly 14 years ago today! , 3406 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5151 times:

Why not just make the plane out of the black box?

Than the plane would weigh too much and cost too much.

And, if you were joking, nevermind.


User currently offlineRen41 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1524 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5140 times:

I was joking!

{{Ren41}}


User currently offlineTransactoid From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 788 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5131 times:

What's wrong with the personal parachute idea?

User currently offlineSeagull From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 340 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5128 times:

747-

The fact that having an engine failure in a multi-engine aircraft is not a big deal has no bearing on the issues with single engine aircraft. Your statement doesn't make any logical sense at all. In your single a parachute starts to make some sense, except that when you look at the stats the percentage of accidents that would fall into the category that a parachute might help is so low that the costs associated with such an (idiotic) idea would be much better spent on improving safety and preventing the majority of accidents in the first place!

Sure, you can always add one more thing to increase safety, but some items have more "return" than others. Should be ban all flying in the mid-west of the U.S. all spring and summer due to thunderstorm concerns, or all winter operations if the airport is not dry? Or perhaps just ban all operations to airports that have wet runways? All of these ideas would save more lives and actually cost LESS than your parachute idea. Getting the picture?


User currently offlineRonen From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5121 times:

http://www.airplaneparachutes.com/BRS35.htm

User currently offlineFlight152 From United States of America, joined exactly 14 years ago today! , 3406 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5100 times:

Transactoid

I said nothing about the personal parachute idea.


User currently offlineSSTjumbo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5075 times:

I would say put an extremely huge rotor on top of the fuselage that would deploy in an emergency. Make that like 64 blades too!!!

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Rumor: JetBlue To BDL? Why Not? posted Mon Oct 19 2009 14:44:31 by Richierich
Philippine Airlines To NYC, Why Not? posted Mon Jul 20 2009 10:50:11 by JetBlue777
EK To AMS - Why Not? posted Wed Jul 15 2009 04:42:49 by CV990Coronado
Thai Airways - SFO To BKK - Why Not? posted Mon Mar 10 2008 07:51:08 by Goomba
Emirates To JFK, Why Not EWR posted Tue Apr 20 2004 18:51:01 by Bsmalls35
US Airways To HI...why Not!? posted Sat Aug 30 2003 04:26:39 by B6FA4ever
DL TPA, MIA, FLL To SLC Why Not? posted Sun Jun 22 2003 07:09:53 by TLHFLA
Garuda And Royal Nepal To Heathrow-Why Not? posted Sat May 24 2003 09:47:22 by Airmale
Qantas To AMS - Why Not? posted Wed Feb 6 2002 03:52:29 by Gulfair
We Are About To Crash - Only Joking! posted Sat Aug 25 2001 21:53:24 by Airliners