Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Would Gigantic Parachutes Help A Powerless Jet?  
User currently offlineA380X4TRENT900 From Australia, joined May 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6871 times:

I have thought about this for years:

why the hell don't airline manufacture's/company's like boeing and airbus install parachutes for emergency situations?

If a plane is travelling at 40 000 feet, travelling at 850 km/h, and looses power because it ran out of fuel (the pilots were unaware due to either undetected fuel leak or incorrect fuel gauge reading) - what happens it slows and glides out of stable flight because their is no thrust to confront drag, weight or gravity!

Why don't they have parachutes (that could be released at say 400 km/h) to slow down the plane enough to not cause death/serious injury/destruction of aircraft in crash situations?

Could the pilots control 200 tonnes with a parachute 1km wide holding it back?

68 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTepidHalibut From Iceland, joined Dec 2004, 210 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6859 times:

A fine idea. You could eliminate the seats from the top deck of the A380, and install parachutes instead. The lower deck passengers would be happy to pay double the airfare knowing that in the event of fuel loss, the pilots have a choice of gliding to the nearest airport, or parachute into the middle of the sea. Actually, why not install huge bouncy castles under each wing / fuselage to make the landing less traumatic.

An even better idea would be to fly at 30mph, only 5 ft above the ground, so that if the fuel runs out, the passengers can jump out the windows to the ground.


Apologies for the sarcasm, but the weight / strength / cost of the parachutes would be enormous, and all for a failure mode which hasn't actually casued any fatalities in the past few decades (I hope someone can confirm that.)

Flying is inherently a travel mode with risk. There are risk that don't exist with cars/boats/trains, but still people are willing to accept a small level of risk for the benefits. Aircraft parachutes would not contribute any significant benefits to to 99.999...% of flights, but would contribute weight / cost penalties to 100% of flights. (Not to mention the new risk of parachute deployment during take-off.)

Right. I'm going back to work.


User currently offlineA380X4TRENT900 From Australia, joined May 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6853 times:

I have watched air crash investigator's on channel seven in Australia, and I believe the documentary on the Boeing 757 crashing into the sea due to tape being left on the static port on the left hand side (captain's side) of the aircraft is a situation were a parachute could've helped!

It may have slowed down the plane enough to land in the ocean and not break up and kill 150 people!

Plane's are always's travelling TOO FAST when all hell breaks loose so a parachute may work!


User currently offlineOly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6840 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6853 times:

What would the parachute do? In all aircraft that use them it is for braking after landing. The only reason some (light) aircraft have them for use in the air is in the event of structural failure. With engine failure you're better off gliding to the ground.

In a large civil aircraft the deployment speed would have to be low otherwise either the parachute or fuselage would be damaged. In civil aircraft the whole of the fuselage is the structure of the plane so having a hole in the roof for any paracute to be deployed through would add massively to the structural weight. And the deployment would have to be through the roof so when the aircraft had slowed enough it would hang vertically below the parachute. Having the parachute at the tail would just make the plane slow down and hang nose down. Either way you'll hit the ground with a big thump and end up with a plane full of people with spinal injuries or crushed as the plane landed on its nose and then fell in a direction dictated by the aerodynamics of the parachute.


If there is an engine failure the last thing you need is extra drag until you're on the ground, and this is the only situation where a parachute may be of some use. The more speed you have the further you can fly to a diversion field or the more time you have to look around to find somewhere to land.



Quoting A380X4TRENT900 (Thread starter):
what happens it slows and glides out of stable flight because their is no thrust to confront drag, weight or gravity!

Planes glide. Why should a plane glide out of stable flight? How many gliders glide out of stable flight?



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently onlineEGTESkyGod From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1712 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6843 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As is stated, and as we student pilots are trained, if your engine fails... trim for the glide. If you have more than one engine, continue with that engine. If that engine fails.... GLIDE!! You see what I'm gettin at here? The plane will still fly in the glide. A giant, heavy, costly parachute wont solve anything.


