Parachutes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parachutes
As a glider pilot I always wear a 'chute, is there any reason light aircraft pilots don't? 'Chutes have saved many glider pilots lives and they are cheap. Do L/A pilots think they are cumbersome/unusable or what? It seems odd to me that they don't wear them.
Powered aeroplane pilots don't as a rule all around in circles under the same bit of cumulus.
Structural failure, when you don't fly into another aircraft, is incredibly rare. Virtually any other emergency is best dealt with by gliding to a field - as you glider chappies obviously do at the end of most flights.
The theoretical risk of engine fire is virtually unheard of, after that most light aircraft accidents start somewhere under 500ft - where a parachute is of pretty much no use.
That said, most aerobatic pilots, do wear parachutes - because they're probably the only people at significant risk of either an unrecoverable spin at high altitude, or a structural failure at high altitude: those two being about the only good reasons to use a 'chute in a powered light aeroplane.
G
Structural failure, when you don't fly into another aircraft, is incredibly rare. Virtually any other emergency is best dealt with by gliding to a field - as you glider chappies obviously do at the end of most flights.
The theoretical risk of engine fire is virtually unheard of, after that most light aircraft accidents start somewhere under 500ft - where a parachute is of pretty much no use.
That said, most aerobatic pilots, do wear parachutes - because they're probably the only people at significant risk of either an unrecoverable spin at high altitude, or a structural failure at high altitude: those two being about the only good reasons to use a 'chute in a powered light aeroplane.
G
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
those two being about the only good reasons to use a 'chute in a powered light aeroplane.
Slowing somewhat before landing, after freefall, is a really good idea.
One generally doesn't need a parachute in an airplane because one is wearing something better: an airplane.
Many who wear parachutes, either for gliders, sailplanes, or aerobatics, have never actually used a parachute, and this is peculiar.
A little less conversation,
a little more aviation...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bracknell, UK
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most touring types would be very difficult or impossible to get out of in an in-flight emergency, and the seating arrangements would mean wearing either a seat- or back-pack would require some major surgery to the seats to make them fit.
That accounts for 80-90% of light power GA (probably). A small percantage of this category might have the option of strapping a parachute to the airframe.
The remainder - the ex-military or aerobatic kit - generally no real practical reason for not wearing a parachute, some folk choose not to - but that is invariably a reasoned conclusion arrived at after weighing all of the factors, rather than being in ignorance of the issues. Personally, I do wear a parachute if the option is available and practical.
That accounts for 80-90% of light power GA (probably). A small percantage of this category might have the option of strapping a parachute to the airframe.
The remainder - the ex-military or aerobatic kit - generally no real practical reason for not wearing a parachute, some folk choose not to - but that is invariably a reasoned conclusion arrived at after weighing all of the factors, rather than being in ignorance of the issues. Personally, I do wear a parachute if the option is available and practical.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was thinking more engine failure at night. I'd rather take my chances under a 'chute than trying to land in a 'black bit'. Are engine fires that rare? As a soon to be pubescent PPL I got the impression that engine fires/failures were pretty common. I certainly will be keeping a weather eye out for landable fields when I start my training.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: ireland
Age: 38
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNS3Guppy,
Awww come on, you gotta admit, there be something somewhat exhilarating about flying in a small aeroplane at night, having a peek at your local area from above!
Unfortunately I can't afford the twin rates to do the same!
OR wait until a moonlit night, can easily be just as good as daylight if you pick the right night
Awww come on, you gotta admit, there be something somewhat exhilarating about flying in a small aeroplane at night, having a peek at your local area from above!
Unfortunately I can't afford the twin rates to do the same!
OR wait until a moonlit night, can easily be just as good as daylight if you pick the right night
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well you may as well just stay in bed. It's all about risk reduction. I don't know what the failure rate of aero engines is, but you certainly read enough about them on forums like this. If you had never driven a car before and I told you that three and a half thousand people were killed each year in the UK in driving accidents then I wouldn't criticise you for asking about risk reducion.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Downwind
Age: 40
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately I can't afford the twin rates to do the same!
