RR NDB, 38
It would be better "written off" a/cīs than other similar tragedies.
It it saved one life, it would be worth it, imho, though you would never get
the beancounters or actuarial types to agree, who just factor in the occasional
hull loss into the risk assessment. Cruel old world, but that's business.
Chris Scott, 39
Presumably a tail-chute could be fitted, perhaps to a strengthened APU bulkhead.
How its getting tangled-up with the APU (which might be running) could be
prevented, I'm not sure.
Other problems
(1) It would have to be certificated for public transport, and presumably deployed on a test-flight.
(2) Would it be deployed automatically or manually (by crew action), and what criteria would be used?
(3) Would it subsequently be jettisoned automatically or manually (by crew action), and what criteria would be used?
(4) In the event of jettison failure, which might have followed unwanted deployment, would the aircraft be capable of maintaining level flight? (The second prototype BAC 1-11 had to make a very sudden forced landing on Salisbury Plain when it suffered this problem during deep-stall testing,)
Hard cases make bad law?
There would be difficulties, but apart from the politics, the rest is just an
engineering problem and it is proven technology elsewhere. Not to make light
of it all, but if there was the will, the job would get done. Hard cases can
make bad law, but that's not an excuse for doing nothing.
A serious problem for airbus and others is that the fitting of a tail
chute or any radical stall recovery solution would be an indirect admission
that their planes can stall, when they have spent so many years carefully
crafting and disseminating the myth that they cannot. They don't even train
for it, it can't happen, so don't worry. Seems to me that they have been
drinking far too much of their own koolaid, but perhaps i'm completely wide
of the mark with that view. Just don't mention the war, right ?.
If you consider that all the fbw technology filtered down initially from
military requirements, where it was tested to the limit in every way, you
could argue that civil aviation currently has only half the deal. Fbw
technology allowing relaxed stability requirements as per mil, but in
reality no way to get it all back if the envelope is pushed just that little
bit too far.
Someone posted a link to the 320-232, D-AXLA video earlier and watching it,
was surprised by the speed and quantity of input from the pilot on the stick.
With a weight of (?) 200 tons, it would take seconds to get any significant
response, or am I way off beam ?...