I came, I saw, I Concorde! RIP Michael Jackson
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5434 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6836 times:

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 4):
As is stated, and as we student pilots are trained, if your engine fails... trim for the glide. If you have more than one engine, continue with that engine. If that engine fails.... GLIDE!! You see what I'm gettin at here? The plane will still fly in the glide. A giant, heavy, costly parachute wont solve anything.

Well, that's all well and good, but I think the circumstances where you might think about about parachutes is when you have an uncontrolled aircraft...perhaps due to control surface problem or an airfram failure of some type (highly unusual). The Alaska MD80 crash comes to mind, as does a few B737 rudder incidents, and the Airbus rudder crash.

That's the theory for the parachute system that the Cirrus uses (an option on Cessnas). If it can glide, then keep gliding - if not, then pull the chute.

As for deployment speeds - they also have a mechanism for doing this, where the chute opens slowly depending on the speed.

Heck, I don't think it's at all practical for an airliner. You'd need huge chutes and many of them. The extra weight would be enormous.



Just some other comments.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently onlineEGTESkyGod From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1712 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6827 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 5):
Well, that's all well and good, but I think the circumstances where you might think about about parachutes is when you have an uncontrolled aircraft...perhaps due to control surface problem or an airfram failure of some type (highly unusual).

Ok, I take your point, but as you say it's highly unusual, so huge amounts money will not be spent on something that isn't likely to ever be used.

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 5):
Heck, I don't think it's at all practical for an airliner. You'd need huge chutes and many of them. The extra weight would be enormous.

Plus that, too.



I came, I saw, I Concorde! RIP Michael Jackson
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17112 posts, RR: 66
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6824 times:

It's a common misconception that large parachutes are just scaled up smaller ones and that there aren't too many design issues. But in reality large parachutes (Apollo CM, Mars landers, ...) are extremely difficult to design. Any small mistake and they are ripped to shreds. IIRC, the Apollo chutes had to open within a very specific time interval to work at all.

Actual weight is one issue. Another is maintenance. These chutes would have to be inspected regularly. I've seen reserve chutes being inspected. It takes a long time to do, and you need an expert to do it.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineMich From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 36 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6786 times:

There was a production on the Discovery channel roughly 2 years ago on parachutes for planes.. There was a company at the time that designed a parachute system for small planes cessna and the like that was installed behind the rear seats near the planes center of gravity, it fired out the top of the plane using a rocket type apparateus.

They went further to explain with various experts that on a 747 you would need several chutes and would equal a volume and mass bigger then the plane itself when deployed to hold 400,000lbs.. So the weight of the chutes and loss of useable space are an issue but also the opening of parachutes above a certain speed at the size they need to be wouldnt work either.


User currently offlineTu204 From Russia, joined Mar 2006, 1251 posts, RR: 17
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6780 times:

Well, the only feasible parachute that I can think of is a stall recovery chute. I do not know about other manufacturers, but on all of our prototypes we have a "braking parachute" installed in the tail which can be deployed from the cockpit if the aircraft goes into a stall or spin. This chute actually saved the Tu-154M prototype when they were "looking" for it's stall speed (well, they found it  Wink ) The predicted stall speed ended up being 5km/h too high and the test pilot (who was flying the 154 for the first time in his life) pulled it into a stall and a flat spin followed. The commander (Agapov) deployed the stall chute and recovered the plane.
The chute does not take up much space and does not weigh that much. Maybe we could install something like this into aircraft? I guess it is only needed on older aircraft as newer planes with fly-by-wire will simply not let you stall.



I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3151 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6750 times:

A BRS (Ballistic Recovery System) like the system in use on Sirrus, and other small GA aircraft is in my mind, a crutch. As others have stated, planes don't just fall from the sky, they still develop lift and glide. The added weight doesn't justify it. The BRS has been deployed a couple times on purpose and in all but one case the passengers still had serious injuries or died. There have also been a couple instances where the chutes have deployed by accident and caused fatalities.

If you look at successful instances like Gimli, a chute would have likely killed all on board by the time rescue crews got the the aircraft when it went into the ocean short of that airport.