But a light aeroplane after an engine failure is just a fairly inefficient glider. You wouldn't worry about flying a K13 would you?, nor reasonably expect to use the parachute instead of making a field landing if you can't get back to base.
The night flying point however, is a very reasonable one - many people have expounded the view that you should wear a parachute at night in a single engined aeroplane. On the other hand, you actually can see well enough to pick a field in most cases, so I think most of the time, I'd rather do that than jump. But that's just my judgement, and I don't think it's that clearcut.
G
The night flying point however, is a very reasonable one - many people have expounded the view that you should wear a parachute at night in a single engined aeroplane. On the other hand, you actually can see well enough to pick a field in most cases, so I think most of the time, I'd rather do that than jump. But that's just my judgement, and I don't think it's that clearcut.
G
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: ireland
Age: 38
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryan5252,
I fly SEP night a lot during this time of the year!
Was just posting in response to SNS's comment regarding risk reduction. My interpretation on that was to mean single engine (although I may be wrong), and I would rather take a twin at night for safety's sake.
Hence that comment
I fly SEP night a lot during this time of the year!
Was just posting in response to SNS's comment regarding risk reduction. My interpretation on that was to mean single engine (although I may be wrong), and I would rather take a twin at night for safety's sake.
Hence that comment
A little less conversation,
a little more aviation...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bracknell, UK
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My rather light-hearted points about wearing a helmet or fireproof clothing should not require you to slam your head against the instrument panel as hard as you can before setting yourself on fire so as to become familiar with those particular items of safety equipment - so why do the same with an emergency parachute? - were met as I recall with your valid points that a parachute is an active piece of equipment that may require some training to make best use of - and I think we left it disagreeing over the risk/benefit ratio of deliberately turning yourself into a willing meat-bomb for the required number of jumps to have some benefit for the off-chance that you might have be an unwilling meat-bomb.
As it happens, after that exchange I did have a conversation with one of our local aerobatic fraternity who cheerfully threw himself out of aeroplanes for fun for years about whether I should take your advice and do some jump training. He said something about 'palletised-cargo triple-canopy heavy drop systems', and laughed a lot. I took that as a "No".
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never flown at night Ghengis unless it's in a pressurised tube watching TV and having a drink so I can't vouch for the visibility or lack of. I do take your point about gliding, I would be quite happy to plonk a L/A into a field with a failed donk, after all it's what I do every time I land, I will just have to take your assurance that the visibility isn't that bad when night flying.
Moderator
I'd rather take my chances under a 'chute than trying to land in a 'black bit'
The structure of the plane is designed to protect you. Unless you're wearing body armour under the 'chute, you're better off to stay inside the plane. Though it may end up returning to earth in an unsuitable area, when you "land" the plane, there's a very good chance you'll have a working landing light, I doubt your parachute has one!
As has been mentioned, it's really hard to get out of most GA aircraft in flight. It's unlikely that when flying with good airmanship, you'll ever be in a situation where a 'chute would be the better choice (and I'm biting my tongue hard not to not get back into denegrating the ballistic 'chutes on some planes).
We GA pilots have generally been trained to fly, not to "fly or flee". I presume there as a military pilot training element which includes the decision making appropriate to decide fly or flee, at any given moment when things aren't going well. For us civil pilots, I think it's more a case of make the best of what you've got.
When I flew jumpers, I was required to wear a chute. This was only a requirement bacause once a pilot died, becaue he too was flung out of a plane when control was lost on jump run. I suppose there is also the concern of a jumper hitting the tail, and jeopardizing the control of the aircraft, but that was unheard of, when I asked.
Don't worry about wearing the 'chute when flying GA. It's kinda like wearing a helmet in similar flying circumstances, it makes people wonder what you're thinking.
I got the impression that engine fires/failures were pretty common
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Make an apples to apples comparison. You're talking apples to bananas or some other odd fit.
No, but you're probably think me an idiot for asking for a parachute.
You see, the parachute has as much to do with driving a car for the first time as it has to do with night flight.