DMI
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17112 posts, RR: 66
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6743 times:

Quoting Tu204 (Reply 9):
Well, the only feasible parachute that I can think of is a stall recovery chute. I do not know about other manufacturers, but on all of our prototypes we have a "braking parachute" installed in the tail which can be deployed from the cockpit if the aircraft goes into a stall or spin. This chute actually saved the Tu-154M prototype when they were "looking" for it's stall speed (well, they found it Wink ) The predicted stall speed ended up being 5km/h too high and the test pilot (who was flying the 154 for the first time in his life) pulled it into a stall and a flat spin followed. The commander (Agapov) deployed the stall chute and recovered the plane.
The chute does not take up much space and does not weigh that much. Maybe we could install something like this into aircraft? I guess it is only needed on older aircraft as newer planes with fly-by-wire will simply not let you stall.

I have seen this on the F/A-18 E/F test flights as well.


Stall recovery chutes sound like a nice idea, but how many air crashes are due to stalls? A vanishingly low amount.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineJoness0154 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 667 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6739 times:

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 10):
The BRS has been deployed a couple times on purpose and in all but one case the passengers still had serious injuries or died.

You seem very uninformed on the Cirrus CAPS system. It is VERY successful and most passengers end up walking away! I don't know where you got the information from, but it is totally false!

Read the first sentence here:
http://brsparachutes.com/DesktopModu...ts/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=77

3 people walked away from this one:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060114/nysa014.html?.v=23

This one too, no injuries:
http://www.flttechonline.com/Current...%20Cirrus%20Extends%20Contract.htm

And I think this website speaks for itself:
http://brsparachutes.com/Default.aspx?TabId=28



I don't have an attitude problem. You have a perception problem
User currently offlineGrandTheftAero From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 254 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6727 times:

Quoting A380X4TRENT900 (Thread starter):
why the hell don't airline manufacture's/company's like boeing and airbus install parachutes for emergency situations?

And to that I will add... The black box always survives a crash. Why don't they just make the whole plane out of the material they use to make black boxes? (Death by sarcasm.)

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 7):
But in reality large parachutes (Apollo CM, Mars landers, ...) are extremely difficult to design.

This is absolutely true. There are some conditions (induced by prevailing winds and/or good ol' Newtonian dynamics) where a parachute will actually increase your horizontal velocity so that even though your descent rate has slowed you'll still plow into the ground... fatally.


User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 6698 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 7):
the Apollo chutes had to open within a very specific time interval to work at all.

Yes. Apollo had to carry an extra chute in case of failure. One did fail, Apollo 15 landed with 2 chutes instead of 3.

And Nasa's Genesis crashed when the chute failed to open. That was supposed to be the easiest part of the mission. They didn't think they needed a backup.


User currently offlineMrChips From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 937 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6672 times:

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 10):
The BRS has been deployed a couple times on purpose and in all but one case the passengers still had serious injuries or died.

The early problem with CAPS was that many pilots were not familiar with the capabilities of the system, and made no effort to make themselves familiar with it in the first place. The CAPS has an envelope in which it can be deployed; if I recall correctly, any speed below Vno and any altitude above 800' AGL gives you a rough idea how big this envelope is.

Many of the early fatalities were attributed to these two factors:

1) Pilots were not familiar with the capabilities of the CAPS, and as such attempted to deploy the parachute outside its envelope of operation;

2) Because the aircraft had this system installed, pilots were venturing into situations that they would not previously have in a previous aircraft; in essence, the parachute provided a false sense of security, so we had pilots flying into moderate and severe icing (in an aircraft that was not certified into known icing, no less), around thunderstorms, night VFR in mountainous terrain, and other situations where the level of risk goes up considerably.



Time...to un-pimp...ze auto!
User currently offlineTu204 From Russia, joined Mar 2006, 1251 posts, RR: 17
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6654 times:

I think that one of the main factors is the weight! I will take a wild stab and say that it would be somewhere in the range of 600kg to a tonne on a A320/B737 size aircraft. That would translate to about $4 million in (wasted) fuel. Not to mention the cost of the system itself. If we were on a quest to make aviation that safe, we might want to start with rear-facing seats.  Wink

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 11):
I have seen this on the F/A-18 E/F test flights as well.
Stall recovery chutes sound like a nice idea, but how many air crashes are due to stalls? A vanishingly low amount.