Do risk elimination. Not risk management. Not risk reduction. Seek to eliminate risk by either not turning a hazard into a risk (a risk is a hazard put in play), opening a back door to eliminate the risk (by allowing alternatives), or do something different entirely.
You may as well just stay in bed, than what?
Than go fly?
Than go fly at night?
Than go fly at night without a parachute?
Than go fly during the day to eliminate the risk of the night flight?
A parachute is flexible, non-rigid. A parachute breathes, swings, stalls, sways, twists, collapses, drifts.
Would you consider your first solo as your first flight, with your instructor simply bailing out of the airplane? Of course not. You'd prefer to have some instruction, be taught to a standard, and be capable of flying and landing the airplane, as well as handling inflight elemental emergencies (such as a powerplant failure), before you solo. Being tossed to the wolves, as it were, by being soloed in the middle of your first flight, would be idiotic.
How about making your first parachute jump without any instruction or previous parachute experience? You really think that leaving the safety of a fully controllable airplane is better than jumping into the dark?
Your parachute is a folded bit of fabric wrapped in a ball and tucked at the ends. It's deployed with a smaller parachute, spring-loaded, designed to pop out and catch the slipstream, pulling the main parachute off your butt or back. The small parachute is attached to the big paracute by a bridle, or long cord, and that cord can wrap around your body, the airplane, or other parts of the parachute harness or your clothing or equipment, rendering the parachute inoperative. I've experienced this.
If the parachute opens in the airplane and even a small bit of it gets to the slipstream, that small bit can very quickly become a big bit, and can peel the side of the airplane away like the key on a spam can. You're then strained through that little opening like strained peaches. It happens. One of the most dangerous things in an airplane with parachutes is a parachute outside the container. A closing loop or cone or pin develops a problem on your pack, your ripcord gets snagged, and you've just introduced an open parachute pack in the airplane; a very, very dangerous condition. It's especially dangerous for you if you have a parachute you can't cut away.
Parachutes aren't guaranteed. They're bundles of fabric that depend on a very precise opening sequence, else they can malfunction. That's why when doing sport jumps we carry two parachutes; a main and a reserve. In some cases we carry a tertiary, or third canopy.
The majority of pilots who carry parachutes have never jumped a parachute, been in freefall, done a static line jump, experienced a parachute malfunction or trained for one, and know nothing about tree landings, powerlines and parachutes, water landings, downwind landings, canopy control.
You wouldn't consider flying a new type of airplane without at least a checkout. You wouldn't switch from airplanes to helicopters or gyroplanes without thorough instruction...but most strap on a parachute without a second thought, with no significant training (often with no training). Go figure. This is "risk reduction?"
If you had never driven a car before and I told you that three and a half thousand people were killed each year in the UK in driving accidents then I wouldn't criticise you for asking about risk reducion.
You see, the parachute has as much to do with driving a car for the first time as it has to do with night flight.
Do risk elimination. Not risk management. Not risk reduction. Seek to eliminate risk by either not turning a hazard into a risk (a risk is a hazard put in play), opening a back door to eliminate the risk (by allowing alternatives), or do something different entirely.
Well you may as well just stay in bed.
Than go fly?
Than go fly at night?
Than go fly at night without a parachute?
Than go fly during the day to eliminate the risk of the night flight?
A parachute is flexible, non-rigid. A parachute breathes, swings, stalls, sways, twists, collapses, drifts.
Would you consider your first solo as your first flight, with your instructor simply bailing out of the airplane? Of course not. You'd prefer to have some instruction, be taught to a standard, and be capable of flying and landing the airplane, as well as handling inflight elemental emergencies (such as a powerplant failure), before you solo. Being tossed to the wolves, as it were, by being soloed in the middle of your first flight, would be idiotic.
How about making your first parachute jump without any instruction or previous parachute experience? You really think that leaving the safety of a fully controllable airplane is better than jumping into the dark?