I would have guessed that they could just use their braking chutes for the same result  Silly
I do argee with you that there are not that many crashes from stalls, especially now with idiot proof fly-by-wire systems (On a Tu-204, the only way you can stall the plane is to go into "command mode" to bypass the computer and pull up - no way in hell you can stall with the flight envelope protection engaged.) But "back in the day" there more than a few 732's and other transport jets that stalled and crashed; but then again, they usually did this on final aproach/initial climb + during a turn where you would have to have lightning reflexes in addition to the stall recovery chute to save the aircraft  Sad
I do think that it should be installed on prototypes and I also think that "stall recovery" should be a part of the certification process. (The Tu-154 stall incident that I described in the previous reply showed that the plane performed MUCH worse than was predicted, and recovery from the flat spin was virtually impossible without the chute. (Agapov fought to recover for about a minute before deploying the chute)



I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17112 posts, RR: 66
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6638 times:

Quoting Tu204 (Reply 16):
(On a Tu-204, the only way you can stall the plane is to go into "command mode" to bypass the computer and pull up - no way in hell you can stall with the flight envelope protection engaged.)

What do you know, we'll soon have B vs. T wars on A.nut about envelope protection. Big grin



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5434 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6582 times:

Quoting Tu204 (Reply 16):
I do think that it should be installed on prototypes and I also think that "stall recovery" should be a part of the certification process.

Actually stall recovery chutes are installed on many (if not all) US jet proptotype aircraft. I know that all the Cessna business jet prototypes have chutes, so no doubt true for the others. It may even be a FAA requirement.

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 10):
The BRS has been deployed a couple times on purpose and in all but one case the passengers still had serious injuries or died. There have also been a couple instances where the chutes have deployed by accident and caused fatalities.

Hmmm....totally false.

Over 20,000 installed!

188 lives saved.

Read here for 10 pages of would be fatal crashes: http://www.brsparachutes.com/Default.aspx?TabId=28


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3151 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6570 times:

Well, since my info was wrong, and the wrong police came out, I decided to check on the SR-20 and 22 to see if what I was stating was correct, and it wasn't. The hangar talk got in the way of real numbers.

Does the manufacturer's website list this one? The NTSB does.

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20020326X00393&key=1

Upon further review, the accidents I found with an accidental deployment were all in homebuilt aircraft. Installation error can be attributed to those instances.

The Sirrus isn't a dangerous aircraft, but as Mr. Chips said, the equipment in the aircraft leads many pilots to believe that they are able to get out of any situation. It's amazing that there are so many accidents contributed to CFIT and inadvertant flight into IMC with that aircraft given the lack of time it has been on the market.



DMI
User currently offlineWingscrubber From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6475 times:




Works for light aircraft, not so practical for big birds though.



Resident TechOps Troll
User currently offlineMilan320 From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 869 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6441 times:

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 10):
If you look at successful instances like Gimli, a chute would have likely killed all on board by the time rescue crews got the the aircraft when it went into the ocean short of that airport.

Sorry to nitpick, but I think you meant the Air Transat incident in the Azores. Gimli is in Manitoba, no ocean there at all.
-Milan320



I accept bribes ... :-)
User currently offlineGrbld From Netherlands, joined Dec 2005, 353 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6440 times:

There's a reason why this works for small aircraft and it doesn't for big ones.

If for some reason, this pretty Cirrus would land upside down or on its side with the chute, then no biggie, the people inside will likely not get hurt any worse than if they come down right-side-up.

A big aircraft (any commercial passenger aircraft, regional or bigger) will have serious problems with balancing. Imagine a 747 coming down on its nose or its left wing. Whoa! Major structural damage and fatalities.

The sheer forces on big aircraft will preclude use of these chutes. Imagine a 400 tonne aircraft flying at 250mph with these chutes deploying, it will be a massive force exerted on the chute and attachment points. The plane would instantly have to decelerate to near zero (think air carrier F-18 arrester cable landing) in two seconds, otherwise the chute would go to shreds.

Bottom line in safety is that you can't prevent all mishaps, it's not possible. If you can name a handful of structural failures (that have all resulted in improved procedures, maintenance and manufacturing) on the millions of flights that have been flown, then that's a probability that's unbelievably small.

You might as well wear a lightning-rod on your head everytime you go outside...


Grbld


User currently offlineTu204 From Russia, joined Mar 2006, 1251 posts, RR: 17
Reply 23, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6440 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 17):
What do you know, we'll soon have B vs. T wars on A.nut about envelope protection.

We can have a tag team match! Big grin I and B vs. A and T  box  Apparently Illyushin (haven't even been inside the cockpit of one, I am only spreading rumors  Wink ) also considers that the pilot should be the boss in the cockpit rather than the computer. (No offence to myself, but I would much rather the computer be the boss than myself  ashamed  )

The chute is just too impractical on a large commercial jet. Too big, too fast, too heavy.



I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
User currently offlineGrbld From Netherlands, joined Dec 2005, 353 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6427 times:

Quoting Tu204 (Reply 23):
No offence to myself, but I would much rather the computer be the boss than myself

Huh? Why? The computers are there to aid you and help you prevent stupid errors, but the other way around, you may have a reason for doing something that the computer cannot do or foresee or even think of. The pilot needs final authority over the machine.


25 Starlionblue : Settle down. I'm pretty sure he meant it in jest.
26 Eilennaei : Yep, there once was a Finnish trainer airplane design in the 80s. There was also a chief test pilot and a design engineer who wanted to a ride on the
27 Post contains images Tu204 : Which I can get by pressing (and holding) a magic red button on the yoke I would rather have my cake and eat it - have the flight envelope protection
28 Post contains images Starlionblue : "Hi! This is the airplane your ass is situated in. How are you today? I just lost both engines and can't take it any more. I'm leaving you in charge.
29 Tu204 : Lol! Have you seen the Simpson's episode when Homer is a trucker? "Both engines have failed, I am going to eject to safety now, good luck :P" But rea
30 Zeke : Couple of reasons: 1) they have more than one engine 2) they have more than one pilot 3) hundred's of computers monitoring the systems 4) SOPs Doubt
31 Post contains images Grbld : Alrighty then!
32 Post contains images Starlionblue : In Western aircraft this voice is often called Betty, as in "Bitching Betty". How do you know she isn't 50+ and ugly as sin?
33 Post contains images David L : "George" does all the work and "Betty" does all the bitchin' - typical!
34 Post contains images Mandala499 : I really would not mind meeting the actuall gal that recorded those safety warnings - I think it is the same voice as the computer on the MiG-29's and
35 Msllsmith : Also another small note about the parachute system in the Cirrus a/c. I believe it is, ideally, for making a landing in terrain which is inhospitable
36 Starlionblue : It should be noted that the mechanic who put ordinary duct tape there instead of colored tape was not certified, and his supervisor was not on the jo
37 Pyrex : In that situation what generally happens is commonly known as a "disaster".
38 Starlionblue : Indeed. Also, I can't help but note that Mr. A380X4TRENT900 wrote "weight OR gravity" (my emphasis). Hmmm...
39 Bond007 : Well assuming there was a parachute system that would allow an aircraft that size to descend to the ground slower than crashing ... it could have hel
40 YYZflyer : I remember watching that, the 747 required 21 parachutes the size of a football field each
41 YYZYYT : That's a cover up. Everybody knows that Khan detonated it.
42 VC-10 : 1. How many a/c incidents have required such a piece of equipment in the last 50 years? 2. What is the total number of flights in that period? 3. Woul
43 777236ER : When was the last time life jackets were used in anger?
44 Post contains images David L : That's a reasonable point but how much do life jackets cost and how much (or little) do they weigh? How much of an impact do they have on the price o
45 Post contains links 777236ER : http://www.aircruisers.com/vests/AC1000.html This lifevest is 0.4kg. Times that by 200, that's 160kg. Or 2-3 people.
46 Post contains images Starlionblue : So less than 21 parachutes the size of a football field each then? BTW 21 parachutes that size would be a bit (note: understatement) of a problem dep