Your parachute is a folded bit of fabric wrapped in a ball and tucked at the ends. It's deployed with a smaller parachute, spring-loaded, designed to pop out and catch the slipstream, pulling the main parachute off your butt or back. The small parachute is attached to the big paracute by a bridle, or long cord, and that cord can wrap around your body, the airplane, or other parts of the parachute harness or your clothing or equipment, rendering the parachute inoperative. I've experienced this.
If the parachute opens in the airplane and even a small bit of it gets to the slipstream, that small bit can very quickly become a big bit, and can peel the side of the airplane away like the key on a spam can. You're then strained through that little opening like strained peaches. It happens. One of the most dangerous things in an airplane with parachutes is a parachute outside the container. A closing loop or cone or pin develops a problem on your pack, your ripcord gets snagged, and you've just introduced an open parachute pack in the airplane; a very, very dangerous condition. It's especially dangerous for you if you have a parachute you can't cut away.
Parachutes aren't guaranteed. They're bundles of fabric that depend on a very precise opening sequence, else they can malfunction. That's why when doing sport jumps we carry two parachutes; a main and a reserve. In some cases we carry a tertiary, or third canopy.
The majority of pilots who carry parachutes have never jumped a parachute, been in freefall, done a static line jump, experienced a parachute malfunction or trained for one, and know nothing about tree landings, powerlines and parachutes, water landings, downwind landings, canopy control.
You wouldn't consider flying a new type of airplane without at least a checkout. You wouldn't switch from airplanes to helicopters or gyroplanes without thorough instruction...but most strap on a parachute without a second thought, with no significant training (often with no training). Go figure. This is "risk reduction?"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I can say Guppy is that many glider pilots lives in the UK have been saved by using a parachute, without training. They would have been dead had they not worn them, without training. I can think of no instances whatsoever where a glider pilot has jumped and he could have saved his aircraft by sticking with it, or he has jumped and been killed as a result of, and I've read every glider accident report for at least the last 20 years and many from before that. You can't argue that. Well you probably will.
A little less conversation,
a little more aviation...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bracknell, UK
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
)As per the above, for the average potential user of an emergency parachute, should they have to eventually use the thing then a downwind water landing into trees and powerlines with a canopy problem is probably going to kill them. Staying with the airframe is certainly going to kill them.
Every time you jump out of an aeroplane, you incur a risk. Risk minimisation is the name of the game. Only a dedicated sky diver would maintain that risk elimination can be achieved by throwing yourself out of a functioning aeroplane. Because - and I mean no disrepect - they're nutters
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I took up gliding in the UK after having done several hours in L-13's in NZ. I was handed a parachute shown how to put it on and was given 2 sentences of instruction. In NZ i never even saw a parachute, i believe in the UK its a CAA mandated 'thing'
Wearing a parachute didn't make me feel even 0.1% safer.
The real issue for me when you do decide to hit the silk, is getting out! Even in a tommie with two doors you still have the T Tail to whack you or tangle your chute, in a PA28.... with one door... you'd have to be mighty high to perform an exit.
I have to agree with the above posts, baring total structural break up, you are much safer staying in the A/C than not.
Never had an engine failure (yet) but i have had one develop a 'chesty cough', one tends to get 'highly focused' when this happens :-)
Wearing a parachute didn't make me feel even 0.1% safer.
The real issue for me when you do decide to hit the silk, is getting out! Even in a tommie with two doors you still have the T Tail to whack you or tangle your chute, in a PA28.... with one door... you'd have to be mighty high to perform an exit.
I have to agree with the above posts, baring total structural break up, you are much safer staying in the A/C than not.
Never had an engine failure (yet) but i have had one develop a 'chesty cough', one tends to get 'highly focused' when this happens :-)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see your point about getting out, especially in something like a 28, but gliders are designed for getting out of, quick canopy jettison, release your harness and roll out. Would probably take a handful of seconds, especially with the adrenaline flowing.
these days the aircraft are wearing the chutes...
In my opinion this is the way ahead and in many ways negates the arguments for carrying a second engine in light aircraft
YouTube - Real Aircraft Loses Wing, Lands Safely (Under Canopy)
YouTube - Real Aircraft Loses Wing, Lands Safely (Under Canopy)