47 777236ER : Well no, the parachute idea is ridiculous. But if we're going by the number of lives saved by cost ratio, life jackets and life rafts are very small.
48 VC-10 : Look at the economy seat pitch on any airliner, it doesn't give me the impression that they could sqeeze in those extra 2 or 3 pax if they got rid of
49 Grbld : But it's not quite comparable. In the case of parachutes, all control of the aircraft is lost and you just have to sit there and wait till you hit th
50 David L : Precisely! Another good point which had passed me by. I know you're not supporting the idea but it doesn't seem to compare well with life jackets in
51 Viv : Because the idea does not survive cost/benefit analysis. For the same reason, 100 mph bumpers are not fitted to cars.
52 Post contains images Starlionblue : Hehe. That would sure drive the price of cars up. There was a interesting post about this last time around. Someone (I forget who) pointed out that t
53 777236ER : Let's be pragmatic about this. I can't name more than 6 crashes where lives have been saved by lifejackets. Even there, only a handful each flight su
54 Post contains images Starlionblue : I said recently in another thread that lawmakers tend to be populist The Mad Nitpicker says: It's spelled "Potomac".
55 Mandala499 : I know 4 with lives saved by lifejackets over the past 50 yrs... and that's just in 1 country! (abt 200 or so lives saved) In the case of the Ethiopia
56 B707Stu : I can't help but think about the SUX UA DC-10 crash. If the aircraft had a shoot from the rear to have helped it slow up, if it could have been deploy
57 Post contains images MarkHKG : Whereupon if you made a water landing, those life-vest and life-rafts (or slide/rafts) would be very, very useful.
58 Grbld : And when exactly would the chute have been opened? A big one to at least slow down a DC-10 would maybe take 10 seconds to fully deploy, requiring an
59 Starlionblue : It was Ethiopian. Anyway, that pilot had a gun to his head while landing so I can understand how he wasn't at 100%...
60 Post contains links MarkHKG : So here is a key moment to maybe why the ditching didn't go as planned... From http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/v...=ET-AIZ&airline=Ethiopian+Airli
61 Grbld : Uh.... that was the point I was making. Many people have that image in their heads because it's just about the only video footage of a plane "landing"
62 MarkHKG : Whoops, sorry about that. I actually believe in the value of life-vests, and didn't mean to come across as them being useless! I really did mean that
63 Post contains images Grbld :
64 Post contains images Bond007 : No, you wouldn't need both. The parachutes would double as giant life-rafts once they hit they water Jimbo
65 Post contains images Tu204 : Have you ever thought of what would happen when several football-sized parachutes land on top (and cover) a (sinking) aircraft? F*ck the life rafts,
66 Starlionblue : Indeed. Ask any experienced skydiver how much he dislikes landing in the water. That big canopy is asking for trouble.
67 Post contains images MarkHKG : Guys, if Maverick and Goose in Top Gun can eject into water, why can't anybody? (Oh yeah...Goose dies... ) Seriously though, you would need to add thi
68 Post contains images Bond007 : Actually they could be water soluble...they would be biodegradable and disintegrate on contact with water. Just make sure it's not raining, and/or you
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Would Gigantic Parachutes Help A Powerless Jet?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Please Help Identify This Jet Engine posted Fri Jul 14 2006 23:34:50 by EDDM
Jet Engine That Would Power A Car Sized Plane? posted Wed Mar 16 2005 23:55:05 by UAL747
Help: How Do The Pilots Steer A Jet On The Ground? posted Fri Feb 2 2001 14:11:31 by Luxair
GatePlan Help Needed posted Thu Nov 2 2006 04:41:09 by Cancidas
Engineering Class Help posted Wed Nov 1 2006 05:43:30 by Cancidas
Help! Any Good General Tips On 747-400F's posted Thu Oct 26 2006 04:47:09 by RJwrench85
Runway Marking Help?!?! posted Sat Sep 30 2006 22:58:47 by Jamesbuk
Help, FAA Landing F.L. & Real Landing Distance posted Tue Sep 26 2006 04:03:45 by AGANX
United Airlines Job Interview Help posted Sat Sep 23 2006 19:25:00 by Navynuke
Aeronautical / DC-3 Gurus, Need Your Help posted Thu Sep 21 2006 09:48:34 by Cpsarras

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format